2020 Census Citizenship question

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 22043
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#201

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:46 pm

:doh: i would dearly have been a fly on the wall when dotus ordered the DOJ to fire the team. And now all need to stay and fight for a lost cause. Who will motivate them to bring really new arguments? :blackeye:

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 14239
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#202

Post by Kendra » Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:51 pm

RTH10260 wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:46 pm
:doh: i would dearly have been a fly on the wall when dotus ordered the DOJ to fire the team. And now all need to stay and fight for a lost cause. Who will motivate them to bring really new arguments? :blackeye:
Bet they're wishing they had been fired at the star with Preet and the rest of them. Look how well they are doing on the news shows and podcasts.I

Edit: typo.

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6234
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#203

Post by neonzx » Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:55 pm

RTH10260 wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:46 pm
:doh: i would dearly have been a fly on the wall when dotus ordered the DOJ to fire the team. And now all need to stay and fight for a lost cause. Who will motivate them to bring really new arguments? :blackeye:
How many DOJ attorneys were on the first string team that walked/were fired/ran really fast? 2-3? 6-8? I know there are confidentiality agreements and all such legal stuff but I expect something to leak.
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1834
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#204

Post by much ado » Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:56 pm

It looks like the original DOJ counsel have completely lost their enthusiasm for continuing this farce. This will be really interesting to watch. I hope they are forced to admit things that the AG and OSG do not want admitted.

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3525
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#205

Post by Dan1100 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:04 pm

Apparently the judge is not amused.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... e-jxwbmarr
Census Judge Denies Trump Administration's Bid for New Team
By Bob Van Voris
and Erik Larson
July 9, 2019, 4:22 PM CDT Updated on July 9, 2019, 4:34 PM CDT

A federal judge rejected a request by the Trump administration to assign a new legal team to a lawsuit that blocked the U.S. from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan called the government’s request “patently deficient,” adding that the U.S. had provided “no reasons, let alone ’satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel."

Government officials have been searching for a way to insert the citizenship question on the census following a Supreme Court ruling that put the administration’s plan on hold because its rationale for the query was “contrived.” The forms for the once-a-decade headcount must be prepared soon to meet the deadline for 2020.

*****

The Justice Department’s "mere expectation that withdrawal of current counsel will not cause any disruption is not good enough," Furman wrote in an order on Tuesday..
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6234
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#206

Post by neonzx » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:05 pm

much ado wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:56 pm
It looks like the original DOJ counsel have completely lost their enthusiasm for continuing this farce. This will be really interesting to watch. I hope they are forced to admit things that the AG and OSG do not want admitted.
I don't completely understand when an attorney can withdraw. I know there are general reasons (conflict of interest, client not cooperating and ignoring advice, etc). But these are government lawyers, not private practice. And the judge is not letting them step-off the case. How does this play out?
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2924
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#207

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:12 pm

neonzx wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:05 pm
much ado wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:56 pm
It looks like the original DOJ counsel have completely lost their enthusiasm for continuing this farce. This will be really interesting to watch. I hope they are forced to admit things that the AG and OSG do not want admitted.
I don't completely understand when an attorney can withdraw. I know there are general reasons (conflict of interest, client not cooperating and ignoring advice, etc). But these are government lawyers, not private practice. And the judge is not letting them step-off the case. How does this play out?
The problem is that in federal court, the attorney must submit a motion to the court, and the court must order the withdrawal. Here's a copy of the judge's order, which explains why he won't let them out (at least not until they give him a better excuse). Turns out they didn't even file a motion, just a notice. That's not OK.

"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1834
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#208

Post by much ado » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:14 pm

SLQ wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:12 pm
neonzx wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:05 pm
much ado wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:56 pm
It looks like the original DOJ counsel have completely lost their enthusiasm for continuing this farce. This will be really interesting to watch. I hope they are forced to admit things that the AG and OSG do not want admitted.
I don't completely understand when an attorney can withdraw. I know there are general reasons (conflict of interest, client not cooperating and ignoring advice, etc). But these are government lawyers, not private practice. And the judge is not letting them step-off the case. How does this play out?
The problem is that in federal court, the attorney must submit a motion to the court, and the court must order the withdrawal. Here's a copy of the judge's order, which explains why he won't let them out. Turns out they didn't even file a motion, just a notice. That's not OK.

:snippity:
Whose idea was it to file a notice, not a motion? Where did they get their law degree? Doesn't the DOJ know how courts work?

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10422
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#209

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:18 pm

much ado wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:14 pm
SLQ wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:12 pm
neonzx wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:05 pm

I don't completely understand when an attorney can withdraw. I know there are general reasons (conflict of interest, client not cooperating and ignoring advice, etc). But these are government lawyers, not private practice. And the judge is not letting them step-off the case. How does this play out?
The problem is that in federal court, the attorney must submit a motion to the court, and the court must order the withdrawal. Here's a copy of the judge's order, which explains why he won't let them out. Turns out they didn't even file a motion, just a notice. That's not OK.

:snippity:
Whose idea was it to file a notice, not a motion? Where did they get their law degree? Doesn't the DOJ know how courts work?
Only the best people!

