Fogbow

What? Oh, well, those ....

Lots of un-redactions. Bobb is referred to not as counsel, but as Individual 2. Looks bad.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 25.0_4.pdf

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 4:41 pm Lots of un-redactions. Bobb is referred to not as counsel, but as Individual 2. Looks bad.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 25.0_4.pdf

Yeah, nice panel on hand on Deadline WH to discuss this, I suspect more later when they can read through it and regroup. But yes, looks bad according to that panel.

Also today in the search warrant docket before Judge Reinhart, the clerk has filed (Docket No. 128) some papers that were mailed to the court in a Priority Mail envelope with the following return address:

United States Dept. of Treasury.

It begins as follows:

RULE 24(a)(1)(2) MOTION TO INTERVENE

The U.S. Department of the Treasury through the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Marshals Service have arrested Seized Federal Securities containing sensitive documents which are subject to the Defendant Sealed Search Warrant by the F.BI. arrest. See attached U.S.M.-285 arrest warrant under the National Security Act 50 U.S.C. 3162.

Pursuant to Rule24(a)(1)(2) the U.S. Department of the Treasury must
intervene to protect the interest.

Dated 09-08-2022
U.S. DEPARTMENNT [sic] OF THE TREASURY INTERVENOR

chancery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 5:04 pm Also today in the search warrant docket before Judge Reinhart, the clerk has filed (Docket No. 128) some papers that were mailed to the court in a Priority Mail envelope with the following return address:

United States Dept. of Treasury.

It begins as follows:

RULE 24(a)(1)(2) MOTION TO INTERVENE

The U.S. Department of the Treasury through the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Marshals Service have arrested Seized Federal Securities containing sensitive documents which are subject to the Defendant Sealed Search Warrant by the F.BI. arrest. See attached U.S.M.-285 arrest warrant under the National Security Act 50 U.S.C. 3162.

Pursuant to Rule24(a)(1)(2) the U.S. Department of the Treasury must
intervene to protect the interest.

Dated 09-08-2022
U.S. DEPARTMENNT [sic] OF THE TREASURY INTERVENOR

I recognize these words, but not what they mean in this context.

I think the context is sovcit/conspiracy speak. Someone who knows that lingo better than I do might be able to decode.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.0_3.pdf

The attachment might be an actual search warrant in another matter:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 28.1_1.pdf

second linkk above, search warrant, says:

"Seized Federal Securities" = tax records, leaked and/or in possession of CNN and "Martins Towing Inc."

very mysterious how that would be "National Security" related.

and related to the former guy

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 4:41 pm Lots of un-redactions. Bobb is referred to not as counsel, but as Individual 2. Looks bad.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 25.0_4.pdf

Does someone have a comparison to the earlier redacted version, what more is shown?

This looks like what you've asked for; I haven't read it yet.

Ryan Goodman
@rgoodlaw

4/4. For convenience, I have highlighted in this document all the portions of the FBI MAL Affidavit that were previously redacted and are now public.

See yellow highlights throughout.

https://justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl ... ctions.pdf

The government has filed a reply brief in support of its motion for a partial stay.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 88.0_5.pdf

Like the initial brief, it's extremely good: respectful, restrained, concise, and devastating.

All of Trump's papers have contained great big gobs of flaming bullshit issues that the government hasn't previously highlighted, such as Trump's utter failure to support his factual contentions with any form of evidence. That's a failure which, for any ordinary litigant seeking injunctive relief, especially this unprecedented relief, would have provoked a preemptory denial coupled with a benchslap that knocked his lawyers silly. Like many other lawyers, I've been squirming in my seat at the government's failure to call out Trump's lawyers for obvious howlers.

However, the pacing of argument is always a judgment call, and it looks as though the government called it right here. They have deftly given Trump's lawyers enough rope to hang themselves, and now they have <block that metaphor!> brought down the hammer hard.

For example:

But even if Plaintiff had declassified any of these records while he was President—a proposition that Plaintiff does not specifically assert in any of his filings in these proceedings, in a sworn declaration, or through any evidence—any record bearing classification markings was necessarily created by the government and, therefore, is not Plaintiff’s personal property.

And this:

Plaintiff’s attempts to change the subject by holding out the possibility that he could have declassified some of the seized records and/or that he could have designated them as “personal” records, D.E. 84 at 11-15, fare no better. As already noted, Plaintiff has now filed multiple lengthy submissions with the Court that stop short of asserting that he in fact took any of these actions with respect to any of the seized records, including those at issue in the stay motion.

In light of the classification markings, official cover sheets, and other indicia of classification attendant to these materials, see, e.g., D.E. 48-1, Attachment F, such possibilities should not be given weight absent Plaintiff’s putting forward competent evidence. In any event, even if Plaintiff had declassified any of the approximately 100 seized records bearing classification markings while he was still in office, the government’s “demonstrated, specific need” for those records, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 713, would easily overcome any asserted claim of privilege.

