Martin Gardner

@mglovesfun.bsky.social

1462 Followers 436 Following

Betting shop worker. Former French-English interpreter. Love a crazy lawsuit. Medieval French enthusiast. Former tournament Scrabble player. MLB fan. Movie reviews.

(d)If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.
Beginning with the text, § 546 provides that the court’s designee will “serve until the vacancy is filled.” 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). A vacancy is “filled” when a President’s nominee is confirmed by the “advice and consent of the Senate.” Id. § 541(a). In other words, a court designated U.S. Attorney may be removed only by “fill[ing]” the “vacancy” with a Senate confirmed nominee. Id. § 546(d); see also Gantt, 194 F.3d at 1000 (“[T]he President retains the
IV. ARGUMENT Rogoff Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of His Claim That He Was Unlawfully Fired 1. Defendants’ Removal of Rogoff Violates Congress’s Statutory Framework for the Appointment and Removal of Interim U.S. Attorneys The Constitution gives Congress the power to prescribe how inferior officers will be appointed. U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. Congress has done so for U.S. Attorneys via § 546. See Gantt, 194 F.3d at 999. This Court acted in accordance with the express terms of that congressional enactment when it appointed Rogoff as U.S. Attorney. The President may not summarily fire him. Rather, the text and structure of § 546 make plain that the President may remove a § 546(d) appointee only by appointing a Senate-confirmed successor.3
[lawsuit table of contents]
Phil from Groundhog Day.
"When I said fill up my car obviously I mean fuel" Me: ahh okay that makes more sense [car is full of cats]
Phil Connors from Groundhog Day.
Hot dog guy
Hot dog guy (we're all trying to find the guy who did this)
PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 81 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Reschedule Discovery Hearings Set for June 30, 2026. For good cause shown, the discovery hearings concerning 52 the Parties' Joint Motion for Hearing on Discovery Related to Defendants' Subpoena to Produce Records to Non-Party The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust; 61 the Parties' Joint Motion for Discovery Hearing on Defendants' Forty-Seven Subpoenas to Third Parties Regarding January 6, 2021; 57 Defendants' Motion for Hearing Related to Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Requests for Production and Interrogatories; and 79 the Parties' Joint Motion for Discovery Hearing Related to Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of Requests for Admission are hereby RESCHEDULED to July 21, 2026 at 10:00 AM in Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett at the C. Clyde Atkins U.S. Courthouse, 301 North Miami Avenue, 10th Floor, Miami, FL 33128. Signed by Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett on 6/12/2026. (EAL) (Entered: 06/12/2026) Main Doc­ument Order on Motion for Discovery
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. In light of the Parties' 97 Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendants BBC Studios Distribution Limited and BBC Studios Productions Limited, the remaining parties are hereby ORDERED to file a Joint Notice indicating their position on whether the discovery disputes raised in the pending 52 Joint Motion for Hearing on Discovery Related to Defendants' Subpoena to Produce Records to Non-Party The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust; 61 Joint Motion for Discovery Hearing on Defendants' Forty-Seven Subpoenas to Third Parties Regarding January 6, 2021; 57 Motion for Hearing Related to Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Requests for Production and Interrogatories; and 79 Joint Motion for Discovery Hearing Related to Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of Requests for Admission remain ripe, or whether any discovery disputes are moot in light of the aforementioned Dismissal with Prejudice. The remaining parties shall file their Joint Notice no later than July 20, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett on 7/16/2026. (km06) (Entered: 07/16/2026) Main Doc­ument Order
Jan 31, 2024 MINUTE ORDER. It is ORDERED that this matter be referred to Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya for resolution of all discovery disputes. So ORDERED by Judge Carl J. Nichols on January 31, 2024. (lccjn2)
Despite Dominion’s request, ECF 183 at 39–44, the Court declines to impose further sanctions on Byrne and his new counsel, Peter Ticktin, at this time. Dominion has put forth concerning allegations about unauthorized access to documents by individuals at Ticktin’s firm and Lambert’s continued involvement in this case, but the Court believes that Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya is best positioned to adjudicate those issues in the first instance. In fact, parts of the disclosure order will help establish a record for doing just that. Noncompliance and further attempts to evade enforcement of court orders, however, could certainly justify additional sanctions in the future.
FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Dominion wishes to propose any destruction protocol with respect to Lambert, it is ordered to do so by August 20, 2024, and it is, FURTHER ORDERED that Lambert is hereby DISQUALIFIED as Counsel to Byrne in this matter effective immediately, and it is, FURTHER ORDERED that Byrne shall notify the Court by September 13, 2024 whether he has retained new counsel or whether he intends to proceed pro se. If he obtains new counsel, that new counsel must enter their formal notice of appearance by September 13, 2024. SO ORDERED. Date: August 13, 2024 [signature]
ORDERED that Byrne, Lambert, and Ticktin shall comply with all the requirements— including the affidavit, production, transfer, privilege log, and response obligations—of the disclosure order, ECF 175, on or before July 15, 2026. DATE: July 1, 2026 [signature]
Court enter an Order granting this Motion; disqualifying Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya from any further proceedings in this action; referring this action to a different Magistrate Judge; relieving the Defendant of the affidavit deadline entered by Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya, and of any other deadline she has imposed, pending reassignment; determining whether any prior ruling should be vacated and discovery reopened before a newly assigned Magistrate Judge; and grant such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.
The Maduro Representation Requires Disqualification Under Section 455(b)(1) and, in the Alternative, Under Section 455(a) The Magistrate Judge appeared as lead counsel for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on behalf of the Maduro government and filed a brief asserting that Maduro “remains the rightful leader of the Republic” and that there are “serious issues” with the competing claim to legitimacy. Smartmatic has operated Venezuela’s election systems under the Maduro government. Ronald Morales worked for Smartmatic on Venezuelan elections under Hugo Chávez, then worked on United States election systems for Smartmatic and Sequoia, and then worked for Dominion from 2020 through 2024. Morales was deposed in this case. Eric Coomer, Arnao, and others made the same transition and implemented Smartmatic and Sequoia technology and protocols into Dominion’s systems. The legitimacy of Venezuelan elections run on Smartmatic technology under Maduro is a disputed evidentiary fact in this proceeding. The allegedly defamatory broadcasts said the international community should not recognize Venezuelan elections and that “the Maduro regime will manipulate the outcome of the vote.” The Defendant’s truth defense turns on whether those statements, and the concerns about Smartmatic technology and personnel migrating into
The record does not stop there. The Magistrate Judge appeared as lead counsel for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on behalf of the government of Nicolás Maduro, and she filed a brief telling a federal court that Maduro “remains the rightful leader of the Republic.” The legitimacy of Venezuelan elections conducted on Smartmatic technology under Maduro is not background detail in this case. It is the subject of the broadcasts on which the Plaintiffs sue and the subject of the Defendant’s truth defense. The Magistrate Judge also worked on California litigation under the supervision of Douglas Emhoff, who was deposed in this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Byrne’s and Lambert’s appeals, ECF 179; ECF 180, are DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Byrne, Lambert, and Ticktin shall comply with all the requirements— including the affidavit, production, transfer, privilege log, and response obligations—of the disclosure order, ECF 175, on or before July 15, 2026.
Byrne’s and Lambert’s further arguments protesting the obligations the disclosure order imposes on them are unconvincing. Their contention that the order improperly requires them to turn over privileged documents and work product ignores that the order already addresses this concern by allowing them to create a privilege log. Furthermore, to the extent that they complain that the requirements to transfer and limit access to documents are strict, their well-documented past misconduct justifies such obligations to ensure compliance with court orders. Finally, their suggestion that the disqualification order cannot be enforced because it is not a final order for purposes of appellate jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, is frivolous and suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of basic principles of jurisdiction.2 For all these reasons, the Court would affirm the disclosure order even under entirely de novo review.
