Orders from two Republican judicial appointees Thursday show greater willingness to push back with increasingly harsh tools in the face of continued Trump admin lawlessness.
In my many years litigating in Federal courts, I saw on some few occasions some inexperienced lawyers out of their depth. I never saw this degree of bad lawyering, unethical conduct and disregard for the responsibilities members of the bar owe the courts and their profession.
ICE is used to working with immigration judges who are political appointees and employees of the executive branch, and who generally function as part of the prosecution team. They seem truly stunned to have to deal with real judges who care about fair and neutral application of the law.
These new district "judges" are political activists who legally don't have a substantial role in immigration matters but are trying to slow down the Trump agenda
Chris, thank you for continuing to highlight my community when it would be much easier to focus on anything else. I appreciate it more than you could ever know.
it took me about 30 seconds on google to find "If you have a total population of 75 items, a statistically strong sample typically ranges between 43 and 63 items, depending on your required precision." Not twelve, and particularly not the "first twelve." Rosen doesn't seem any more proficient at Google than he is as a prosecutor.
But if you only use AI or more likely, LLM, you gets what you pay for. I heard a great report on BBC radio last weekend on errors in LLM useage in research papers; an LLM citation in a paper was to "first name, last name, others."
i don’t actually “rely” on AI much at all. I know enough about the stuff I ask it (mainly citations to statutes or similar) to know when it is leading me awry. There were multiple results that dealt with what a statistical strong sample was, not just the AI.
The legal system doesn't work if parties refuse to comply with court orders. The legal system doesn't work if lawyers show up to defend non-compliance. And it won't work if parties like Trump, Miller and Noem are indifferent to compliance.
Judge Shiltz is right. Working for Trump, Miller, and Noem is a test of character. If you do their bidding, you are complicit. If you are anything but candid about the refusal to comply, you are failing the test of character. Litman was trying to have it both ways. He failed the test of character. Jenny Le, on the other hand, was frank about the failure and her efforts to obtain compliance. She passed the test of character.
Judge Shiltz has other options. He can report Dan Rosen to the Disciplinary Board for his obvious misrepresentations to the Court and his personal attack on Judge Shiltz. Comment 7 to Rule 8.4 of the Model Code of Professional Conduct says that public officials like Rosen have greater responsibility to uphold the law than private counsel.
Judge Shiltz can bar Rosen from further appearances in his court on the grounds that he's not trustworthy.
I’m waiting for the time when an Article III judge cites Pam Bondi to a contempt hearing. She so much belongs in custody until her case can be reviewed….
Not sure what exactly you mean? Sincerely. Seems to me we have laws and it matters to the people of this nation that “most of those who undertake being an attorney or judge” intend on doing their best to understand and try to follow precedent and our basic tenets of the constitution. It matters to me and the average person.
In my many years litigating in Federal courts, I saw on some few occasions some inexperienced lawyers out of their depth. I never saw this degree of bad lawyering, unethical conduct and disregard for the responsibilities members of the bar owe the courts and their profession.
ICE is used to working with immigration judges who are political appointees and employees of the executive branch, and who generally function as part of the prosecution team. They seem truly stunned to have to deal with real judges who care about fair and neutral application of the law.
These new district "judges" are political activists who legally don't have a substantial role in immigration matters but are trying to slow down the Trump agenda
yawn
I guess the “reasoning” is, If the president and attorney general can ignore the law, anyone can.
Chris, thank you for continuing to highlight my community when it would be much easier to focus on anything else. I appreciate it more than you could ever know.
it took me about 30 seconds on google to find "If you have a total population of 75 items, a statistically strong sample typically ranges between 43 and 63 items, depending on your required precision." Not twelve, and particularly not the "first twelve." Rosen doesn't seem any more proficient at Google than he is as a prosecutor.
But if you only use AI or more likely, LLM, you gets what you pay for. I heard a great report on BBC radio last weekend on errors in LLM useage in research papers; an LLM citation in a paper was to "first name, last name, others."
I'm far from being a statistician. Is that statement wrong?
Probably not. Just a warning.
i don’t actually “rely” on AI much at all. I know enough about the stuff I ask it (mainly citations to statutes or similar) to know when it is leading me awry. There were multiple results that dealt with what a statistical strong sample was, not just the AI.
Just to be clear, I was not in any way criticizing you, or your use of AI. It just made me think of the study I had heard about.
oh yeah. There have been cases where an attorney used AI to write a brief and the AI just made up citations. The courts were not amused.
Sounds like those DOJ “attorneys” are arguing for an audience of one.
The legal system doesn't work if parties refuse to comply with court orders. The legal system doesn't work if lawyers show up to defend non-compliance. And it won't work if parties like Trump, Miller and Noem are indifferent to compliance.
Judge Shiltz is right. Working for Trump, Miller, and Noem is a test of character. If you do their bidding, you are complicit. If you are anything but candid about the refusal to comply, you are failing the test of character. Litman was trying to have it both ways. He failed the test of character. Jenny Le, on the other hand, was frank about the failure and her efforts to obtain compliance. She passed the test of character.
Judge Shiltz has other options. He can report Dan Rosen to the Disciplinary Board for his obvious misrepresentations to the Court and his personal attack on Judge Shiltz. Comment 7 to Rule 8.4 of the Model Code of Professional Conduct says that public officials like Rosen have greater responsibility to uphold the law than private counsel.
Judge Shiltz can bar Rosen from further appearances in his court on the grounds that he's not trustworthy.
Both can be done sua sponte.
I
It's about time. Let's see now what happens when the courts start to hold some of these people in contempt. We are exhausting our options.
I’m waiting for the time when an Article III judge cites Pam Bondi to a contempt hearing. She so much belongs in custody until her case can be reviewed….
Excellent reporting.
Not sure what exactly you mean? Sincerely. Seems to me we have laws and it matters to the people of this nation that “most of those who undertake being an attorney or judge” intend on doing their best to understand and try to follow precedent and our basic tenets of the constitution. It matters to me and the average person.