For obvious reasons, the Intelligence Community (“IC”) would have a compelling need to understand which formerly-classified records have now been declassified, why and how they were declassified, and the impact of any such declassification, including on the IC’s protection of its sources and methods and on the classification status of related records or information. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) would also have a compelling need to review any purportedly declassified records as part of the government’s investigation into the adequacy of the response to the May 2022 grand jury subpoena, which sought “[a]ny and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings.” D.E. 48-1 Attachment C (emphasis added). Furthermore, the government would need to consider the records’ prior declassification as relates to the application of 18 U.S.C. § 793. See D.E. 69 at 14 (explaining the relevance of classification status in such matters).

And this:

Plaintiff’s suggestion that he “may have categorized certain of the seized materials as personal [records] during his presidency” pursuant to the PRA, D.E. 84 at 15, if true, would only supply another reason that he cannot assert executive privilege with regard to those records. If Plaintiff truly means to suggest that, while President, he chose to categorize records with markings such as “SECRET” and “TOP SECRET” as his personal records for purposes of the PRA, then he cannot assert that the very same records are protected by executive privilege—i.e., that they are “Presidential communications” made in furtherance of the “performance of his official duties.” Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 447, 456; see 44 U.S.C. § 2201(3) (defining “personal records” as records “of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President”).

And here they take direct aim at the judge:

The Court ordered the appointment of a special master solely to “manage assertions of privilege and make recommendations thereon, and evaluate claims for return of property.” Id. at 23. The Court did not—and could not—appoint a special master to exercise roving “supervisory authority” over the government’s ongoing criminal investigation, contra D.E. 84 at 4, or to adjudicate matters ultimately irrelevant to Plaintiff’s potential privilege claims, such as whether Plaintiff might have declassified seized documents that bear classification markings or whether Plaintiff might have designated those documents as his “personal” records for purposes of the PRA.

Note the phrase "contra D.E. 84 at 4." D.E. 84 at 4 is page 4 of Trump's opposition to the motion for a partial stay (docket entry 84). That's an elegant and concise way of saying this: "Judge, they are arguing that you have power to appoint someone to exercise roving supervisory authority over a federal criminal investigation. You know very well that you don't have that power, and if you try it, even your Trump-loving buddies on the Eleventh Circuit will reverse you."



Of course, it's possible that Judge Cannon is so lost to shame as not to care. We'll see.

I'm betting she denies the motion, but they've built a hell of a record for the appeal.

Actually malicious, no actual malice
@apark2453
How many times do law professors need to play Charlie Brown to Cannon’s Lucy before “oh good grief” turns into comprehension?

Barb McQuade
@BarbMcQuade
Upcoming special master order gives Judge Cannon a chance for a face-saving do-over consistent with the law. She can appoint a special master and limit review to attorney-client privilege.

Here's another bullseye on Judge Cannon, one that would make any ordinary self-respecting judge throw up in her mouth and look for the exits.

In any event, it is Plaintiff—not the Court and not a special master—who would need to make an assertion of executive privilege and supply reasons supporting that assertion. He has provided none.

The former guy residing currently at Bedminster or thereabouts, has he met with his attorneys face to face to discuss the finer details, I mean the attorneys explaining him the legal stuff? Or have they only had phone calls?

chancery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 7:41 pm Here's another bullseye on Judge Cannon, one that would make any ordinary self-respecting judge throw up in her mouth and look for the exits.

In any event, it is Plaintiff—not the Court and not a special master—who would need to make an assertion of executive privilege and supply reasons supporting that assertion. He has provided none.

The court is representing plaintiff. Dunford and others have noted nearly all along.

chancery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 5:04 pm Also today in the search warrant docket before Judge Reinhart, the clerk has filed (Docket No. 128) some papers that were mailed to the court in a Priority Mail envelope with the following return address:

United States Dept. of Treasury.

It begins as follows:

RULE 24(a)(1)(2) MOTION TO INTERVENE

The U.S. Department of the Treasury through the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Marshals Service have arrested Seized Federal Securities containing sensitive documents which are subject to the Defendant Sealed Search Warrant by the F.BI. arrest. See attached U.S.M.-285 arrest warrant under the National Security Act 50 U.S.C. 3162.

Pursuant to Rule24(a)(1)(2) the U.S. Department of the Treasury must
intervene to protect the interest.

Dated 09-08-2022
U.S. DEPARTMENNT [sic] OF THE TREASURY INTERVENOR

I'm more disappointed than surprised that journalist Marcy Wheeler (@emptywheel) fell for this. Emptywheel has a well-deserved reputation for deep and insightful study of federal criminal cases, notably in the Scooter Libby prosecution. But she's not a lawyer, let alone a litigator, and regularly makes interpretation mistakes due to her lack of litigation experience and the judgment that comes with it.

