Michael

Judge Nichols, by the way, was nominated to the bench by Trump in his first term, was a clerk to D.C. Circuit Judge Silberman and Justice Thomas, and was in a leadership position in the DoJ Civil Division under GWB. Not a liberal guy. An accomplished lawyer.

Unfortunately, they'll probably lose on other grounds, because this is an appeal from a guilty plea with counsel, so they'll need to show plain error.

The Federal Public Defender is making a very interesting argument in an appeal, going through the statutory history and concluding that none of these documents are "certificates" or "alien registration receipt cards" under the statute. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Or that he filed a 13G instead of a 13D?

Who, immediately before his appointment, was the Acting Chief of the Financial Crimes & Public Corruption Unit of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Oddly, defense counsel elicited this. Maybe not the Nazi flag, but definitely the Confederate ("rebel" flag).

At the time I was doing my (one of my) bar application(s), I was being treated by a rare bird who was both a licensed attorney and psychiatrist. I sent him the exact text of question from the application and asked how I should answer in his professional opinion.

Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph. It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

What after all does it matter? A single, seemingly ordinary, rather technical insurance case. One among the many hundreds of rulings judges make each year. What does it matter? A case but a speck in the recesses of interstellar space and in the four-plus billion years since our solar system’s birth. What does it matter, this case deserted by both space and time? To be human is to live in the here and now. This small case extracts courageous meaning from the vast impersonality in which it resides. Its immediacy confounds infinity; its passions light the dark. We have given it our best; the litigants have given it their best. The trial court has done the same. We do not overlook for a moment the tragic passing of the insured but neither can we ignore the contract under South Carolina law that defines the insurer’s obligation. The judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed, and this single case in all its smallness now reigns important and supreme.

You may recall Judge Wilkinson's 2025 with such hits as Abrego Garcia and Owners Insurance v. Walsh.

We live in a time in which racial, ethnic, and religious antagonisms are “on the march.” United States v. Sherifi, 107 F.4th 309, 318 (4th Cir. 2024). Hudak’s assaults of his fellow citizens were all too emblematic of this trend. Their harm lay not only in the injuries inflicted on two men and their property, but in the lost safety and dignity of all members of the targeted groups. In Hudak’s balled fists and combat boots lay a message: you are not welcome here. In Hudak’s arrest and conviction, however, we find a different message. Blackstone reminds us that “among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.” 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries *16. Congress acted on this principle by passing federal laws “directed at crimes of racial violence.” Johnson, 421 U.S. at 226. And it was in service of those laws that the jurors here convicted Hudak. In doing so, they expressed the enduring judgment of the American people that crimes of hate reflect neither who we are nor ever shall be.

Judge Wilkinson (4th Cir.) out here, still doing his thing. United States v. Hudak, No. 24-4313 (4th Cir. Oct. 7, 2025), www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/244....

I'm going to guess Judge Nachmanoff won't be thrilled with attorneys who don't know the idiosyncrasies of E.D. Va. trying to go without local counsel. His mentor Judge Brinkema required DOJ Antitrust to have local USAO-EDVA counsel present at all hearings in Google Adtech.

Unless his argument is that the 1792 act that @stevevladeck.bsky.social brings up was unconstitutional but just never adjudicated so.

One would hope that filing a counternotice for a meme on Xitter isn't an "emergenc[y] involving the safety of human life or the protection of property" under the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1342.

Also French language: Half the letters are silent.

I sent in a FOIA request to OMB. We'll see...

I asked. The FTC will not be releasing it, according to the media contact there, and OMB has it, not the FTC.

They decided they preferred Wisconsin. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Don't forget that today is September 11 and it would be entirely appropriate to fly a flag at half-staff for that.

See also In re Acetaminophen-ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab. Litig., 707 F. Supp. 3d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (Cote, J.).

