DOCSLIB.ORG

President Trump's Transformation of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
President Trump's Transformation of The CONTEMPT OF COURTS? PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRANSFORMATION OF THE JUDICIARY Brendan Williams* Faced with a letter from the American Bar Association (ABA) assessing him as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice,” Lawrence VanDyke, nominated by President Trump to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, cried during an October 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 Republican senators dutifully attacked the ABA as liberally-biased.2 In a Wall Street Journal column, a defender of VanDyke assailed what he called a “smear campaign” and wrote that “[t]he ABA’s aggressive politicization is especially frustrating for someone like me, an active member of the ABA[.]”3 VanDyke was confirmed anyway.4 Contrary to Republican protestations, the ABA has deemed 97% of President Trump’s nominees to be “well qualified” or “qualified.”5 Indeed, in the most polarizing judicial nomination of the Trump Administration, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh’s defenders pointed to the ABA having rated him “well qualified” despite the association having once, in 2006, dropped his rating to “qualified” due to concerns about his temperament.6 *Attorney Brendan Williams is the author of over 30 law review articles, predominantly on civil rights and health care issues. A former Washington Supreme Court judicial clerk, Brendan is a New Hampshire long-term care advocate. This article is dedicated to his father Wayne Williams, admitted to the Washington bar in 1970. 1Hannah Knowles, Trump Judicial Nominee Cries over Scathing Letter from the American Bar Association, WASH. POST (Oct. 30, 2015). 2Id. 3Adam J. White, Another Smear Campaign from the American Bar Association, WALL ST. J., (Oct. 30, 2019.) 4Matthew Daly, Trump Pick for Nevada Seat on Appeals Court Confirmed Despite Cortez Masto, Rosen Protest, RENO GAZETTE J. (Dec. 11, 2019) (“Among those opposing VanDyke were Nevada Democratic Sens. Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto, who said that despite serving four years as Nevada's solicitor general, VanDyke's qualifications are inadequate and his ties to Nevada ‘minimal.’’). 5Knowles, supra note 1. 6Adam Liptak, Bar Association Questioned Kavanaugh’s Temperament and Honesty in 2006, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 2, 2018). 2 DENVER LAW REVIEW FORUM [27-Oct-20 Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.)—Kavanaugh’s most vociferous defender—even used the ABA’s rating to defend Kavanaugh against charges of sexual misconduct: “If you lived a good life, people would recognize it, like the American Bar Association has—the gold standard . He’s the nicest person—the ABA.”7 For those progressives—or advocates of an impartial judiciary— troubled by the direction of President Trump’s judicial nominations, the concern is hardly the accommodating ABA, it is a combination of Democratic haplessness and the effectiveness of conservative, interchangeable organizations such as the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) and the Federalist Society. Given President Trump’s landmark success in filling judicial vacancies,8 it is ironic that no recent president has been more contemptuous in his regard for the judiciary—even getting into a war of words with Chief Justice John Roberts about whether there are “Obama judges” and “Trump judges.”9 In one fit of pique, President Trump suggested that Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse themselves from cases involving his administration.10 Roberts offered no defense of the two women justices, but, much to Trumps’ delight, Roberts did express public 7Avi Selk, The American Bar Association Had Concerns about Kavanaugh 12 Years Ago. Republicans Dismissed Those, Too., WASH. POST (Sept. 28, 2018). The irony of Graham’s reliance upon the ABA rating was that, following President Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment, Justice Neil Gorsuch (whose top ABA rating Republicans heavily relied upon), it was reported in March 2017 that “[t]he Trump administration has sent the American Bar Association into exile, ending the group’s semiofficial role in evaluating candidates for the federal bench.” Adam Liptak, White House Ends Bar Association’s Role in Vetting Judges, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 31, 2017). 