Everything you say can and will be used against you.

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

A Response to Checks & Balances' Press Release on the Mueller Report



Checks & Balances issued a press release: New Statement from Checks and Balances on the Mueller Report (Apr. 23 2019), <https://checks-and-balances.org/new-statement-from-checks-and-balances-on-the-mueller-report/>. The Press Release stated: “The Special Counsel’s investigation was conducted lawfully, and under longstanding Attorney General guidelines.” I think a more prudent approach might have been for the Press Release’s signatories to await a review of the process that launched the Special Counsel’s investigation before describing its conduct as “lawful.” My understanding is that such a review is expected in the near future from the Inspector General’s office, and it appears that Attorney General Barr will authorize a review of the Department of Justice’s conduct.

The Press Release also states: “The facts contained in the report reveal that the President engaged in persistent conduct intended to derail, undermine and obstruct ongoing federal investigations.” It is unclear what specific allegations within the report the Press Release is relying on. Whether those allegations are, in reality, facts or not has not been established by anything like an unbiased or independent decision-maker—like an Article III judge—after both parties have had notice and an opportunity to be heard. By contrast, the Special Counsel’s report is merely a prosecutors office’s memorandum which attempts to marshal one side of the evidence, where the object of the investigation has had no opportunity to respond. As far as I know, the Special Counsels report is not even sworn to, as one would swear (or affirm) to any ordinary affidavit or declaration offered into evidence. Yet the Press Release relies on this report in arriving at far-reaching conclusions about the President’s conduct. Checks & Balances’ care free attitude in regard to fair play (a/k/a due process) is somewhat odd for an organization named “Checks & Balances.”

Finally, the Press Release speaks to “the President’s violations of his oath, including but not limited to [1] his denigration of the free press, [2] verbal attacks on members of the judiciary, [3] encouragement of law enforcement officers to violate the law, and [4] incessant lying to the American people.” Examples of [1], [2], and [4] are not specified. Absent some specific examples, I will posit that the Press Release’s signatories (which includes several legal academics) are merely characterizing lawfully protected free speech as constitutional violations by the President. Likewise, no example in regard to [3] is specified—if it refers to the President’s exercise of his pardon power, then the critique amounts to just a mundane political disagreement in regard to who should be the object of the President’s bountya matter entirely committed to the Presidents discretion. All the allegations, mentioned above, from the Press Release amount to [1] constitutionally protected free speech; [2] internal Executive Branch deliberations (and legal advice) about policy during policy formation; and, [3] normal politicsbeing recharacterized as a constitutional wrong, tort, or crime. Indeed, the Press Release concludes by supporting an investigation of the President based upon his having had engaged in First Amendment protected free speech and his exercise of the pardon power (which remains lawful even when exercised to achieve contested or political purposes). If this is not the criminalization of democratic politics, it is too close for comfort. 

But I guess some people long to bring back the Sedition Act of 1798.

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, A Response to Checks & Balances Press Release on the Mueller ReportNew Reform Club (Apr. 24, 2019, 8:42 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/a-response-to-checks-balances-press.html>. 

Welcome Instapundit Readers! 



Monday, April 22, 2019

The Populist and the Philosopher

Two sets of quotes in juxtaposition, for your consideration. First, representing the Populist approach:   
"Sir, I have got no further than this: Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it." -- Samuel Johnson
"My acceptance of the universe is not optimism, it is more like patriotism. It is a matter of primary loyalty. The world is not a lodging-house at Brighton, which we are to leave because it is miserable. It is the fortress of our family, with the flag flying on the turret, and the more miserable it is the less we should leave it." -- G.K. Chesterton
"The people of Nebraska are for free silver and I am for free silver. I will look up the arguments later." -- William Jennings Bryan

