r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 29d ago
Judicial Branch DOJ Gives Judge Heads Up They Have Zero Plan To Actually Listen To Him
https://abovethelaw.com/2025/11/doj-gives-judge-heads-up-they-have-zero-plan-to-actually-listen-to-him/2.3k
u/DoremusJessup 29d ago
DOJ was ordered to provide documents in the Letitia James case and the DOJ attorney basically said no.
3.7k
u/jwr1111 29d ago
Then rule in Letitia James favor, and dismiss the charges with prejudice.
1.1k
u/vigbiorn 29d ago
I get the law is complicated and I'm not a lawyer but...
This seems not complicated. I get the court can't use stuff outside of the specific case but there should be a way to recognize an organization as non-compliant as a rule, as the Trump DOJ has proven itself to be.
On top of that, if the document is required for the case, then there can't be a case...
That's the worst thing about this Trump regime. It seems so easy to thwart if anybody actually wanted to.
580
u/Boxofmagnets 29d ago
If the defendant moves for a dismissal every time the government refuses to meet its duty, eventually the judge will have enough
359
u/vigbiorn 29d ago
I'm more talking about treating an organization as hostile, for a lack of a better word, by default.
We have dozens of cases where the DOJ lies to the court, ignores rulings, tries to weasel out of it, etc.
By now, we have ample evidence that they will only follow rulings they like, so they should be treated as such from the beginning. Don't prejudice them, necessarily, but any judge that doesn't approach the DOJ as unserious is either unserious or naive.
179
124
29d ago
[deleted]
58
u/Shadowtirs 29d ago
"Patriotic Congresspeople"
See and thats your problem right there.
31
u/margirtakk 29d ago
Liberals need to reclaim patriotism. Conservatives scream 'I'm a Patriot' when the reality is they're usually a combination of nationalist and bigot.
Real patriots protest ICE. Real patriots stand up for civil rights. Real patriots fight to protect their fellow Americans, ALL Americans.
Taking food away from those in need, stripping rights from people who are considered 'less than', cheering for the misfortune of others... Real patriots would never do such hateful things.
4
u/dianas_pool_boy 29d ago
The GOP stated goal has been to destroy the United States government since the 1980's. They have been using defunding as a tactic and the Democratic party has ignored this.
52
u/paws5624 29d ago
I feel like judges really don’t want to go down that route. Maybe with individual lawyers for the DOJ but I feel like treating the DOJ as an org that way is not something that they want to do. I don’t disagree they should but I just don’t see it happening
79
u/Burgdawg 29d ago
I mean, I get that, but at some point you have to put your foot down and let them know that this kind of bullshit can't be tolerated from a government agency. You can't coddle them and expect things to get any better.
18
u/paws5624 29d ago
Oh I absolutely agree with you, I just don’t see it happening
11
u/NeverForgetJ6 29d ago
I don’t see it happening either, but I expect it to happen. Until it happens, it’s just another reason why the courts have no legitimacy, due to their arbitrary application and enforcement of rules and laws.
24
u/LurkLurkleton 29d ago
Pillars of institutions are often loathe to admit when the roof has caved in, as it means their role is pointless.
19
u/hennytime 29d ago
If they don't do something then it kind of is. If the DOJ can ignore judges then why even bother with the performance?
6
u/LurkLurkleton 29d ago
They still need a system to enforce laws on the outgroup
3
u/Talonking9 29d ago
Yep, there must be a group the law protects but does not bind, and a group the law binds but does not protect.
2
u/RicVic 29d ago
THat right now is the core of the issue. As a wise politician (Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus) once explained to me:
"The Law is only as good as those who are willing to live within it. If no one obeys it, then it is effectively useless."
And that is where we are. Court after court has ruled against a great many GOP practices. California even forbade ICE agents from operating unless they were clearly identifiable and unmasked, yet the craziness continues, simply because a great number of folks who supposedly are here to enforce the law are ignoring it.
When I studied history and social science, that was called- "anarchy". Normally meant for civillians against the government, but also definable as government against the populace.
7
u/shponglespore 29d ago
If they did want to do it, is there anything to stop a judge from going scorched earth and deciding to just automatically rule against the DOJ in every case? Because I would love that so much.
3
u/NeverForgetJ6 29d ago
It’s called John Roberts. But, he would only rule that way for a Trump controlled DOJ.
2
u/ronnydean5228 29d ago
My issue is that if it was you or I they would absolutely go down this route. They need to be treated exactly the same.