MOTION for Extension of Time to File by PATRICK BYRNE. (Junttila, Stefanie) (Entered: 07/16/2026)
Bar chart shows ‘Expected’ at 1, while ‘Actual’ is at 4,217.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Oil is flowing like never before, thanks to the awesome Power of the United States Military. A special salute to Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, and Commander of the United States Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper. Because of them, and all members of the Most Powerful Military anywhere in the World, BY FAR, the Strait of Hormuz is open to ALL Ship traffic except for Iran — and that is because of their lying, violent, malicious leadership, which is taking them down the path of TOTAL DESTRUCTION. We will therefore have a FULL Blockade, but only on Ships coming to and from Iranian ports, or carrying anything have to do with Iranian cargo. Based on highly productive conversations with Middle East leadership, I have decided to replace the 20% United States Reimbursement Fee with Trade and Investment Deals that the various Gulf States will be making into the United States. Those Investments will be MASSIVE but, at the same time,
70 Ethics complaints have been filed in New York and the District of Colombia against Acting Attorney General Blanche and Associate Attorney General Woodward. See Letter to Attorney Grievance Committee Re: Ethics Complaint Against Todd Blanche, https://dea5edf3-e27d-4adc-a42a b9c082bc3167.usrfiles.com/ugd/dea5ed_b024aad49d1049c1ab03f01e8f1aa7fc.pdf; see also Request for Investigation of Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. D.C. Bar No. 997320, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28264896-cfa-dc-bar-complaint-stanley woodward/.
Finally, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this [footnotes and page break] Order to the State Bar of New York, of which Acting Attorney General Blanche is a member (No. 4192456), AND to the District of Columbia Bar, of which Associate Attorney General Woodward is a member (No. 997320), where disciplinary proceedings are currently ongoing.
4 Am. Jur. 2d Amicus Curiae § 12 (emphasis added); see also Morales v. Turman, 820 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir. 1987) (attorneys’ fees may be awarded to appointed amici if the amici’s services were highly beneficial and defendants were properly considered the parties who made the services necessary). Nonetheless, the Court-appointed amici have declined any reimbursement for their important service to the Court.
The Court finds monetary sanctions appropriate under its inherent authority and prerogative to police the matters and litigants who avail themselves of its jurisdiction. See Purchasing Power, LLC, 851 F.3d at 1223 (“Courts have the inherent power to police those appearing before them.”) (citing Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46).67 These monetary sanctions would include the attorneys’ fees incurred by Court-appointed amici68 in
C. Inherent Authority Having concluded that sanctions are warranted under Rule 11, the Court will now address whether sanctions are likewise appropriate under the Court’s inherent authority. [footnotes and page break] Although Rule 11 limits imposing monetary sanctions following a voluntary dismissal, the Court’s inherent authority remains available to address conduct that abuses the judicial process. Trump v. Clinton, 161 F.4th 671, 688 (11th Cir. 2025) (“Federal courts have the inherent authority to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.”); Peer, 571 F. App’x at 844 (“And the inherent power of a court can be invoked even if procedural rules exist which sanction the same conduct . . . for these rules are not substitutes for the inherent power.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
of limitations.”). Accordingly, the Court must now determine what sanctions, if any, are appropriate. See id. (noting that “Rule 11 sanctions are discretionary” and therefore “just because a district court can impose sanctions does not mean that the court is required to do so.”) (citation omitted). 3. Sanctions are Appropriate.
The Eleventh Circuit has recognized three instances in which Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate: where a pleading (1) “has no reasonable factual basis”; (2) “is based on a legal theory that has no reasonable chance of success and that cannot be advanced as a reasonable argument to change existing law”; or (3) is “in bad faith for an improper purpose.” Massengale v. Ray, 267 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Worldwide Primates, Inc. v. McGreal, 87 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 1996)). This Order discusses whether Rule 11 sanctions are warranted under the improper purpose prong.60
courts.” Peer v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). As relevant here, when an attorney files a pleading in federal court, he certifies that, among other things, the pleading is not being presented for an improper purpose. FED. R. CIV. P. 11(B); Spolter v. SunTrust Bank, 403 F. App’x 387, 391 (11th Cir. 2010). Because this question strikes at the heart of the integrity of the judicial process, the Court may raise the improper purpose inquiry sua sponte and at any time. FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(3); see also id. advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (“The time when sanctions are to be imposed rests in the discretion of the trial judge.”).
And because this fact was so obvious and so insurmountable, the Court finds that this matter was brought for an improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a “settlement” that had no viable basis in law or fact. As was observed in another matter brought in this District, “this case is part of Mr. Trump’s pattern of misusing the courts to serve political purposes.” Trump v. Clinton, 653 F. Supp. 3d 1198, 1219 (S.D. Fla. 2023).