For the Philosopher: Mr. Dudley Field Malone's speech during the Scopes trial, echoing that old-time stoicism:
"The truth does not need the law. The truth does not need the forces of government. The truth does not need Mr. Bryan. The truth is imperishable, eternal and immortal, and needs no human agency to support it."
And Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind, on the admixture of philosophy and power:

"Doctor and policeman, enhanced by the application of science to their endeavors, were to be the foundations of a wholly new political undertaking. If the pursuit of health and safety were to absorb men and they were led to recognize the connection between their preservation and science, the harmony between theory and practice would be established. The actual rulers, after a couple of centuries of astute propaganda directing popular passions against throne and altar, would in the long run be constrained by their subjects and would have to enact the scientists’ project. The scientists would, to use Harvey Mansfield’s formula, be the hidden rulers. The ends pursued by politicians and the means they use would be determined by philosophers. Scientists would be free and get support, and scientific progress would be identical to political progress so conceived."
One may object to the Populist that disagreements about primary loyalties are not very nice, and have led to endless wars throughout human history. Yet, the Populist may answer, we have survived. What we more nearly did not survive, and still might not survive, is the rule of the Philosopher, the hidden ruler...the Doctor-Policeman. "I doubt," said Tom Wolfe, "that any Calvinist of the sixteenth century ever believed so completely in predestination as these, the hottest and most intensely rational young scientists in the United States at the end of the twentieth."





Friday, April 19, 2019

Twitter, Lawfare, and Conlawprof

Professor Dan Hemel on Twitter (Apr. 19, 2019, 12:02 PM) <https://twitter.com/DanielJHemel/status/1119315342432571393>: “Trump told White House Counsel Don McGahn to lie to Robert Mueller. Trumps best defense? That he really wanted McGahn to lie to 330 million people, of whom Mueller was only one.” (emphasis added)

Scott R. Anderson et al., What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis, Lawfare (Apr. 18, 2019, 11:43 PM), <https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis> (characterizing Mueller’s report as: “creating a rigorous factual record concerning both Russian intervention in 2016 and presidential obstruction of the effort to investigate that intervention” (emphasis added)).

On Conlawprof, Professor AAA wrote: Judge Wright’s findings [from Clinton v. Jones] are no less damning (probably more) than those of Mr. Mueller.” (emphasis added).

Tillman responds:
I, for one, do not see any obvious equivalence between an unbiased independent judges findings in an opinion after the parties have had notice and opportunity to be heard, and a prosecutors offices report which attempts to marshal one side of the evidencewhere the object of the investigation (i.e., investigation=failed prosecution) has no opportunity to respond. As far as I know, the Special Counsel's report is not even sworn to, as one would swear (or affirm) to any ordinary affidavit or declaration offered into evidence. 

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, Twitter, Lawfare, and Conlawprof, New Reform Club (Apr. 19, 2019, 3:45 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/today-on-lawfare-and-on-conlawprof.html>.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!


Have a look around New Reform Club—my co-bloggers do good work.

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Conlawprof, WWII’s War Crimes Tribunals, and the Death Penalty




Responding to a prior discussion involving the death penalty and Justice Jackson (who had been a prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg), AAA, a regular CONLAWPROF participant, wrote:
“I don’t care whether [Justice] Jackson was pro or con the death penalty personally. It hardly seems to matter. What’s important is that he recognizes that the death penalty exerts a distorting effect on the law and legal process …. Nobody has explained the rationality of the death penalty …. When’s the last time you told a child, or grandchild of yours that ‘killing other people is okay so long as we’re doing it to them because bad people deserve it; this is how we show people how good we are, by killing all the bad people’?”

Tillman responded:
Professor AAA would you affirm (in line with your prior post) that the death penalty imposed by the International Military Tribunals (IMTs) at Nuremberg, Tokyo, and Manilla were substantially wrongful?