See generally In re Acetaminophen-ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab. Litig., 707 F. Supp. 3d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (excluding experts for failure to offer admissible evidence that acetaminophen taken in pregnancy causes ASD or ADHD in offspring), appeal pending, No. 24-916 (2d Cir.).

Are you saying that they made Australia home? Because the Australian government told me about ten years ago that no matter who I was or where I was from, I would not make Australia home. No way. (We're in the process of pulling the same shit in the USA; you just did it first. We're all so screwed.)

I was wondering if he might be out of the Department as a result of *waves hands wildly* this. But he didn't withdraw from HPE/Juniper.

What's your take? Does it mean anything at all?

Criminal information filed as docket number 7 in 1:25-cr-00252-CJN (D.D.C.) charging Sean Charles Dunn with a violation of 18 U.S.D. § 111(a)(1), omitting any mention of physical contact, which is what makes a violation a felony.

The Government seems to have decided that after its failure to secure an indictment against assault with a deadly sandwich guy, it will charge him with misdemeanor assault on a federal officer instead. D.D.C.'s CM/ECF is very broken right now, but it appears to be assigned to Judge Nichols.

The text accompanying the footnote is notable as well.

It passes Twiqbal plausibility in my view. The claims about "must have" apps don't. And I don't know what that super app shit is doing in there.

The most interesting theory in the complaint is the one that mirrors the one in the Google search antitrust case.

Fiduciary duty claim from existing shareholders for giving away 10% of the company for nothing?

MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. Plaintiff filed this patent infringement case naming 24 defendants under seal along with a motion for leave to seal [5] and a motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order with a temporary injunction, asset restraint, and expedited discovery [6]. Plaintiff also filed over 1500 pages of attachments to the complaint [9], also under seal. But this Court, like so many of my colleagues, remains unconvinced that "these commonplace efforts in Schedule A cases to obtain secret relief comport with principles of procedural due process." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 25 C 2937, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025)(Kness, J.) As an initial matter, these infringement cases rarely present exceptional circumstances that would justify sealing the names of all defendants and documents pertaining to their alleged infringing activity, let alone an entire case, even temporarily. "Secrecy makes little sense if the goal of the litigation is to protect rightholders' IP interests by obtaining an injunction against defendants' sales of infringing or counterfeit goods." Id. More importantly, this presumption of sealing runs counter to the well−established authority of this Circuit holding that "[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject matter of a case... be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing." See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567−68 (7th Cir. 2000). It is not enough that alleged counterfeiters might quickly shut down the online store and move money if alerted to the fact that they are being sued. Due process still affords them the right to receive notice and a chance to present a defense before restraining all of their assets based solely on one−side…

warrant such ex parte relief. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to submit a single supporting affidavit with "specific facts" to "clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result" along with a certification from counsel. That alone is reason to deny this extraordinary request. See Eicher Motors Ltd., 2025 WL 2299593 at *4−7. The combined motion [6] is denied without prejudice. Finally, the Court questions whether Plaintiff has established sufficient grounds for joinder of all 24 defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 299. Indeed, Plaintiff filed a form complaint with generic allegations on "information and belief" about coordinated counterfeiting activity between defendants without any details whatsoever, which arguably violates the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Accordingly, by 8/26/25, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint specifically naming and identifying each defendant being sued and setting forth with more than conclusory statements the alleged infringing activity. Failure to do so will result in the current complaint being dismissed without prejudice and this case being closed.

Another judge is following Judge Kness's lead in N.D. Ill.'s spate of #ScheduleA cases.

(c) Beginning January 1, 2025, a motor vehicle operator shall not make a turn when facing a steady red traffic control signal unless DDOT has installed signage, pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, permitting a turn when facing a steady red traffic control signal at that intersection.

Right on red is of questionable legality in DC now, under Section 2(d)(3) of the Safer Streets Amendment Act of 2022. However, DDOT refused to fund the signs required, so it might not be able to be enforced at intersections where a sign isn't posted. www.washingtonian.com/2024/12/31/d...