In dismissing the non-parties’ claims of collusion, Plaintiffs reveal the true position of the Parties and say the quiet part out loud: “Regardless of whether Plaintiffs had ever filed this action, the Government and Plaintiffs still had the power to resolve all disputes between the parties.” (DE 89 at 15). The power to resolve was never a question before this Court. Whether Executive Branch actors can privately agree to give themselves and their former clients blanket immunities and billions of dollars in tax monies for legally undefined grievances was never an issue advanced to this Court. The question is whether the Parties could do so by claiming to be adverse and engaging the legitimacy of a court proceeding. The answer is a resounding “no”: the Lead Plaintiff and the Government are one, a fully realized unitary interest. Because “Plaintiffs have no answer for the fact that Page 37 of 56
Moreover, the Release Order, signed only by Acting Attorney General Blanche, extends a blanket grant of immunity to all Plaintiffs and their families and “affiliates,” and precludes all “current or possible” investigations or actions before any other agencies or departments.50 The Release Order also purports to bar the IRS from conducting any future tax audits of President Trump, his sons, and their entities.51 This provision directly contravenes 26 U.S.C. § 7217, titled “Prohibition on executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations,” which states: It shall be unlawful for any applicable person to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer. 26 U.S.C. § 7217(a). The explicit text of this statute prohibits President Trump and his lawyers—one of whom was former White House Counsel—from asking for or promoting termination of an audit directed toward him.52 And acquiescing to any such demand is wholly incompatible
Second, the “settlement agreement” is signed on behalf of Defendants by Stanley Woodward, Jr., the current Associate Attorney General at the DOJ, and Acting Attorney General Blanche. Before he went to the DOJ, Associate Attorney General Woodward represented several individuals charged in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol.43 He also represented Walt Nauta, who was President Trump’s personal aide and a co-defendant in the criminal matter involving the return of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.44 Before his appointment to the DOJ, Acting Attorney General Blanche served as President Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney in several high-profile matters. See, e.g., United States v. Trump, No. 23-cr 80101 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (“Mar-a-Lago Documents Case”); United States v. Trump, No. 23-cr-00257 (D.D.C. 2023) (the criminal case charging President Trump with conspiring
were “one and the same.” Veazie, 49 U.S. at 256. In justifying the “unusual”36 settlement to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims, the DOJ and Acting Attorney General Blanche in a press release, and Acting Attorney General Blanche’s Congressional testimony respectively, cited Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 99-cv-03119, (D.D.C. 1999), as the “precedent” for the unprecedented establishment of the $1.776 billion dollar fund. However, Plaintiffs’ briefing is conspicuously silent as to this justification, making no mention of the Keepseagle case. Understandably so.37 In Keepseagle, the parties—including the Department of Agriculture represented by the DOJ—engaged in a decade-long litigation regarding alleged discrimination perpetrated against thousands of Native American farmers and ranchers who had been illegally denied farm loans and access to benefit programs. Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 118 F. Supp. 3d 98, 104 (D.D.C. 2015). As the presiding judge observed, “[i]t was a major class-action seeking to remedy what many felt was the latest chapter in the federal government’s sordid history of mistreating Native Americans.” Id. at 104. There, “[f]or
subordinates in government service at will. Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. __, slip op. at 16 (2026). Finding that he could, the majority ruled that “[s]ubordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.” Id. at 36. “[T]hese officers exercise the President’s power, not their own, and thus must be responsible to him.” Id. at 35 (emphasis in original).