I would have no problem explaining to adult third-parties that the reason the IMTs imposed the death penalty was that many of the war criminals remained hugely popular with large numbers of their countrymen (and their soldiers), and, for that reason, the Allies thought it prudent to block their election (or reelection) to public bodies after hostilities had ended. Many believed that WWII followed WWI in part because no such punishments had been meted out after WWI, and that but for the death penalty following the IMTs, the same people would look for a rematch in a WWIII. I dont know that they were wrong.

I think Professor BBB believes the EEC/EU has kept the peace (or helped to do so) in Europe. Some believe it was NATO. Maybe it was Nuremberg and its executions? It is a question I don’t claim to know the answer to. But I would be hesitant to say the Allied authorities, judges, and prosecutors at the IMTs were wrong based on my personal experience as a lawyer (and citizen) during peacetime in the United States.

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, Conlawprof, WWII’s War Crimes Tribunals, and the Death Penalty, New Reform Club (Apr. 18, 2019, 7:19 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/conlawprof-wwiis-war-crimes-tribunals.html>. 

Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers!

Have a look around New Reform Club--my co-bloggers do good work.


Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Conlawprof, Soft Power, and the Murder of Jamal Kashoggi



Professor AAA wrote: “But soft power is different. We translated copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence into Spanish and sent them out to Spain’s colonies in the New World. It is hard to imagine any policy that is more in our interest than to have a conversation with the nations around the globe why it is in their self interest to adopt some form of constitutional government ....”

Professor BBB wrote: “The fourth Count of the indictment is based on Crimes against Humanity.  Chief among these are mass killings of countless human beings in cold blood.  Does it take these men by surprise that murder is treated as a crime?”—Justice Robert H. Jackson, Opening Statement to the Int’l Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Nov. 21, 1945”

Tillman responds:
I have no clear idea what Professor AAA meant by “constitutional government”? Did he mean: [1]—American-style separation of powers, with a president having an electoral mandate independent of the legislature? Or, [2]—Did he mean simply written constitutionalism? Or, [3]—Did he mean just having a government subject to norms and conventions? (Perhaps there is a fourth position?)

As to [2] and [3], I don’t think most recently formed countries ever thought of building on a foundation absent a written constitution (Israel is somewhat anomalous by this standard), much less absent any norms and conventions. If we, the United States, are recommending that newly formed countries adopt [1], that is, American-style separation of powers, then such advice is (in my view) positively harmful. I can think of few things more likely to destroy the chances of a new nation’s living at peace with itself and its neighbours than to take on such a system—a system which only worked in the U.S. (to the extent it worked at all—e.g., the American Civil War) for wholly fortuitous reasons (i.e., big oceans as defense in depth and relatively weak neighbours). If this is “soft power,” then it is positively a destructive force in the world.

Still, the people who marketed soft power over the last decade in the halls of power and among the voters were more than happy to engage in real politik when it suited them. See President Obama called Libya “a mess” <https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/obama-clinton-libya-mistake>. There are now slave markets in Libya. I wonder why that is? Secretary of State Clinton on Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died”: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI>. She laughs while saying it. Laughs.

As to Professor BBB … As long as we are looking to Nuremberg for a model or precedent: Did anyone laugh while the war criminals were executed? Did any of the prosecutors or the proponents of the war-time policies that led to Allied victory in WWII, go on film or radio, and in public discussions of the post-war executions, did they start laughing?

I also wonder if there is any cognitive dissonance amongst the participants on CONLAWPROF who: [1] oppose the death penalty under peace time conditions administered by independents courts and juries; and, [2] support a concomitant willingness to turn to Nuremberg as a model to guide current standards and thinking? What penalty do you think Jackson and the other prosecutors at Nuremberg (and at the other international military tribunals following Allied victory) sought?