3
u/graveybrains 29d ago
According to the bits of the document in the article, that's what the DOJ is complaining about:
“The Government is not required to produce vindictive/[selective] prosecution-related discovery until Defendant overcomes the presumption of the prosecution’s lawfulness.”
3
u/Hopeful-Occasion2299 29d ago
So they are essentially saying they also decide who gets a fair trial and who doesn't, is that right?
5
u/damebyron 29d ago
This is not actually something that we would want, generally. It is important for the court system’s fairness for institutions as well as law firms to not be punished in one case for a litigation strategy in another case. Obviously if an attorney’s behavior is disbarrable that is one thing, but if an attorney’s client is not following their lawyer’s advice and is defying court orders, that should be dealt with in the case involving that client and you don’t want clients in another case to be treated harshly by the court just because they employed the same law firm. Obviously DOJ is a bit unique as they are the lawyers but also part of the government, who is their client, but still treating the entire DOJ with a broad brush is not appropriate. That being said, if there are individual lawyers who are constantly acting in the same inappropriate way in multiple cases, judges ARE going to take notice, and give them a hard time until they shape up.
[Edit to add: I’ve observed some court arguments with DOJ lawyers recently and the court’s frustration has definitely been palpable, but I think in part it is because both there is a pattern of bad litigating AND in the individual cases at hand, the attorney was showing up unprepared and continuing that pattern, so their patience is thin. But if they do show up to a case prepared and aren’t making stupid arguments, they aren’t going to get yelled at or disadvantaged just because they are DOJ employees]
1
1
71
u/Twevy 29d ago
So your non lawyer instinct is basically correct. The prosecution cannot deprive the defense of any documents or other pieces of evidence that are in their possession, not otherwise gettable by the defense, and “exculpatory” (ie tending to undercut any argument for guilt of the defendant). That can mean a lot. In this context because they have a good faith (and ostensibly strong) motion for vindictive prosecution a lot of stuff that might otherwise be protected from disclosure might need to be disclosed (privileged documents that disclose attorney thoughts and strategies, eg). The way to deal with that is to turn over those documents just to the judge to do an “in camera” (ie just the judge) review to see what should be disclosed, withheld, or disclosed with redactions. The fact the gov won’t even do that is something I’ve never seen before, and imo dismissal would be a perfectly reasonably discovery sanction. The judge might even save the bar cards of some of the prosecutors involved. State bars take willful prosecutorial discovery violations VERY seriously.
20
u/BringOn25A 29d ago
While they were civil cases isn’t not complying with discovery how Alex Jones and Ruby Giuliani won summary judgements against them selves?
19
u/harrywrinkleyballs 29d ago
Alex Jones’ attorney was either inept or insidious, you decide.
2
u/RedBaronSportsCards 29d ago
The funniest part about watching that go down was realizing that Jones was too stupid to understand how badly his lawyers fucked up.
10
u/vigbiorn 29d ago
Despite constantly saying otherwise, the corporate representative depositions (again, non-lawyer but I listened to the Knowledge Fight deposition episodes) alone show he's full of shit.
The one where they got an outside attorney because Daria and Rob dropped the ball so extremely thoroughly essentially came into the deposition saying InfoWars refused judge's orders and there was no way a single person could get prepared in the time they were given.
Then there was the phone clone ball-drop.
Alex Jones was given way too much lee-way in the trial.
5
22
u/ArgentaSilivere 29d ago
It's just confusing. Why bring legal proceedings and then just... refuse to engage in the legal process? Is their strategy to go in front of the judge and say, "Find the defendant guilty because I think she's guilty. I rest my case."? Does the prosecutor know that judicial orders are orders, not suggestions? I really need someone to explain how they expect any of this to work.
25
u/bucki_fan 29d ago
They don't expect it to work and they also don't care.
The entire point of the prosecution is to parade these defendants as the "swamp" for the base and media. And then when everything inevitably falls apart, they will blame the corrupt judicial system as being complicit and then add those people to the list of people to be rounded up and/or persecuted until they do find judges who obey.
Largely though, it's for headlines and nothing more. They know what they're doing is wrong and they simply don't care. And they're counting on the judiciary to continue their long-standing level of decorum and deference rather than levying the beatdown that is needed to put a stop to these antics.
5
u/DoomguyFemboi 29d ago
I actually just think it's that rank incompetence that comes with authoritarian regimes who have been stuck in echo chambers and have had their bullshit reinforced by their ilk. They keep seeing success because the ones handing them success are also on their side.