8He began in office with a tremendous advantage. See, e.g., Gretchen Frazee, How Trump is Reshaping One of the Country’s Most Liberal Courts, PBS NEWS HOUR (Aug. 19, 2019), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/planned-parenthood-funding-battle-highlights- trump-focus-on-courts (“When Trump took office, there were more than 100 judicial vacancies across the country — twice as many as President Barack Obama inherited from President George W. Bush. The large number of vacancies was due in part to Senate Republicans’ blocking Obama’s nominees.” 9Mark Sherman, Roberts, Trump Spar in Extraordinary Scrap over Judges, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Nov. 21, 2018), https://apnews.com/c4b34f9639e141069c08cf1e3deb6b84. Roberts enigmatically defended judicial independence in a year-end message in December 2019 that some took as an implied rebuke to Trump. See Adam Liptak, Impeachment Trial Looming, Chief Justice Reflects on Judicial Independence, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 31, 2019). 10See Meagan Flynn & Brittany Shammas, Trump Slams Sotomayor and Ginsburg, Says They Should Recuse Themselves from ‘Trump-related’ Cases, WASH. POST (Feb. 25, 2020). 27-Oct-2020] DENVER LAW REVIEW FORUM 3 umbrage when Trump’s own appointees were criticized by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.).11 Trump has regularly railed against the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in particular.12 When discussing immigration policy, he has stated that “to be honest with you, you have to get rid of judges.”13 During his 2016 presidential campaign, facing litigation over his “Trump University” sham,14 Trump had used racial terms in attacking the Hispanic judge presiding over the case, even falsely accusing him of being born in Mexico. Trump’s attack on the judge prompted a rebuttal from then-U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) for what he characterized as “the 11Robert Barnes & Colby Itkowitz, Roberts Rebukes Schumer for Saying Justices will ‘Pay the Price’ for a Vote Against Abortion Rights, WASH. POST Mar. 4, 2020. 12See Gretchen Frazee, supra note 8. Yet he has been quite successful in packing it with his own judges. See Susannah Luthi, How Trump is Filling the Liberal 9th Circuit with Conservatives, POLITICO (Dec. 22, 2019, 3:54 PM), https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/22/trump-judges-9th-circuit-appeals-court-088833 (“Democratic-appointed judges now hold a three-seat majority, compared with 11 at the start of Trump's presidency.”). 13Steve Benen, On Immigration, Trump Says He Wants to ‘Get Rid of Judges’, MSNBC (Apr. 3, 2019, 1:15 PM). Reportedly, according to the account of one anonymous Administration insider’s book, Trump gave serious thought to reducing the number of federal judges. Michael Warren and Holmes Lybrand, ‘Anonymous’ Book Offers Eye-Popping Insider Details, CNN (Nov. 17, 2019, 9:35 PM). As CNN reported: “Can we just get rid of the judges? Let's get rid of the [f***ing] judges,” Trump once said, according to the author. “There shouldn't be any at all, really.” Trump apparently went on to ask his legal team to write up a draft bill to send to Congress that would reduce the number of federal judges. “Staff ignored the outburst and the wacky request,” the anonymous official writes. Id. 14See, e.g., Josh Hafner, Judge Finalizes $25 Million Trump University Settlement for Students of 'Sham University’, USA TODAY (Apr. 10, 2018) (“Trump University was not an actual university but a for-profit seminar series, and former students waged a years-long battle claiming the course misled them with claims of teaching real estate success.”). 4 DENVER LAW REVIEW FORUM [27-Oct-20 textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable."15 Prior to becoming president, Trump had a long history of legal entanglements—beginning with a housing discrimination case brought against Trump and his father by the Nixon Administration.16 It is clear Trump, who has asserted he is unaccountable to legal processes while president,17 views the judiciary through a contemptuous lens of partisanship and self-interest.18 That contempt seems reflected in controversial criminal pardons he has issued. Trump has, for example, pardoned former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of contempt of court for illegally continuing “detaining people based solely on suspicion of their immigration status” after being ordered to stop.19 He pardoned right-wing conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza, who had pled 15Tom Kertscher, Donald Trump's Racial Comments about Hispanic judge in Trump University Case, POLITIFACT (June 8, 2016), https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about- judge-trump-un/. 