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, Conlawprof, Soft Power, and the Murder of Jamal Kashoggi, New Reform Club (Apr. 16, 2019, 12:10 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/conlawprof-soft-power-and-murder-of.html>


Saturday, April 13, 2019

Academics and Brexit

An American academic sent me the following e-mail:

“Actually what people are saying is something like the following:

A majority of us wanted Brexit. We have discovered, however, that within that majority there is no agreement on how Brexit should be done. Indeed, we are learning that a strong possibility exists that a majority prefers remain to any particular manifestation of Brexit (i.e., imagine three different versions of Brexit). Remain beats all three in a head to head vote. Given we have discovered the strong probability that any particular manifestation of Brexit is likely to have even less support than remain, revisiting Brexit seems a good idea.

Tillman wrote back as follows:

“If only we had honest and accurate polls, and if only people took polls as seriously as they do actual voting, and if all these things and more were true, you’d have a point, except the polls and pollsters thought Brexit would lose, thought Hillary would win, and thought Netanyahu in trouble. But none of it was true. None of it.

I also note that you don’t actually link to any polls that purportedly support what you are saying in your e-mail.

Seth

PS to NRC Readers: notice my interlocutor’s use of “actually” and “imagine” as if his points were difficult or novel ideas and concepts.

PPS: I have yet to receive a link to any such head-to-head polls, or even any polls showing a majority wants a second vote.


Seth Barrett Tillman, Academics and Brexit, New Reform Club (Apr. 13, 2019, 16:25 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/academics-and-brexit.html>. 



Friday, April 12, 2019

100% of the Israeli Vote Counted



With 100% reporting <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections> Netanyahu/Likud 36 seats; Gantz/Blue-&-White 35 seats. Same as it ever was.... But the pre-election polls and exit polls showed a tie or Gantz ahead by 2 or 4 seats. After Brexit, and after Clinton-Trump, why trust the polls?

Seth Barrett Tillman, 100% of the Israeli Vote Counted, New Reform Club (Apr. 12, 2019, 6:25 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/100-of-israeli-vote-counted.html>. 


Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Today’s Question On CONLAWPROF: Where Would You Put Trump?



Professor ZZZ asks: “Trump is not Stalin but in the history of national (federal) political figures in this country, I’m wondering … where [would] you put Trump? …  Having a POTUS so publicly awful along those lines lowers the horrible bar so dramatically that we will pay for years to come. Not being Stalin but being Roy Cohn is a hell of a legacy.

Tillman responded:

Professor ZZZ asks: “[W]here [would] you put Trump?”

No new, major land war(s) in Asia—so Trump is ahead of LBJ.

No missile crisis risking an exchange of nuclear weapons with a superpower—so Trump is ahead of JFK.

No wars of national conquest—so Trump is ahead of Polk (Texas) and McKinley (Philippines, Cuba).

No move to war after foreign power made full, reasonable efforts to amicably settle reasons for dispute—so Trump is ahead of Madison (War of 1812). Under Madison, we burned down the capital of British North America (York/Toronto), and they returned the favor in Washington. So Trump beats Madison.

No wars against native American tribes—so Trump is ahead of [fill in the blank—many such presidents could be listed here].

No wars based on poor intelligence or to prop up foreign absolute monarchies—so Trump is ahead of both Bush I and Bush II.

Trump has not interned 100,000s of US citizens based on race—so Trump is ahead of FDR.

Trump has not allowed a U.S. state or territory to go into civil war and then allow its government to be hijacked by the brigands who engineered the civil war—so Trump is ahead of Buchanan (Bleeding Kansas).

I still don’t know why President Clinton blew up an aspirin factory or why Secretary Clinton permitted NATO forces and materiel to blow up Libya—so Trump probably comes out ahead of both of them too.

Trump is ahead of Woodrow Wilson: World War I, and! his resegregation of the federal civil service. I grant you that being ahead of Wilson is not saying much...but then, the nation survived Wilson, and no one today thinks of Wilson as having lowered the bar vis-a-vis future presidents. Professor ZZZ seems to be worried about this. He wrote: “Having a POTUS so publicly awful along those lines lowers the horrible bar so dramatically that we will pay for years to come.” Really?—Will we pay for it in years to come, or is this just a shabby slippery slope-type argument?

