Judges Cannon and Dearie seem displeased with each other; DOJ has a perfect record against January 6 defendants; E. Jean Carroll hits a roadblock in her suit against Trump.
Great episode - BRILLIANTLY crafted listener question! It hit so much at the sort of elephant in the figurative room - it’s absurd to claim you are unclear about handling presidential records as a former president, like bare minimal competence. So glad this was covered.
I haven’t listened to it yet... I’ve adjusted somewhat to waiting for each new episode, and oddly find myself trying to slow things down in case there’s another two week span until the next one. I’ve also started looking for additional sources for commentary on all the legal craziness lately to help fill in between Serious Trouble episodes.
I've been following Lawfare's coverage, and generally found it good. They actually had a pretty amusing discussion recently about the Florida and Texas social media laws, and their coverage of the document stuff has also been fun.
Finally touching on the DC Superior/Appeals Court weirdness! It's a very unusual system!
Not only are the judges not Article III judges, their manner of appointment is also very strange. Yes, the President appoints and the Senate confirms like "normal" federal judges, (only fixed 15 year terms). However, the President is constrained to appoint one of the three candidates for each vacancy from a list developed by the "District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission." There are a bunch of statutory restrictions on who can be appointed, too. (DC Code § 1–204.33)
The DC Judicial Nominations Commission has a really strange composition and there was a fight centered around a complain by now recently passed Circuit Judge Silberman about whether it's proper for a sitting Federal judge (in this case, the show's favorite Judge Emmet Sullivan of Michael Flynn fame) to sit on that commission.
Perhaps most strangely, if the President doesn't select someone from the list from the DC Judicial Nominations Commission, that commission itself nominates and sends to the Senate for confirmation a candidate all on its own! (DC Code § 1–204.34(d)(1))
Excellent episode. Should we be alarmed by the fact that, based on the 5th Circuit's decision in the Texas social media case, we're only two or three of justices away from the constitution pretty much being interpreted any way the conservatives want it to be?
I'd never heard of the Real Housewives of Salt Lake City before today, I'm still 90% sure Josh was just making that up, and out of deference to my childhood in Salt Lake City I'm both not googling that show to see if its real and positive that if it is real and one of the housewives was arrested by the FBI, the crime involved was real estate fraud.
It i quite real and Ms Shah has now pled guilty to wire fraud after her money laundering charge was dropped. She’ll be sentenced the end of November and could get up to 30 years. She was part of a telemarketing scam preying on the elderly and is liable for $9.5 million restitution, $6.5 million forfeiture —- and she is on the current season of the show which was filmed while she still claimed innocence. The van and arrest scene is pretty classic - with her friends half flipping out over the arrest and then eating all the candy she had brought onto the van for the trip - lollipops and larceny.
To the extent the Trump team had any strategy with respect to Deary's time on the FISC, I think it basically had to be "if this guy gets picked and rules against us, we can say he was obviously biased from the start because of the FISA stuff, and nobody will notice if we just don't mention the fact that it was our idea to choose him."
Another instance of press strategy directing legal strategy, in essence.
Christina Bobb’s declaration says “a diligent search was conducted" and “any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena” are being returned, but preceded by the qualifier: “Based upon the information that has been provided to me ….” Does she avoid committing perjury if the “information … provided” to her was false? Was she under any duty to perform her own due diligence to determine if the information she got was true?
In the case of those two terms in particular, they're near synonyms. Both mean "freeze or halt (possibly until context-specific condition is met)".
Some other useful terms:
- A "complaint" is the document a plaintiff uses to lay out their accusations. In a criminal context this is sometimes an "indictment". Complaints/indictments make assertions and arguments, but any evidence in the case is separate from them.
- To "depose" someone is to interview them formally, generally under penalty of perjury. The record of the interview is the "deposition"; the person interviewed is the "deponent".
- Arguments are "defaulted" or "forfeited" if, after a certain point in the case, the party either has not brought them up or has failed to respond to the opponent's arguments. Facts are "undisputed" if they are supported by one party's evidence and not refuted by other evidence or argument.
- "Judgement on the pleadings" or "as a matter of law" is exactly what it sounds like: a judgement based solely on the facts asserted in the complaint and the defendant's reply, without recourse to any evidence.
- "Summary judgement" is similar; it is a decision based only on the pleadings and the non-moving party's undisputed evidence.
- "Amicus/amici curae" are third parties who have for whatever reason written a brief in on the case and submitted it to the court. The term translates to "friend of the court", and the briefs they submit are referred to as "amicus briefs" or "friend of the court briefs".
(Any one else, especially actual lawyers, please supplement this list.)
No it actually doesn't count if it's a Trump Judge, duh. In fact, a conviction by a Trump Judge would be more of a stain on the DOJ than anything. This acquittal by a Trump Judge cements the righteousness of the DOJ's cause.
Great episode - BRILLIANTLY crafted listener question! It hit so much at the sort of elephant in the figurative room - it’s absurd to claim you are unclear about handling presidential records as a former president, like bare minimal competence. So glad this was covered.
Great episode! Wish you had a more regular release schedule.