This is an example of a mistake that few lawyers would have made. For one thing, the Treasury Department may not, and would never try to, submit anything to a court except through a lawyer. And a government lawyer would not submit a paper to a federal court through the mail without an explanation of some extraordinary circumstance that prevented electronic filing. Plus, the text is nonsense.

When Trump v. United States was filed, emptywheel went into a frenzy about the fact that the initial docket entry erroneously, and very briefly, described Trump as "pro se." Since the initial pleading states in the opening sentence that Trump is filing it "through his undersigned counsel," and the pleading is in fact signed by a lawyer, this was obviously a clerical e-filing error, and should have been seen as a clerical error of less than zero consequence, even by someone who knew nothing about how non-intuitive, poorly designed, and easy-to-screw-up the CM/ECF electronic filing interface is.

Emptywheel got ugly belligerent when people tried to explain this to her, and kept on it for hours. The next day, long after the docket had been corrected, she switched to the equally bad take of insisting that it was a sign of unique incompetence for Trump's lawyers to have made such a mistake that temporarily screwed up the docket. (Trump's initial lawyers were and are awful bad, but not because of this.)

In fact, as I think bob explained upthread, the "pro se" error was due to a subtle system design problem that few lawyers could have anticipated, arising in a rare context (initiating an "anomalous jurisdiction" proceeding) that most criminal practitioners, even very experienced ones, would likely never encounter in their entire career. And a glance at the ensuing docket sheet reveals how frequently even the best lawyers in the Justice Department -- the most experienced body of litigators in the country -- make electronic filing mistakes.

< Just something I wanted to get off of my chest.>

Empty wheel gets a lot of stuff wrong. I don’t follow her; there are many more credible resources.

Said fake Treasury not only came from Michigan, but most likely this USPS office in Clinton Township, MI (northern burbs of Detroit).

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6082194 ... 384!8i8192

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:27 pm Said fake Treasury not only came from Michigan, but most likely this USPS office in Clinton Township, MI (northern burbs of Detroit).

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6082194 ... 384!8i8192

Do we know where Destry Paine is?

Gregg wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:42 pm

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:27 pm Said fake Treasury not only came from Michigan, but most likely this USPS office in Clinton Township, MI (northern burbs of Detroit).

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6082194 ... 384!8i8192

Do we know where Destry Paine is?

I thought he went to Alaska. When he was in Michigan, he was generally living in places from the Flint area north, in places not far from I-75 that travels up the east side of the state. Clinton Township is in the NE suburbs of Detroit, just west of the Selfridge air base (which is basically along the shore of Lake St. Clair).

Yeah, I'm familiar with metro Detroit, I stay in Livonia or Dearborn when I'm up there. I thought he was from up around Brighton or Greyling but any crazy in Michigan makes me think of him. He's like the branch office of Judge Anna Pop Tart von Zipper.

Yeah, Brighton and Grayling sound correct. I think he was also in Clio, just north of Flint, at some point. Seems like there are many Michigan crazies who like that stretch. Much of the work on the governer kidnap plot was done somewhere along US 23 from Brighton to Flint. There is also Howell, formerly home to the KKK in Michigan.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:25 pm Empty wheel gets a lot of stuff wrong. I don’t follow her; there are many more credible resources.

Thanks, I'm glad to hear your views.

Before emptywheel started popping up in the In re Mar-a-Lago Top Secret and Very Personal Presidential Private Papers proceeding, I'd only glanced very occasionally at her stuff since her prime on Firedoglake.

Is she as consistently bad as Seth Abramson?

chancery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:54 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:25 pm Empty wheel gets a lot of stuff wrong. I don’t follow her; there are many more credible resources.

Thanks, I'm glad to hear your views.

Before emptywheel started popping up in the In re Mar-a-Lago Top Secret and Very Personal Presidential Private Papers proceeding, I'd only glanced very occasionally at her stuff since her prime on Firedoglake.

Is she as consistently bad as Seth Abramson?

I don’t know about “consistently bad,” but I first heard of her back on the Old ‘Bow. The first couple of things I saw led me to conclude that she has a lay-person’s understanding of complex legal matters, but expresses her opinions like she’s an expert.

I don’t recall what it was exactly that turned me off of her, but it had to do with reporting on things that are done as a matter of routine as if they were shocking developments. So I was like, meh.

I never read much on Firedog Lake except for the reporting on the Chelsea Manning court-martial. FDL had a reporter there at every hearing who appeared to accurately report the facts, but didn’t know the first thing about military law, so his conclusions about what it all meant were often erroneous.

Thanks to Gregg and N10 for the Sov Cits Tour Guide Michigan Edition!