I cannot say I see much sense in Professor ZZZ’s references to Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn’s permanent claim to fame is his association with McCarthy and aggressive anticommunism. Trump, by contrast, has been criticized for being too close to Putin. It is not exactly the same; actually, the two are not alike at all.

If words and pretty speeches are the measure of a president, then Trump comes up short. The question is whether that is the correct standard for measuring presidents in a dangerous world.

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, Today’s Question On CONLAWPROF: Where Would You Put Trump?, New Reform Club (Apr. 10, 2019, 14:19 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/todays-question-on-conlawprof-where.html>. 


Israeli Election 2019: Before and After






BEFORE: Haaretz: “Channel 12 News[] [poll] has the center-left and right-wing blocs with 60 seats each—a tie. The channel’s exit polls also have Kahol Lavan [Gantz’s party] with 37 seats to Likud’s [Netanyahu’s party] 33.” <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/netanyahu-elections-gantz-vote-updates-results-1.7105719> (Tuesday, 10 PM entry)


AFTER: The Times of Israel: “With some 97% of votes counted, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud and Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party still appear on track to get 35 seats each…. These results give the right and religious bloc 65 seats, while the center, left and Arab parties have 55.” <https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/after-97-votes-counted-second-arab-party-safely-crosses-threshold/> (Wednesday). 


Seth Barrett Tillman, Israeli Election 2019: Before and After, New Reform Club (Apr. 10, 2019, 1:43 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/israeli-election-2019-before-and-after.html>. 

see also: <https://twitter.com/SethBTillman/status/1115853570950279169>


see also: Seth Barrett Tillman, Israeli Election 2019: Netanyahu and the PollsNew Reform Club (Apr. 9, 2019, 3:44 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/israeli-election-2019-netanyahu-and.html>.

Tuesday, April 09, 2019

Monday, April 08, 2019

Response to Neal Goldfarb



Mr Neal Goldfarb, apparently a linguist and Deans Visiting Scholar with the Georgetown University Law Center, reached out to me on Twitter. What he had to say was spirited & interesting. You can see the full Twitter exchange here: <https://twitter.com/NealGoldfarb/status/1113863868038754304>. Neal’s chief complaint was that, in my court filings in the Emoluments Clauses cases against the President, I denominated the relevant constitutional provisions: the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Presidential Emoluments Clause, as opposed to the Foreign Emolument Clause and Presidential Emolument Clause

On Friday, April 5, 2019, I sent him a response by e-mail. See below. I have yet to hear back from him. But hope springs eternal.

Seth

---------------------------------------

Dear Neal,

Thank you for reaching out to me via Twitter. New friends are always welcomed—however late they are to join the debate. I have given your paper a once over. I don’t see any citations to my publications or to my co-authored publications with [Professor] Blackman, so I continue to wonder why you tweeted to me and Blackman, but not to [all the] other amici and parties—who all used the nomenclature adopted by plaintiffs in their complaints. It is a real puzzle!

If you could find your way to cite my publications, then I will be in a better position to respond. I write a great many responsive pieces: this academic year alone, I have had one article responding to Professor Yoo, a second article responding to Professor Fallon, and a third responding to Chief Judge Eckerstrom. I must give priority in relation to the people who actually cite me, as opposed to other people who just contact me informally by e-mail or by Twitter. I am sure you can understand that. If you still seek a response from me, particularly in the near term, I suggest you cite my publications and/or [amicus] filings in your paper in and around your footnotes 50 & 51—where you suggest the “emoluments” nomenclature is “near-universal.” [Goldfarb: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3333512>] You can find my briefs and other [judicial] filings here: <http://reformclub.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-work-in-progress-select-bibliography.html>. You can find my publications here: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/results.cfm?RequestTimeout=50000000>.