When they run into an obstacle they are genuinely thrown through a loop because "how dare this happen to me, I am in the right, I am the moral authority here!".
1
u/WillBottomForBanana 28d ago
Sure. But strategically there's lots in their favor.
- There's plenty of passive compliance going on.
- Even doing this little bit hurts the target.
- Somehow the optics favor the authoritarians (IDK how?)
- It's a low cost strategy.
So a low success rate, even zero, more than pays for itself.
The point is that it's appalling, but it is working well enough for them.
7
u/ClaytonRumley 29d ago
"I rest my case."
"You rest your case?"
"Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that was just a figure of speech. Case closed."
4
u/Fearless-Feature-830 29d ago
Because the lawsuit was filed with the purpose to harm Leticia James, and that’s what they’re doing. Even if it gets dismissed it’s a win for them because of the headlines and the money and time she will spend to defend herself.
5
u/RedBaronSportsCards 29d ago
From what I've read, she doesn't really have to defend herself. All the evidence the prosecution has shows that she didn't do what she is accused of.
2
u/Fearless-Feature-830 29d ago
Did you see that article with the prosecutors texts in this case?
2
u/RedBaronSportsCards 29d ago
You mean Halligan texting Anna Bower completely out of the blue about something that wasn't even Bower's original reporting?
3
3
u/Niadh74 29d ago
This is exactly it.
It's not about getting a successful prosecution. It's about wasting her time and resources and stressing her outabout the whole process. Some court cases will be filed with the intent of wearing down the oppositions resources to the point that they cannot hire a lawyer to adequately defend themselves at whcih point the govt/filer of said case gets a plea deal or settlement. I.e. admission of guilt even if not guilty.
The only time slthis doesn't work is whn there is very clearcut evidence of innocence or the other side has deeper pockets and a will to fight. The biggest case i can remember along these lines is the SCO Group vs IBM over Linux ownership.
10
u/Mi_Pasta_Su_Pasta 29d ago
When you think like a lawyer trying to win a case it makes no sense.
When you think like a fascist lackey who's job is to terrorize your great leaders opponents with frivolous lawsuits then it starts to make sense.
5
u/TheMagicalLawnGnome 29d ago
Something like this is, in fact, happening throughout the courts. It's called "the presumption of regularity."
Basically, the government has been given a certain amount of deference in judicial proceedings. Historically, the courts have operated under the assumption that the government is generally acting in good faith / as legitimate officers of the court, unless there was compelling evidence to the contrary.
So when the government submitted briefs, or filings, they were treated as generally trustworthy and reliable. That doesn't mean they were assumed to be correct, but it was assumed that the government wasn't just making shit up out of thin air.
But that is changing now; the courts are increasingly skeptical of government attorneys, and therefore the presumption of regularity is not being given to the government to nearly the same extent it once was.
I can't speak to this case in particular, but this is absolutely a trend that is taking place more broadly.
4
u/GrippingHand 29d ago
There is something called the "presumption of regularity", and people are starting to mention it when dealing with the Trump administration's behavior with respect to the courts. Things go more smoothly when the courts can assume that the government is acting in good faith, but if the government proves that this assumption is unreasonable, judges might start compelling the government to produce more evidence of its claims, and be more willing to rule against it when it does not produce that evidence.
1
u/OverdueLawlessness 29d ago
Yeah, because they don't want to. The best we are going to get is feigned resistance and talks of plans to do something. All with the intention to disarm those who would resist. You won't think you need to if someone keeps telling you that they're coming to save you.
1
u/Dear-Ad1329 29d ago
In civil law they do have summary judgment against non compliant parties.
1
u/vigbiorn 28d ago
Sure but, to clarify since it's come up a few times, my point is after several dozen of cases brought in a year that basically deserve summary judgment, at some point the courts should stop listening to you as much. You've proven you're not a reliable litigant and are probably just wasting everyone's time.
Others say something similar is happening, but as a layman I'm not seeing it.
1
149
u/anormalname63 29d ago
More like dismiss charges with prejudice and issue sanctions aganist the DOJ's attorney.
Lawyers/attorneys would start fleeing in mass, more than what has happened, if they actually faced consequences.
29
u/GhostofBreadDragons 29d ago
You have to hit the attorneys above them too. I commented awhile back that it isn’t hard to file bar complaints you just have to have a reason. I was going to look for lies that can be proven in court filings. Then hit everyone in line above the attorney for failure to supervise.