16See Jonathan Mahler & Steve Eder, ‘No Vacancies’ for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 27, 2016) (“Rather than quietly trying to settle . he turned the lawsuit into a protracted battle, complete with angry denials, character assassination, charges that the government was trying to force him to rent to “welfare recipients” and a $100 million countersuit accusing the Justice Department of defamation.”). 17See Ann E. Marimow & Jonathan O'Connell, In Court Hearing, Trump Lawyer Argues a Sitting President Would be Immune from Prosecution Even if He Were to Shoot Someone, WASH. POST (Oct. 23, 2019) (“President Trump’s private attorney said . that the president could not be investigated or prosecuted as long as he is in the White House, even for shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.”). Following his Senate acquittal on two House articles of impeachment – one of which the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Utah Senator Mitt Romney, voted for – an uncontrite Trump labeled the process “all bullshit.” Caitlyn Oprysko, ‘It was all bulls---’: Liberated Trump Lets Loose in Victory Speech after Acquittal, POLITICO (Feb.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse, 333 Constitution Avenue, NW., 20001 Room 2002, phone (202) 354–3320, fax 354–3412 BERYL A. HOWELL, chief judge; born in Fort Benning, GA; daughter of Col. (Ret.) Leamon and Ruth Howell; Killeen High School, Killeen, TX, 1974; B.A. with honors in philosophy, Bryn Mawr College (President and Member, Honor Board, 1976–78); J.D., Colum- bia University School of Law, 1983 (Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, 1981–82; International Fellows Program, 1982–83, Transnational Law Journal, Notes Editor); law clerk to Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise, District of New Jersey, 1983–84; litigation associate, Schulte, Roth and Zabel, 1985–87; Assistant United States Attorney, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 1987–93; Deputy Chief, Narcotics Section, 1990–93; Senior Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law, 1993–94; Senior Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition, 1995–96; General Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1997–2003; Executive Managing Director and General Counsel, Stroz Friedberg, 2003–09; Commissioner, United States Sentencing Commission, 2004–11; Member, Commission on Cyber Security for the 44th Presidency, 2008; Adjunct Professor of Law, American University’s Washington College of Law, 2010; appointed judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Obama on December 27, 2010, took oath of office on January 21, 2011; appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve on the Judicial Conference of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S6886
    S6886 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 31, 2017 that—exactly the opposite. She wrote EXECUTIVE SESSION preme court justices who were not ap- that if a judge’s personal views were to proved by Republican Senators to move impede that judge’s ability to impar- to the Federal bench: Lisabeth Tabor tially apply the law, then the judge EXECUTIVE CALENDAR Hughes from Kentucky, Myra Selby should recuse herself from the case. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under from Indiana, Don Beatty from South As the coauthor of that article and the previous order, the Senate will pro- Carolina, Louis Butler from Wisconsin, current president of Catholic Univer- ceed to executive session and resume Patricia Timmons-Goodson from North sity recently put it, ‘‘The case against consideration of the Barrett nomina- Carolina. Prof. Barrett is so flimsy, that you tion, which the clerk will report. Senate Republicans turned obstruc- have to wonder whether there isn’t The senior assistant legislative clerk tion of judicial nominees into an art some other, unspoken, cause for their read the nomination of Amy Coney form under President Obama. Yet Sen- objection.’’ Barrett, of Indiana, to be United States ator MCCONNELL, day after day, has It does make you wonder. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit. said: ‘‘I think President Obama has To those using this matter as cover The PRESIDING OFFICER. The as- been treated very fairly by any objec- to oppose Professor Barrett because of sistant Democratic leader. tive standard.’’ her personally held religious beliefs, Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Senator He comes to the floor now regularly let me remind you, there are no reli- MCCONNELL has come to the floor to to complain about ‘‘obstruction’’ of gious tests—none—for public office in complain about what he calls obstruc- Trump nominees.