WL 3543414, at *6 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2024) (“The Court finds that Plaintiffs do in fact control Defendant Reticulum and that no case or controversy exists between Plaintiffs and [Defendant Reticulum], necessitating [Defendant] Reticulum’s dismissal from the present case.”). Courts “do not engage in the academic pastime of rendering judgments in favor of persons against themselves.” Interstate Com. Comm’n, 337 U.S. at 430. Consonant with the general principle that “no person may sue himself[,]” adverseness is lacking where one party controls the other party. Id.; see Dasma Inv., LLC v. Realty Page 16 of 56
is clear that even when a voluntary dismissal disposes of an entire action, district courts retain jurisdiction to consider at least five different types of collateral issues: costs, fees, contempt sanctions, Rule 11 sanctions, and motions to confirm arbitral awards.”); see also Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990) (“As the violation of Rule 11 is complete when the paper is filed, . . . a voluntary dismissal does not expunge the Rule 11 dismissal.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
At this point, because the Court had serious concerns about whether it had subject matter jurisdiction in a case where the Lead Plaintiff ostensibly had direct, unassailable control over Defendants, it ordered the Parties to file memoranda of law on this issue by May 21, 2026. (DE 41). The Court then appointed amici curiae “to assist the Court in identifying the applicable law governing an analysis” of its subject matter jurisdiction. (DE 43). The amici were also directed to file a memorandum of law by May 21, 2026. (Id.) On May 14, 2026, the court-appointed amici filed their memorandum. (DE 45). Neither Party to this action, however, filed any pleading to address the Court’s concerns.
This Complaint was filed on January 29, 2026—two years and three months after Ms. Habba’s appearance at Mr. Littlejohn’s plea hearing—by Plaintiffs President Trump (“Lead Plaintiff”), Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and The Trump Organization, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against the IRS and the Treasury Department (collectively, “Defendants” or “Government”). Because Defendants are government agencies, they are afforded sixty days from the date that the United States Attorney was served to file an answer or responsive pleading. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a)(2). However, on April 17, 2026, three days before the sixty-day period lapsed, Plaintiffs filed a Consent Motion for a 90-day Extension (“Consent Motion”) to relieve Defendants of their obligation to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint “while the Parties engage[d] in discussions
information was illegally disclosed to news organizations like the New York Times and ProPublica. Transcript of Plea Agreement Hearing at 10, United States v. Littlejohn, No. 23-cr-00343, DE 13 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2023). The following exchange took place during the October 12, 2023, plea colloquy: THE COURT: Before I go on to accept or not accept this plea, are there any victims or their representatives here today that would like to exercise their rights to be reasonably heard under the Crimes Victims’ Right Act? MS. ALINA HABBA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Please come up. MS. ALINA HABBA: Thank you, Your Honor, for the opportunity to be heard. As an attorney, I find that I should probably state I am not licensed in this state, in the District of Columbia. I’m here on behalf of President Trump who was a victim, as we just heard, of this atrocity. Id. at 14.
Phil from Groundhog Day.
The pardon says that it applies to “individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” 90 Fed. Reg. at 8331. Even assuming that the conduct Cole is charged with is “related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,” the pardon is expressly limited to people who had been “convicted of offenses” related to those events. Cole had not been convicted of the conduct at issue when the President issued the pardon; indeed, he was not charged until many months after the President’s proclamation. See ECF No. 1.
A Board of Peace official told the Financial Times that “a number of options were established to receive funding” and that contributors had chosen “other options”. The official added that the board would report its finances to its own executive board, made up of Trump administration officials and advisers, “at a time deemed appropriate”.
Gaza vanishing: Trump’s Board of Peace Instead of using the World Bank mechanism, which is endorsed by the UN and subject to reporting requirements, donations have reportedly been directed through a JPMorgan account. The arrangement has raised serious concerns, as no independent disclosure rules appear to apply to the private account
Last night's Mets's box score (Mets fans advised to look away now)
Nicholas Hoult (Mad Max: Fury Road)
The governing Labour party, the Conservative official opposition and other rival parties, including the Lib Dems and Restore, the party further to Reform’s right, which was founded by Rupert Lowe MP, one of Reform’s MPs until a nasty falling out with Farage, have all ruled out standing in the byelection. “We are not going to participate in a Reform-sponsored media circus over the summer months that is designed to puff up Farage’s ego and deflect away from wholly fair questions over why he has concealed such vast and irregular financial donations,” said Lowe.
Infantino and Trump.
Caricature of Trump on the phone to FIFA.
This cat is predicting England
This cat is predicting Mexico (owner is visibly shocked)
This cat is predicting Mexico
England allowed to use Viagra by WADA to help players rise to world cup altitude
Skydiver with American flag crashes into stands at California rodeo.