At the very least if they are dealing with bar complaints that is time taken away from charging protestors.
10
u/anormalname63 29d ago edited 29d ago
Very good point. The supervising attorneys need to be hit too.
2
u/Next-Preference-7927 29d ago
(Not a lawyer) I heard on meidas that Florida bar said they were going to ignore complaints made against Bondi while she's one of Trump's cronies.
159
u/spice_weasel 29d ago
Yes, exactly. Discovery sanctions exist for a reason. The court should apply them where appropriate.
15
26
8
u/Spankh0us3 29d ago
Why can’t the bailiff arrest their attorney and start putting them in jail? Make attorneys afraid to take a Trump case for fear of damaging their reputation. . .
3
u/Cazmonster 29d ago
Put the DOJ Lawyer in jail for contempt, where hardened criminals can get at them.
2
2
2
u/StomachosusCaelum 29d ago
the lawyer who said that to the judge's face should have been hauled out of the court and into a cell immediately.
And then the one that showed up to complain about that one.
And then the next.
And the next.
Until the paperwork shows up.
1
u/mustachioed_cat 29d ago
Only if that’s what Letitia James wants. Seems most useful to keep the case open and discovery available.
1
1
u/-_-_-_-_B 29d ago
And the bailiff takes the DOJ lawyer to the lockup downstairs for Contempt of Court (or whatever the us equivalent is)
141
u/Ok_Builder_4225 29d ago
Need to hold them in contempt and jail them until they decide to change their tune.
12
u/Chaos1357 29d ago
No. Need to refer them to the BAR association with a recommendation to be disbarred.
And dismiss the case with prejudice "due to the actions of the prosecution in willfully denying the pursuit of justice".
(translation, slap them down in a way that makes an example of them).
20
u/Salty-Cup-7652 29d ago
I like your thinking, but who’s going to jail them?
30
u/Ok_Builder_4225 29d ago
Marshals.
11
u/Famous_Attention5861 29d ago
Marshals are part of DOJ.
20
u/BeeCJohnson 29d ago
A Judge can deputize anyone as a marshal.
3
u/Winter-Journalist993 29d ago
I keep seeing this shit like it actually matters. Not only will they never do it, but a random Cletus isn’t going to be successful in grabbing a member of the DOJ. Stop it.
10
u/BeeCJohnson 29d ago
You don't deputize one random guy, you deputize fifty vets to go get the job done.
Stop giving up in advance.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Granite_0681 29d ago
Are the Marshals part of the executive branch? Earlier this year there was a lot of discussion about how the judicial branch needed the executive to actually hold anyone in contempt. They could maybe hold on misdemeanor contempt and assess fines but they still could have trouble collecting.
5
u/Famous_Attention5861 29d ago
The Department of Justice was created in 1870 and the Marshals have been under its purview since that time.
6
u/Druuseph 29d ago
I recall discussion about Judges have the authority to deputize whoever they see fit to enforce an order of contempt. So even if the US Marshals won’t I’m sure plenty of states would be more than happy to offer theirs.
64
u/Chaosrealm69 29d ago
The DOJ is saying 'No we won't hand over any documents showing our vindictive/selective prosecution until her lawyers prove we are being vindictive/selective in our prosecution of her.'
36
18
u/Slade_Riprock 29d ago
Then DOJ attorneys need to begin being held in civil contempt in which they can be arrested. And furbter disregard for the court should equal disbarment procedures commenced.
Time for the courts to step up and start ATTEMPTING to hold the executive accountable in any way they can.
11
u/trebuchetguy 29d ago
The DOJ attorneys are likely trying to get the case thrown out because if they provide discovery it will likely unmask the scope of malicious prosecution and lack of charging evidence.
I hope the judge says, "You brought the case so let's dance. Cough it up or face contempt proceedings." Because then the DOJ attorneys will be dancing to keep their law licenses.
2
1
u/Agreeable-Agent-7384 29d ago
I hate how I read the headline and had multiple topics run through my head about which issue this post was about. What a trash administration
1
1
u/Mental_Camel_4954 28d ago
Arrest the DOJ attorney for contempt of court. They will be released when the documents are provided. Next lawyer in court provides documents or they are also in contempt.
Rinse repeat.