    [Show full text]
  • Contempt of Courts? President Trump's
    CONTEMPT OF COURTS? PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRANSFORMATION OF THE JUDICIARY Brendan Williams* Faced with a letter from the American Bar Association (ABA) assessing him as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice,” Lawrence VanDyke, nominated by President Trump to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, cried during an October 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 Republican senators dutifully attacked the ABA as liberally-biased.2 In a Wall Street Journal column, a defender of VanDyke assailed what he called a “smear campaign” and wrote that “[t]he ABA’s aggressive politicization is especially frustrating for someone like me, an active member of the ABA[.]”3 VanDyke was confirmed anyway.4 Contrary to Republican protestations, the ABA has deemed 97% of President Trump’s nominees to be “well qualified” or “qualified.”5 Indeed, in the most polarizing judicial nomination of the Trump Administration, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh’s defenders pointed to the ABA having rated him “well qualified” despite the association having once, in 2006, dropped his rating to “qualified” due to concerns about his temperament.6 *Attorney Brendan Williams is the author of over 30 law review articles, predominantly on civil rights and health care issues. A former Washington Supreme Court judicial clerk, Brendan is a New Hampshire long-term care advocate. This article is dedicated to his father Wayne Williams, admitted to the Washington bar in 1970. 1Hannah Knowles, Trump Judicial Nominee Cries over Scathing Letter from the American Bar Association, WASH. POST (Oct. 30, 2015). 2Id.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeff Shesol Author, Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt Vs
    Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Written Testimony of Jeff Shesol Author, Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court August 27, 2021 DIAGNOSIS The Real Mischief In February 1937, when presenting his plan to pack the Supreme Court, Franklin Roosevelt offered a rationale: that the oldest justices had fallen behind in their work and fallen out of step with “modern complexities.” The first of these was demonstrably false; the second was only partly true. This misdirection, Roosevelt later conceded, was a mistake. “I did not place enough emphasis on the real mischief—the kinds of decisions which, as a studied and continued policy, had been coming down from the Supreme Court.” What, we might ask in a similar spirit, is the real mischief today? Or, put differently: what is the core problem this Commission should aim to address? A review of testimony to date reveals a range of concerns: an entrenched majority of ideologically driven, outcome-oriented conservative justices; among those justices, an inconstant relationship with the principle of stare decisis and a willful blindness to “the plainest facts of our national life,” as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes once put it; the systematic incapacitation of government at both the state and federal level to address mounting crises; a shattering of the norms of the judicial appointments process by Senate Republicans. This, of course, is a partial list. A ranking of problems according to significance would surely put agenda-driven judicial activism at the top. The Supreme Court majority’s power—matched, it seems, by its eagerness—to vitiate certain civic institutions, to override hard-won understandings and overturn long-held doctrines, and to deny citizens the ability to do much of anything about it is a destructive sort of mischief.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Means of Compulsion Are Essential To
    ªSome Means of Compulsion are Essential to Obtain What is Neededº: Reviving Congress's Oversight Authority of the Executive Branch by Imposing Fines for Non-Compliance with Congressional Subpoenas MAX G. LESSER* INTRODUCTION Congressional oversight has played a critical role in uncovering wrongdoing in the executive branch, from the historic corruption of the Teapot Dome Scandal to the presidential abuses of power in Watergate. Underpinning these investigations has been the Supreme Court's long-standing recognition of the broad oversight authority possessed by Congress, which empowers the body to compel testimony and documentation.1 Possessing investigative power allows Congress to ful®ll several critical responsibilities. First, Congress can oversee whether the laws it passes are being faithfully executed, in terms of how ªeffectively, ef®ciently, and frugally the executive branch is carrying out congressional mandates.