23 Comments

Excellent again, Chris. I thank you for the very thorough backstory and journey up to where we are now. Superb and clear as a bell. Many thanks!

Expand full comment
Jun 5Liked by Chris Geidner

"From Eagan and Ross’s response:" and "As Eagan and Ross’s response put it"

Should be Doss not Ross.

Expand full comment
author

Fixed!

Expand full comment

My God, Chris, this is astonishing. And you covered this so well, so meticulously.

And why is this not in the media? This is judicial malfeasance of the worst kind. Not even the Fifth stretches this far (though of course, even the Fifth knows that Judge Shopping isn't something they want to talk about).

As your last paragraph notes: there seems to be absolutely nothing balancing this unreasonable use of power by these judges. Question: If Burke sanctions the lawyers, and they have no faith in the circuit court, do they have any recourse?

Expand full comment
Jun 5Liked by Chris Geidner

Wouldn't be the first time lawyers have appealed sanctions I mean this seems to be basically mentioned with Rule 41

Expand full comment
author

Additionally: Given their prior willingness to go to the Eleventh Circuit with the mandamus petition, I'm not sure they lack faith in the circuit court under these circumstances.

Expand full comment

Also it's a little odd because Burke actually did order a preliminary injunction, so like it's not his ruling in the underlying case that's at issue, but how the lawyers themselves have been treated.

Expand full comment

I should have said that the Eleventh has not given these lawyers any reason to have any faith in the court. I suppose we can only hope that this insanity hasn't invade the entire Eleventh circuit.

Damn, this is twisty.

Expand full comment

I probably will be picked up soon enough, I mean Chris just released Part 2 and it would be weird to put something out without both parts.

Expand full comment

The mind boggles. So in the 5th Circuit judge shopping is OK but in Alabama mere allegations are enough to sanction lawyers for "doing it."

Expand full comment

In CA5 it’s the judges who do the shopping.

Expand full comment

In what kind of regime does a judge get to play prosecutor, jury,and jailer? Ok, maybe Italy.

Even in a criminal contempt case the court has to appoint a prosecutor if DOJ declines.

Expand full comment

Judge simply creating more fake chaos and noise - all directed at discriminating against LBGTQ.

Expand full comment

Yes, this is extremely concerning. They've restored to mob intimidation tactics just like their cult leader.

Expand full comment

The alternative defenses cited leads me to recall a lawyer explaining the response to a case about a dog bite. The defenses were the dog didn't bite you, anyway she's a real friendly dog/doesn't bite anyone, and besides, I don't have a dog.

I vaguely heard about this story from a friendly LGBTQ source & the implication was that they might have crossed the line. The two-parter breaks down a LOT of material to add more context.

These stories are often complicated. It's fundamental to have good reporters and analysts. Thanks.

Expand full comment

"It is a stark example of an interaction for which the panel excises all context in a way that — far from considering the lawyer’s perception of the situation — appears to be seeking to find fault."

So a fishing expedition. One must wonder if the panel in question is doing so for discriminatory reasons considering the cases and lawyers involved.

Expand full comment

Just wow. It sounds also like that direct assignment issue is reason enough to invoke rule 41 and pull the case out until the district can put it through an automatic assignment process.

Expand full comment

Maybe these judges should face some “sanctions” of their own. When partisan hack judges attack the rule of law, maybe the public should no longer be bound to behave toward them in a law-abiding manner. At least that is where these judges are taking the country. They keep pushing the bounds, and at some point someone will respond in kind. Then it will be blood and anarchy.

Expand full comment

This smacks of the way the Bush Jr. administration went after the lawyers for terrorism suspects. I won’t be surprised if right-wing judges and prosecutors throw lawyers for people accused of LGBT-related offences in prison outright on a routine basis once the theocrats get a fuller stranglehold on power, at least if they don’t seize absolute power outright.

Expand full comment

Thank you for covering . Unfortunately the quoted material appears in such tiny print I am unable to read it. And in the Substack app I can’t seem to enlarge it.

Expand full comment
author

Oh, that’s no good! Try opening it in a web browser and you should be able to enlarge the images from there.

Expand full comment

I figured it out. If I treat the quoted sections as images rather than text, I click on them and they open up. Then I can zoom in.

Expand full comment

Yes please take hate crime threats seriously

Expand full comment