In an amicus brief (supporting Defendant President Trump) submitted to
this Court (Southern District of New York), my counsel included the
following footnote:
I stand entirely behind the above footnote: behind every sentence, every phrase, every word, and every syllable. I have made no mistake, intentional or inadvertent. I retract nothing, and I do not intend to retract anything.
Recently, my amicus brief and scholarship has been criticized by the Legal Historians Brief, other academics, some litigators, and by the press. Here I respond. This document is my declaration submitted as an exhibit to a motion responding to the Legal Historians Brief.
Complete Motion with Supporting Declarations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6pbwibK31LaN1k4aWw1WEJ0REk/view
See Report on the Salaries, Fees, and Emoluments of Persons Holding Civil Office Under the United States (Feb. 26, 1793), in 14 The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (“PAH”), 157, 157–59 (1969), perma.cc/49RT-TTGF. The editors of PAH marked this document “DS,” meaning “document signed,” which indicates that this document was the original signed by Hamilton. The original Hamilton-signed document, on which the PAH reproduction is based, remains in the vaults of the National Archives & Records Administration (Record Group #46). An excerpt of the original Hamilton signed document is available at bit.ly/2rQCDxX. Amicus notes that an entirely different document (but bearing a similar name) can be found in American State Papers (“ASP”). See List Of Civil Officers Of The United States, Except Judges, With Their Emoluments, For The Year Ending October 1, 1792, in 1 American State Papers/Miscellaneous 57 (1834). The document in ASP was not signed by Hamilton. The undated ASP document was drafted by an unknown Senate functionary. Unlike Hamilton’s manuscript, the record in ASP includes the President and Vice President. Both documents are probative of the legal meaning of Office . . . under the United States as used in the Senate order. But the two documents are not equally probative.
I stand entirely behind the above footnote: behind every sentence, every phrase, every word, and every syllable. I have made no mistake, intentional or inadvertent. I retract nothing, and I do not intend to retract anything.
Recently, my amicus brief and scholarship has been criticized by the Legal Historians Brief, other academics, some litigators, and by the press. Here I respond. This document is my declaration submitted as an exhibit to a motion responding to the Legal Historians Brief.
Complete Motion with Supporting Declarations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6pbwibK31LaN1k4aWw1WEJ0REk/view
Seth Barrett Tillman, The Reports of My
Death Were Greatly Exaggerated: Tillman Responds to the Legal Historians Amicus
Brief in CREW v. Trump (Sept. 14,
2017), http://ssrn.com/abstract=3037107
The Reports of My Death Were Greatly Exaggerated: Tillman Responds to the Legal Historians Amicus Brief in CREW v. Trump, New Reform Club (Sept. 19, 2017), http://tinyurl.com/ycqlttk6
Paragraph 63 of "Tillman Declaration" has a parenthesis "although we need not of". Yuck, make that "not have" please!
ReplyDeleteI feel vindicated that the first 62 paragraphs passed through your keen eyes absent the discovery of any other errors. seth
ReplyDeleteAhhhh, welcome to my world of federal practice where unfortunately intellectual dishonesty is not rare. And thanks for the new word "pellucidly"...
ReplyDeleteThe idea of filing a civil suit for defamation must be tempting. But then excoriation before the court by five leading experts may have delivered the lesson nicely.
ReplyDelete