º2 Second, Congress can identify any executive misconduct, such as ªpoor administration, arbitrary and capricious behavior, abuse, waste, dishonesty, and fraud.º3 Third, Congress can utilize the information gained from investigative oversight to address issues through appropriate legislation, the body's core constitutional function. For these reasons, the Supreme Court has described congressional over- sight as ªessentialº4 for the Article I branch of our government. When congressional oversight faces resistance, the contempt power provides Congress a tool for coercing compliance and punishing those who obstruct its investigations.5 The power has generally been utilized to address non-compliance with a congressionally issued subpoena, and has historically been enforced by the * J.D., Georgetown University Law Center (expected May 2022); M.S.Ed., Hunter College of The City University of New York - Graduate School of Education (2016); B.A., The George Washington University (2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Community Reacts to the Nomination ­ Law Blog ­ WSJ
    2/1/2017 Legal Community Reacts to the Nomination ­ Law Blog ­ WSJ This copy is for your personal, non­commercial use only. To order presentation­ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit http://www.djreprints.com. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2017/01/31/the­legal­community­reacts­to­the­nomination­of­neil­gorsuch/ LAW BLOG LEGAL COMMUNITY REACTS TO THE NOMINATION PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS By SARA RANDAZZO Jan 31, 2017 8:12 pm ET The nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to be the next Supreme Court justice came as little surprise Tuesday night after days of speculation that he was the president’s leading candidate. Within minutes of the nomination being announced, a website to support the judge’s nomination had been set up with endorsements from around the legal industry. The Judicial Crisis Network said it is funding a $10 million campaign to confirm his nomination, with Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the network, saying they will push back against any Democrats tempted to obstruct the path to confirmation. Here’s what others in the legal community had to say about how Judge Gorsuch, a textualist in the vein of the justice he’s replacing, Antonin Scalia, could affect the balance of the nation’s high court. UC Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said via email that Judge Gorsuch is “impeccably qualified,” but “the question is whether his views are so conservative to put him outside the judicial mainstream.” As a self-described originalist, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • July 13, 2020 the Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General U.S
    July 13, 2020 The Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Attorney General Barr: President Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s prison sentence for obstructing a bipartisan congressional investigation raises serious questions about whether this extraordinary intervention was provided in exchange for Mr. Stone’s silence about incriminating acts by the President. During your confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2019, I asked whether you “believe a President could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise not to incriminate him.”1 Without hesitation or caveat – and under oath – you responded: “No, that would be a crime.”2 Given recently surfaced information indicating that President Trump may have commuted Mr. Stone’s sentence in exchange for his refusal to incriminate the President, pursuant to your own standard, an inquiry by the Justice Department into Mr. Stone’s commutation is clearly warranted. Thanks to recent Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, newly unredacted portions of Special Counsel Mueller’s report reveal that multiple witnesses confirmed then-candidate Trump’s direct knowledge and encouragement of Roger Stone’s efforts to release damaging information about Hillary Clinton stolen by Russian hackers.3 These witnesses’ observations flatly contradict President Trump’s repeated denials of having such knowledge of Mr. Stone’s activities in his written responses to Special Counsel Mueller’s questions.4 After submitting these suspect answers to the Special Counsel, President Trump took to twitter and praised Mr. Stone for being “brave” and having “guts” for refusing to cooperate with investigators and provide incriminating testimony against him.5 Special Counsel Mueller observed that the President’s tweets about 1 Meg Wagner, Veronica Rocha, & Amanda Wills, Trump’s Attorney General Pick Faces Senate Hearing, CNN (last updated Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Amy Berman Jackson