I will also need some clarification from you in regard to a single point you make several times in your paper. You wrote: “[T]he lawsuits [are] against President Trump alleging that because of certain of his business interests he is in violation of the Constitution’s Foreign Emolument Clause and Presidential Emolument Clause.” (p.5) (emphasis added), <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3333512>. Again, you wrote: “These two clauses are of course the subject of pending litigation against President Trump.” (p.19) (emphasis added). You make this claim in several other places in your paper. Can you identify for me who or what you mean by “President Trump”—What are you intending?; What is your meaning?; What you are trying to communicate?; and, How you think the reader will understand your writing here?, etc. I assure you, although you might think my question odd, it is not. It is meant seriously, and I intend to quote your answer in my future Response to Neal Goldfarb. My question is not “grammatical wonkery” or “academic wonkery.” I cannot turn to my future Response to Neal Goldfarb until you respond. So let me hear from you, particularly in the near term if you want to facilitate a response from me in the near future.

Best wishes & welcome to the debate,

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, Response to Neal Goldfarb, New Reform Club (Apr. 8, 2019, 1:07 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/response-to-neal-goldfarb.html>. 

Friday, April 05, 2019

Asking The Important Questions: So Does This Mean Reagan Was Right Or Wrong?






Seth Barrett Tillman, Asking The Important Questions: So Does This Mean Reagan Was Right Or Wrong?, New Reform Club (Apr. 5, 2019, 5:05 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/asking-important-questions-so-does-this.html>; <https://twitter.com/SethBTillman/status/1114089216315744256>. 

Welcome Instapundit Readers!



Thursday, April 04, 2019

A Tweet on Trump



Seth Barrett Tillman, A Tweet on Trump, New Reform Club (Apr. 4, 2019, 10:32 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/a-tweet.html>; 

Glenn Reynolds, A REMINDER FROM SETH BARRETT TILLMAN: Trump disclosed his tax returns for 8 years to the Obama IRS, Instapundit (Apr. 4, 2019, 10:04 AM), <https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/326620/>.




Tuesday, April 02, 2019

Part VII: The Mystery of DC & MD v. Trump: Maryland Federal District Court Judge Opining About Non-existent Plaintiffs in Non-existent Case in Florida


The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims sweep too broadly. There is good reason why their standing should be recognized vis-à-vis the Hotel in Washington D.C., given the immediate impact on Plaintiffs in respect to the Hotel’s operations. It is a considerable stretch, however, to find the requisite injury-in-fact to these particular Plaintiffs that is traceable to the Trump Organization’s or, through it, the President’s conduct outside the District of Columbia. How indeed, for instance, have Maryland or the District of Columbia suffered and how are they suffering immediate or impending injury as a result of whatever benefits the President might be deriving from foreign and state government patronage at the Trump Organization’s Mar-a-Lago property in Florida or in the grant of patents to the Trump Organization or Trump relatives by China? In this respect, the Court, quite simply, sees neither immediate nor impending harm to Plaintiffs. Hence, the Court finds that these particular Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the operations of the Trump Organization or the benefits the President may receive from its operations outside the District of Columbia. But to be perfectly clear: The Court reaches this conclusion only with respect to these Plaintiffs and the particular facts of the present case. This is in no way meant to say that other States or other businesses or individuals immediately affected by the same sort of violations alleged in the case at bar, e.g., a major hotel competitor in Palm Beach (near Mar-a-Lago) or indeed a hotel competitor anywhere in the State of Florida, might not have standing to pursue litigation similar to that which is in process here.

Extract from Judge Messitte’s standing-only opinion in: DC & MD v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM, 2018 WL 1516306, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51365, 291 F. Supp. 3d 725, 753 (D. Md. Mar. 28 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 101, <http://guptawessler.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/101-Opinion.pdf> (emphasis added).