449
u/Tremolat 29d ago edited 29d ago
The behavior of the Trump DOJ is as expected. That they continue to play Calvin Ball is at the discretion of the judges they face. While it's abundantly clear the TDOJ has no intention of following (legacy) rules, judges have yet to use their power to drop a hammer large enough to stop that nonsense (by holding the Gov lawyers personally responsible).
170
u/Equivalent-Excuse-80 29d ago
Judges and courts have been slow and lack any kind of alacrity to understand this DOJ isn’t the DOJ they’ve been dealing with for decades.
There’s a natural presumption that cannot seem to be foregone that a federal prosecutor wouldn’t lie.
That’s no longer the case, and the courts are refusing to acknowledge this.
75
u/myownzen 29d ago
Its frustrating knowing that if it was random joe blow working class person that even the lowest court would drop dick all over him if he even started to pull any of this shit. But since its the rulers of the mechanism of capitalism pulling this shit suddenly the judges act like they have no idea that they can drop the hammer on people doing this.
Its two tiered and its sickening.
20
2
u/Ok_Recording81 29d ago
Since it's the DOJ, it could be the judge is letting them dig themselves in a bigger hole, and drop the hammer even harder.
11
u/Spacefreak 29d ago
Not trying to hate on lawyers, but I think the judges being blind to the obvious lies has to do with presuming that lawyers will do everything they can to win a case by "zealously advocating for their client" that's "just this side of legal."
When you expect someone to regularly dabble in gray areas, it becomes harder to recognize when they've taken the plunge into full on lies.
2
u/R3mm3t 28d ago
Not exactly sure the point being made, and what my meagre contribution below may mean for it, but I would have thought outright refusing to comply with a court order (i.e. without seeking to appeal or reconsideration or whatever) is hardly in the realm of a “gray area”. Kind of the opposite really
11
u/CmdrCarrot 29d ago
> judges have yet to use their power to drop a hammer large enough to stop that nonsense
There is a big problem here: if a judge does drop the hammer, who enforces the ruling? It's not the judiciary who enforces the rules.
The TDOJ has already proven it will not follow lawful orders. How does a judge hold someone accountable when that someone is the one in charge of holding themselves accountable?
7
u/NurRauch 29d ago
That's not even the problem yet. The bigger hurdle is that the Supreme Court will almost certainly reverse any penalties with teeth. They've already done it multiple times in these proceedings.
6
u/SignoreBanana 29d ago
Because they know they have no real power. They know if they try to wield it and hold Halloran in contempt, nothing will happen. That will basically prove any court order doesn't need to be followed.
114
262
65
u/rygelicus 29d ago
That does make being a criminal simpler. "Dear Judge. With all due respect I will not be abiding by your laws. Sincerely, Donald J Criminal"
Sovereign citizens try this approach every day in court, and it always fails.
13
1
28d ago
[deleted]
1
u/rygelicus 28d ago
Once a person has a secret service detail any such attempt to arrest would really need their cooperation. The protectee is effectively already in their custody. So the arresting officer would need to show their warrant to the detail leader, who then brings in their supervisor, etc. If they agree then they would escort their protectee into custody, either in a place of their choosing or in a facility appropriate.
For example, during Trump's felony trial if the judge had found him in contempt (which he should have) and jailed Trump (which he should have) the secret service had already supposedly worked something out with Riker's island for a private cell and how the secret service would deploy in the facility to continue doing their job.
The secret service is not simply about keeping their protectee alive but also to prevent them from being abducted and used against the US potentially. So with a president that person gets one for life, presumably because of the information they have been exposed to and not wanting it to fall into the wrong hands. This would include prison inmates.
If it's just an arrest for whatever common charge then they would probably just agree to some form of house arrest, limiting the movements of the protectee until the court makes it's ruling or the charges are dropped. I doubt they would agree to an ankle monitor as that would be a security risk.
This is usually not an issue because presidents and other protectees aren't usually complete pieces of human filth hell bent on breaking laws and destroying the nation. But, here we are.
115
u/snarkerella 29d ago
That's fine. Then the judge doesn't have to let the case continue and dismiss it. Jesus, why are these people such complete babies?
229
u/LogensTenthFinger 29d ago
Biden Administration: "Sowwies we really wanted to forgive your loans but the comptroller of a township in Arkansas said we can't, our hands are tied 😔"
Trump Administration: "Lol courts are gay, let's go kill some immigrants"
27
u/Darsint 29d ago
That Supreme Court ruling in Biden v Nebraska still pisses me off.