I haven’t listened to it yet... I’ve adjusted somewhat to waiting for each new episode, and oddly find myself trying to slow things down in case there’s another two week span until the next one. I’ve also started looking for additional sources for commentary on all the legal craziness lately to help fill in between Serious Trouble episodes.
I've been following Lawfare's coverage, and generally found it good. They actually had a pretty amusing discussion recently about the Florida and Texas social media laws, and their coverage of the document stuff has also been fun.
Finally touching on the DC Superior/Appeals Court weirdness! It's a very unusual system!
Not only are the judges not Article III judges, their manner of appointment is also very strange. Yes, the President appoints and the Senate confirms like "normal" federal judges, (only fixed 15 year terms). However, the President is constrained to appoint one of the three candidates for each vacancy from a list developed by the "District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission." There are a bunch of statutory restrictions on who can be appointed, too. (DC Code § 1–204.33)
The DC Judicial Nominations Commission has a really strange composition and there was a fight centered around a complain by now recently passed Circuit Judge Silberman about whether it's proper for a sitting Federal judge (in this case, the show's favorite Judge Emmet Sullivan of Michael Flynn fame) to sit on that commission.
Perhaps most strangely, if the President doesn't select someone from the list from the DC Judicial Nominations Commission, that commission itself nominates and sends to the Senate for confirmation a candidate all on its own! (DC Code § 1–204.34(d)(1))
Links to the two cited DC Code sections below:
https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/1-204.33.html
https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/1-204.34
Excellent episode. Should we be alarmed by the fact that, based on the 5th Circuit's decision in the Texas social media case, we're only two or three of justices away from the constitution pretty much being interpreted any way the conservatives want it to be?
I'd never heard of the Real Housewives of Salt Lake City before today, I'm still 90% sure Josh was just making that up, and out of deference to my childhood in Salt Lake City I'm both not googling that show to see if its real and positive that if it is real and one of the housewives was arrested by the FBI, the crime involved was real estate fraud.
It i quite real and Ms Shah has now pled guilty to wire fraud after her money laundering charge was dropped. She’ll be sentenced the end of November and could get up to 30 years. She was part of a telemarketing scam preying on the elderly and is liable for $9.5 million restitution, $6.5 million forfeiture —- and she is on the current season of the show which was filmed while she still claimed innocence. The van and arrest scene is pretty classic - with her friends half flipping out over the arrest and then eating all the candy she had brought onto the van for the trip - lollipops and larceny.
To the extent the Trump team had any strategy with respect to Deary's time on the FISC, I think it basically had to be "if this guy gets picked and rules against us, we can say he was obviously biased from the start because of the FISA stuff, and nobody will notice if we just don't mention the fact that it was our idea to choose him."
Another instance of press strategy directing legal strategy, in essence.
Christina Bobb’s declaration says “a diligent search was conducted" and “any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena” are being returned, but preceded by the qualifier: “Based upon the information that has been provided to me ….” Does she avoid committing perjury if the “information … provided” to her was false? Was she under any duty to perform her own due diligence to determine if the information she got was true?
Ugh more Trump... that dude :/ btw, what will you ever talk about when he's gone? (maybe the judicial politicians that don't exist?)
I imagine many of your listeners are lawyers. I ain't. Can you dumb it down and work in quick, inline, definitions of terms like 'stay', 'enjoin'?
In the case of those two terms in particular, they're near synonyms. Both mean "freeze or halt (possibly until context-specific condition is met)".
Some other useful terms:
- A "complaint" is the document a plaintiff uses to lay out their accusations. In a criminal context this is sometimes an "indictment". Complaints/indictments make assertions and arguments, but any evidence in the case is separate from them.
- To "depose" someone is to interview them formally, generally under penalty of perjury. The record of the interview is the "deposition"; the person interviewed is the "deponent".
- Arguments are "defaulted" or "forfeited" if, after a certain point in the case, the party either has not brought them up or has failed to respond to the opponent's arguments. Facts are "undisputed" if they are supported by one party's evidence and not refuted by other evidence or argument.
- "Judgement on the pleadings" or "as a matter of law" is exactly what it sounds like: a judgement based solely on the facts asserted in the complaint and the defendant's reply, without recourse to any evidence.
- "Summary judgement" is similar; it is a decision based only on the pleadings and the non-moving party's undisputed evidence.
- "Amicus/amici curae" are third parties who have for whatever reason written a brief in on the case and submitted it to the court. The term translates to "friend of the court", and the briefs they submit are referred to as "amicus briefs" or "friend of the court briefs".
(Any one else, especially actual lawyers, please supplement this list.)
Perfect record on January 6th?
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091392445/jan-6-riot-acquittal
This one is my bad. I read that they had a perfect record and didn't research to confirm it. I will be punished.
I'm coming up with some concepts for new ways to make Ken read the email address
Trump judge acquitted after a bench trial.
Still not a perfect record. An acquittal is an acquittal.
No it actually doesn't count if it's a Trump Judge, duh. In fact, a conviction by a Trump Judge would be more of a stain on the DOJ than anything. This acquittal by a Trump Judge cements the righteousness of the DOJ's cause.