Nothing to see here folks, just move along. Judge Messitte, in Maryland, had time to write all that about non-existent plaintiffs’ standing in non-existent cases to be brought in Florida or elsewhere against the President. But, even after 6 months after briefing was finished, Judge Messitte never managed to schedule an oral argument or to otherwise address the President’s motion to dismiss (in his individual capacity), and then Judge Messitte proceeded to launch discovery, notwithstanding his failing to address the motion. Nothing to see here folks, just move along. 

The September 2018 CJRA report is now out. See <https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/cjra_8_0930.2018_0.pdf>. It lists Judge Messitte as having a single motion overdue, that is, past the target 6-month deadline. In fact, Judge Messitte regularly meets expectations in regard to deciding motions. But for some unidentified reason, the Presidents motion was not decided in a timely fashion. 


Nothing to see here folks, just move along. 

Seth

Welcome Instapundit Readers! 

Seth Barrett Tillman, Part VII: The Mystery of DC & MD v. Trump: Maryland Federal District Court Judge Opining About Non-existent Plaintiffs in Non-existent Case in Florida, New Reform Club (Apr. 2, 2019, 7:23 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/part-vii-they-mystery-of-dc-md-v-trump.html>.


Seth Barrett Tillman, Part VI: DC & MD v Trump—Can the President of the United States get Married or Divorced?New Reform Club (Mar. 20, 2019, 6:34 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/part-vi-dc-md-v-trumpcan-president-of.html>. 

Seth Barrett Tillman, Trump’s 7% PanelNew Reform Club (Mar. 19, 2019, 10:05 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/trumps-7-panel.html>. 

Seth Barrett Tillman, Part V: The Mystery of DC & MD v TrumpNew Reform Club (Mar. 12, 2019, 11:30 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/part-v-mystery-of-dc-md-v-trump.html>.

Seth Barrett Tillman, Part IV: The Mystery of DC & MD v TrumpNew Reform Club (Mar. 11, 2019, 2:04 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/part-iv-mystery-of-dc-md-v-trump.html>.

Seth Barrett Tillman, Part III: The Mystery of DC & MD v TrumpNew Reform Club (Mar. 10, 2019, 7:13 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/part-iii-mystery-of-dc-md-v-trump.html>.

Seth Barrett Tillman, Part II: The Mystery of Senator Richard Blumenthal v. President Donald J TrumpNew Reform Club (Mar. 8, 2019, 1:38 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/part-ii-mystery-of-senator-richard.html>.


For Part I, see: Seth Barrett Tillman, The Mystery of Blumenthal v. TrumpNew Reform Club (Mar. 7, 2019, 2:16 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-mystery-of-blumenthal-v-trump.html>. 

I had several filings before Judge Messitte:
Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party with Respect to Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendant in his Individual Capacity, District of Columbia & State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, and in his individual capacity, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. May 8, 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 114, 2018 WL 2159867, 2018 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 32, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3174268>, <https://www.scribd.com/document/378704459/DC-and-Maryland-v-Trump-Amicus-brief-of-Seth-Barrett-Tillman-in-Support-of-Neither-Party-with-Respect-to-Individual-Capacity-Motion-to-Dismiss>.

Letter Brief filing Supplemental Authority, from Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, District of Columbia & State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 97, <https://www.scribd.com/document/374271648/D-C-and-Maryland-v-Trump-Notice-of-Supplemental-Authority-3-19-18>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3141732>.

Letter Brief, from Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, Seeking an Order in regard to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint, District of Columbia & State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 29, 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 88, 2018 WL 1128948, <https://www.scribd.com/document/370301834/Maryland-v-Trump-Correspondence-1-29-18>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3112896>.

Corrected Response [Brief] of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, District of Columbia & State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. Dec. 31, 2017) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 77, 2017 WL 6880026, 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 466, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3089868>.

Motion and Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, District of Columbia & Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. Oct. 6, 2017) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 27-1, 2017 WL 4685826, 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 410, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2996355>.