John Hawkinson

Today's Columbia LLC v. Cambridge update: Cambridge sought an extension of its time to answer (or file a dispositive motion) until Jan 26 and plaintiffs consented. Otherwise Cambridge's answer would be due…Tuesday Dec 23, I think? 20 days from service which was Dec 3?

So there's an extra month.

err, that was supposed to say "(private practice, *CJA, Gov.)" but I failed to notice the autocorrect to "challenger."

Err... it's single sign on per identity, but if you have multiple identities (private practice, challenger, gov.) then they have to be properly linked but could easily be linked to different identities with different passwords.
And I think it may be a different sign on for DOJ employees, not sure.

Memorandum Opinion – #110 in Abrego Garcia v. Noem (D. Maryland, 8:25-cv-02780) – CourtListener.com MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 12/11/2025. (kns, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/11/2025)

Judge Xinis grants habeas for Abrego Garcia, ordering him released from ICE custody immediately.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

This is a regional/local thing, much like how you hear "your brother" and "your sister" to refer to opposing counsel in some places and in other places they've never heard of it.

It is not new or old.

This is, however, 90% certain to be a paralegal's error.

I think you're confusing the DC Bar with the DDC federal bar.
This is a search you can do yourself:
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bar-memberat...

And got my ducks in a row just in time for her appearance:

But, yeah, doing the proper search for type=L(awyer) rather than…well, I dunno exactly what confused me before, there's a Blanche account that is his pre-DOJ account in DDC:

Every ECF instance (94 districts, 94 bankruptcy, appellate, etc.) is a different filing account. So an SDNY account is not a DDC account.

and see bsky.app/profile/john...

And there's the detail, her account was created on Tuesday:

OK, I figured it out. Gotta use `type=L` on the query, here she is:

I am just discovering that maybe you cannot…still trying to figure this out.

bsky.app/profile/john...

Although…I'm not sure I'm doing this right.
I thought this query reported attorneys and parties both, but now I searched for some other attorneys I know have filing accounts and got back nothing, so… I think I did this wrong.

Oops.

The McBride account, though, if it's even the same person, dates back to 1991, so…well, harder to have high expectations there.

Still no Halligan account.
I forgot we could look and see more detail — this Blanche account is from April 2025, so surely that's his current tenure at DOJ so he must know the password.

Cambridge's Assistant City Solicitor Franz Lepionka today filed an appearance in the case…or at least tried, the docket entry doesn't look quite right.

Also, I do not approve of certificates of service that use "and/or" construction. Were Plaintiffs served via email, first class mail, or both? Boo.

Looks like Halligan has not successfully registered for a DDC ECF filing account.
Blanche has one (not sure if it's current / if he knows the password), as does McBride, assuming it's the same guy:

Happy Birthday — Dec. 10, 1830 — to Emily Dickinson.

That is…

hahahahahaha

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

The Government wants Lindsay Halligan to handle the Richman 41(g) litigation? (!)

Anyhow, that is all. Stay tuned to this slow-moving thread for months to come.

Oh, I suppose, last night the City Solicitor said she'd "vigorously defend" the City. not exactly earthshattering but good to know: bsky.app/profile/john...

Also, it has been assigned to the A(verage) track, with these attendant deadlines (presumptively):

BUT ANYHOW, docket watchers, we have the most minor of updates today, Judge Vhay has ordered plaintiffs to serve the City.
(I'm a little confused, because that's not normally something you have to order! It's been a while since I've watched a land court case, but I don't recall a special procedure.)

(I am super-confused why the above-linked Cambridge Day story doesn't link to a copy of the complaint, but here's one on the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation's website: pioneerlegal.org/wp-content/u...
)

So, I haven't spent any time here talking about Columbia St. LLC v. Cambridge, the lawsuit associated with Patrick Barrett challenging the City of Cambridge's inclusionary zoning ordinance…

How are you defining "ban"?

It has not been alleged that they have been placed on private property in Cambridge nor is that anyone's articulated concern?

And if they are, well, they are not that much worse than a notional Ring license-plate camera?

Cambridge City Council will be CANCELLING its contract with mass surveillance company FLOCK – other municipalities should do the same.

TAKE ACTION: mobilize.aclum.org/a/email-your...

Further addendum: in terms of "how could this happen?" apparently the Flock cameras are solar-powered and use cellular communication, so they don't need to be wired up to power or data and could literally be put up anywhere without coordination w/ the City's Electrical or Traffic depts.

So…yeah.