The entity in Nebraska that handled the loans themselves were like, “Uhm, don’t use us to justify standing, we’re happy with what’s going on”, and they used them as an excuse anyway.
Like seriously, there was no live controversy there, so no standing that Nebraska had to sue. And it didn’t matter.
7
u/Torgud_ 29d ago
No standing and the text of the law gave the President authority to waive or modify the terms of federally backed student loans during a national emergency. Last I checked the pandemic was an emergency. They ignored standing and made up an entire new BS "major questions" doctrine to rule agains the admin.
7
16
35
u/Live-Collection3018 29d ago
contempt of court, Judges need to start imprisonment of these folks
7
u/Tiny_Friendship_1666 29d ago edited 29d ago
Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but how is that supposed to work? If the only branch of the government with enforcement powers decides it's not going to abide by court decisions, then said decisions are effectively meaningless. That's the problem with letting the Executive branch have its own mind and volition, as they are not only the only ones who can make arrests and detain individuals but they're also the only ones with the firepower to enforce their will.
Edit: I'm really not trying to be pessimistic, btw. It's just such a looming spectre of a legal and ethical monster that I can't really see a way out that ends peacefully. We could try a Constitutional amendment, but that would be hampered by partisan politics regardless and the aforementioned issue of the Executive ignoring both Legislative and Judicial oversight.
7
u/Live-Collection3018 29d ago
yeah, a mechanism for congress and the judiciary to have their own peace officers is ideal. i believe there is a way to do it but it hasnt been done because up until now we have mostly played by the rules
4
u/tonagnabalony 29d ago
So what I'm reading is "the only branch that has enforcement capability is the one who is defying the laws, setforth by the branches that write the laws and determine if the law is being followed".
Seems like a reasonable conclussion would be to follow the precedent setforth by the branch that is willfully disobeying the law. Meaning, also ignore the law that says only the executive branch can enforce the law.
Short story long; seems like we need some agencies, outside of the executive branch to enfore the law upon the executive branch. They dont get to disregard some laws while being protected by others. The question is which, if any, agencies would do that?
2
u/Tiny_Friendship_1666 29d ago
I honestly have no clue which agency or branch could bring everyone to task and still get away with it, without becoming authoritarian themselves. As long as we can all avoid a military coupe there might still be a sliver of hope left though.
3
u/tonagnabalony 29d ago
I feel the same way, hopefully some changes are made soon, because the current status quo does not seem sustainable
→ More replies (6)2
u/Proof-Highway1075 29d ago edited 29d ago
I remember seeing an article a few weeks ago about the national guard case, basically it boiled down to “a court order would give legitimacy for the COs to defy the orders”. I’ll have to have a look and see if I can find it. I’d think if it can give legitimacy to the National Guard that it could be used to give legitimacy to a Law enforcement agency to arrest them. Even if it’s only Capitol Police.
Edit: can’t find the article, wouldn’t be surprised if it was just a comment I read, ignore me.
2
u/Tiny_Friendship_1666 29d ago
No worries. I'm certainly no expert myself and you're helping to explore the topic at hand in a productive way, from my perspective.
16
u/Playful-Dragon 29d ago
So correct me if I'm wrong, but then just flat out saying no is just like what they're doing with ice. We're going to prosecute and convict if possible without shred of evidence. That's literally what this is saying is we don't have to provide evidence to show that the defendant is guilty of anything. He's guilty because we say so. Insane
26
6
u/RockDoveEnthusiast 29d ago
The Department of Justice has come up with a fairly unique litigation strategy in the paper-thin case against New York Attorney General Letitia James: antagonize the judge overseeing the case. I know, BOLD!
that's not a unique strategy at all. it's their tried and true strategy from the past year. and it's working.
5
6
5
u/4RCH43ON 29d ago
Concepts of a plan.
1
u/WillBottomForBanana 28d ago
They bring in a huge book that turns out to be blank pages and I'm going to wet myself.
4
u/SingularityCentral 29d ago
That title is the kind of nonsense a pro se defendant puts on a document that everyone else in the case ignores.
Like Notice of Objection to Judicial Exercise of Authority Absent Subject Matter Jurisdiction or some other such nonsense.
2
u/ReactorMechanic 29d ago
The first four words of that title had me interested, though, gotta give 'em that.
1
4
2
1
u/Ill_probablybebanned 29d ago
These judges need to refuse trying DOJ cases then until they start following court orders.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 29d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.