    MUELLER'S WENCH AMY BERMAN JACKSON Amy Berman Jackson is a judge you need to know about. She is a deep state swamp bottomfeeder who does the bidding of her master Robert Mueller. Get the word out to your social media. This is the judge that keeps Paul Manafort a political prisoner and is now ruling on Roger Stone. They need our help. Feb. 04, 2019? Judge Amy Berman Jackson has been assigned to most, if not all, of the Mueller prosecutions. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to recuse if their involvement raises even the appearance of impropriety. Jackson has layers of conflicts of interest in violation of multiple Canons in matters related to Robert Mueller and Hillary Clinton: 1. Judge Amy Berman Jackson has permitted her long-time former law partners from Trout Cacheris LLP, Robert Trout and Gloria B. Solomon, to represent parties in the Mueller matters. The appearance of impropriety and conspiracy with Mueller?s political agenda is evident. 2. Judge Amy Berman Jackson holds direct financial interests in at least two institutions who are notoriously-known donors to The Clinton Foundation (four Fidelity funds and two Capital one funds). This is actual impropriety requiring recusal. 3. Judge Amy Berman Jackson concealed about 85 holdings in corporate stocks in 2009 by shifting them into 44 mutual funds that hold those (and more Clintonistas) stocks in 2012. While she may have relied upon the highly dubious ?safe harbor? ?concept? (it is not a rule, policy or procedure, and certainly is not law since Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • H.R. 1 / S. 1 Disclosure Provisions: How the for the People Act Would Fix American Democracy's Dark Money Problem Campaign Legal Center March 2021 Introduction
    H.R. 1 / S. 1 Disclosure Provisions: How the For the People Act Would Fix American Democracy's Dark Money Problem Campaign Legal Center March 2021 Introduction In the 2020 election alone, more than $1 billion was spent by so-called “dark money” entities that kept their donors hidden from the public.1 The fifteen highest-spending dark money groups accounted for nearly $645 million of that total.2 Because these dark money groups do not publicly disclose their donors, voters cannot know what those secret donors might be getting in return from elected officials. As described in this report, the solution is H.R. 1 / S. 1, the For the People Act, which shines a spotlight on dark money, and which is carefully crafted to address the real- world practices that wealthy special interests have used to keep their political donations hidden from the public. First, H.R. 1 / S. 1 makes clear what political spending is subject to disclosure. In 2020, major dark money groups, both Democrat and Republican, spent tens of millions of dollars on TV and digital ads that were carefully worded or timed to evade existing law. The bill addresses these practices by requiring disclosure when a group spends over $10,000 on ads that promote, support, attack, or oppose a candidate’s election. Second, the bill clarifies who must be disclosed when that spending is reported. Wealthy donors have anonymously poured hundreds of millions of dollars into elections by claiming none of their donations were “earmarked” for a particular ad, or by passing money through an intermediary.
    [Show full text]
  • 12-05-20 Roger Stone Interim
    DuCharme, Se·th (ODAG) From: DuCharme, Seth (ODAG) Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10: 17 PM To: Hovakimian, Patrick (ODAG) Cc: Rosen, Jeffrey A. (ODAG) Subject: Re: Stone sentencing I am tracking. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 4, 2020, at 9:03 PM, Hovakimian, Patrick {ODAG) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Papers a re due from the United States on Friday, according to Metcalf. > > Patrick Hovakimian > (b) (6) 0106 Document ID: 0.7.4262.5159 Zelinsky, Aaron (USAMD) From: Zelinsky, Aaron (USAMO} Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 1:59 PM To: Metcalf, David {OOAG) Subject: Re: I'm back in my office Meeting with my trial team. Will let you know when done. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Metcalf, David (ODAG} <[email protected]> wrote: I just stopped by. Where are you? Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:43 PM, Zelinsky, Aaron (USAMD) (b)(6) per EOUSA wrote: (b) (6) Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:37 PM, Zelinsky, Aaron {USAMD) (b)(6) per EOUSA wrote: Dave, (b)(6) Best, Aaron 0117 Document ID: 0.7.4262.7445 Metcalf, David (USADC) From : Metcalf, David (USADC) Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:28 AM To: Metcalf, David {OOAG) Subject: Fwd: Stone's Sentencing Memo Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Eva ngelista, Alessio {USADC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA Date: February 11, 2020 at 10:20:49 AM EST To: "Cooney, Joseph (USADC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA , "Crabb, John 0. (USADC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA Cc: "Metcalf, David (USADC)" (b )(6) per EOUSA Subject: Stone's Sentencing Memo 0124 Document ID: 0.7.4262.7444 Metcalf, David (USADC) From : Metcalf, David (USADC) Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:28 AM To: Metcalf, David {OOAG) Subject: Fwd: Stone sentencing memo Attachments: stone sentencing memo 2-10-20.docx; ATT0OOOl.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Cooney, Joseph (USADC)" (b )(6) per EOUSA Date: February 10, 2020 at 4:25:40 PM EST To: "Metcalf, David (USAOC)" , "Evangelista, Alessio {USAOC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA , "Crabb, John D.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Federal Courts Cases DONATE Today
    CUSTOM SEARCH Get Indian Law news delivered to your inbox EMAIL ADDRESS SIGN ME UP NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND DONATE today NATIONAL INDIANINDIAN LAW BULLETINS TRIBAL LAW GATEWAY RESEARCH GUIDES RESEARCH HELP ABOUT NILL CATALOG LAW LIBRARY INDIAN LAW BULLETINS | FEDERAL COURTS Search the Federal Courts Indian Law Bulletins: 2018 Federal Courts Cases Last updated: October 24, 2018 Basic Search Help Operators and More Search Help Next Update Should be Ready by: October 31, 2018 RECENTLY ADDED CASES: Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona Inc. v. United States Cases are organized by month : 2018 WL 5069161 No. 15-342L January | February | March | United States Court of Federal Claims. April | May | June | July | October 17, 2018 August | September | October Legal Topics: Federal Fiduciary Duty | November | December Northern Natural Gas Company v. 80 Acres of Land in Thurston County 2018 WL 5264275 Find past years' cases from the 8:17-CV-328 bulletins archive. United States District Court, D. Nebraska October 23, 2018 Legal Topics: Rights-of-Way Wilhite v. Awe Kualawaache Care Center 2018 WL 5255181 Indian Law Bulletins are a current CV 18-80-BLG-SPW awareness service of the National United States District Court, D. Montana. Indian Law Library. The purpose October 22, 2018 of the Indian Law Bulletins is to Legal Topics: Tribal Sovereign Immunity provide succinct and timely Guardado v. State of Nevada information about new 2018 WL 5019377 developments in Indian Law. See No.: 2:18-cv-00198-GMN-VCF the "about" page for each bulletin United States District Court, D. Nevada. for specic information on October 16, 2018 monitoring, content selection Legal Topics: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act criteria, and timeliness of publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Briefs with Which the Court Has Been Showered
    NO. 19-7 In The Supreme Court of the United States _________ SEILA LAW LLC, Petitioner, v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Respondent. ________________________ On Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit _________________________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE U.S. SENATORS SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, AND MAZIE HIRONO IN SUPPORT OF COURT-APPOINTED AMICUS CURIAE STEPHEN D. SUSMAN Counsel of Record AMANDA BONN RAKIM H.D. BROOKS SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 SIXTH AVENUE, 32ND FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10019-6023 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae JANUARY 22, 2020 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 2 I. Congress Sought To Immunize The CFPB From The Very Influences That Now Seek To Undermine Nearly A Century Of Administrative Law. ..................... 2 II. This Challenge Is The Product Of A Long-Term Effort By Regulated Industries To Hobble Independent Agencies. ......................................................... 12 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 23 APPENDIX A ............................................................ 1a ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Bowsher v. Synar 478 U.S. 714 (1986) ............................................. 14 Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n,
    [Show full text]