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6234
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#210

Post by neonzx » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:21 pm

Oi, thank you.

I've seen many cases where attorneys have filed a MOTION to withdraw and provided their reason(s). I missed the part here that it was filed as a NOTICE.
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#211

Post by Orlylicious » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:24 pm

SLQ, thank you so much, I really learn a lot and enjoy your posts! :bighug:

This is hilarious, they are so incompetent. Just watching Preet Bahara talking to Wolf Blitzer. He's saying the judge wants the reasons under oath and that it sends a signal to the other lawyers at DOJ to knock off the "poor and pretextual reasons".
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3525
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#212

Post by Dan1100 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:25 pm

much ado wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:14 pm
SLQ wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:12 pm
neonzx wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:05 pm

I don't completely understand when an attorney can withdraw. I know there are general reasons (conflict of interest, client not cooperating and ignoring advice, etc). But these are government lawyers, not private practice. And the judge is not letting them step-off the case. How does this play out?
The problem is that in federal court, the attorney must submit a motion to the court, and the court must order the withdrawal. Here's a copy of the judge's order, which explains why he won't let them out. Turns out they didn't even file a motion, just a notice. That's not OK.

:snippity:
Whose idea was it to file a notice, not a motion? Where did they get their law degree? Doesn't the DOJ know how courts work?
More interesting, who were the people who knew better and sat in the room and said, "Sounds like a great idea Mr. Barr"?
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2924
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#213

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:26 pm

And, hoo boy! Although the judge clearly stated they could file a renewed MOTION, he is requiring the attorneys who wish to withdraw to submit an affidavit stating satisfactory reasons for their withdrawal. And :hitthefan: to state in that affidavit (i.e. under oath) that they submit to the jurisdiction of the court regarding the upcoming sanctions motion and will be available to answer to that motion.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2924
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#214

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:28 pm

Orlylicious wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:24 pm
SLQ, thank you so much, I really learn a lot and enjoy your posts! :bighug:

This is hilarious, they are so incompetent. Just watching Preet Bahara talking to Wolf Blitzer. He's saying the judge wants the reasons under oath and that it sends a signal to the other lawyers at DOJ to knock off the "poor and pretextual reasons".
Back at ya. :bighug: (Ninja'd -- see my post below.)
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2924
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#215

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:29 pm

neonzx wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:21 pm
Oi, thank you.

I've seen many cases where attorneys have filed a MOTION to withdraw and provided their reason(s). I missed the part here that it was filed as a NOTICE.
That wasn't obvious from the post upthread with Klasfeld's tweet.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2924
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#216

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:30 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:18 pm
much ado wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:14 pm
SLQ wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:12 pm

The problem is that in federal court, the attorney must submit a motion to the court, and the court must order the withdrawal. Here's a copy of the judge's order, which explains why he won't let them out. Turns out they didn't even file a motion, just a notice. That's not OK.

:snippity:
Whose idea was it to file a notice, not a motion? Where did they get their law degree? Doesn't the DOJ know how courts work?
Only the best people!
:thumbs:
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2924
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#217

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:31 pm

Dan1100 wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:25 pm
much ado wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:14 pm
Whose idea was it to file a notice, not a motion? Where did they get their law degree? Doesn't the DOJ know how courts work?
More interesting, who were the people who knew better and sat in the room and said, "Sounds like a great idea Mr. Barr"?
People who live by the adage that "it's better to seek forgiveness than permission," regardless of the court rules.

ETA: And people who know that a statement of "I'm withdrawing because I can't defend the president's position" would be required to file a proper motion.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3525
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#218

Post by Dan1100 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:34 pm

SLQ wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:31 pm
Dan1100 wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:25 pm
much ado wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:14 pm
Whose idea was it to file a notice, not a motion? Where did they get their law degree? Doesn't the DOJ know how courts work?
More interesting, who were the people who knew better and sat in the room and said, "Sounds like a great idea Mr. Barr"?
People who live by the adage that "it's better to seek forgiveness than permission," regardless of the court rules.
I was thinking it was people who wanted their boss to look like a fool.
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10422
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#219

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:43 pm

SLQ wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:26 pm
And, hoo boy! Although the judge clearly stated they could file a renewed MOTION, he is requiring the attorneys who wish to withdraw to submit an affidavit stating satisfactory reasons for their withdrawal. And :hitthefan: to state in that affidavit (i.e. under oath) that they submit to the jurisdiction of the court regarding the upcoming sanctions motion and will be available to answer to that motion.
I thought I was following this but who/what sanctions?

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 22043
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#220

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:44 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:18 pm
much ado wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:14 pm
SLQ wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:12 pm

The problem is that in federal court, the attorney must submit a motion to the court, and the court must order the withdrawal. Here's a copy of the judge's order, which explains why he won't let them out. Turns out they didn't even file a motion, just a notice. That's not OK.

:snippity:
Whose idea was it to file a notice, not a motion? Where did they get their law degree? Doesn't the DOJ know how courts work?
Only the best people!
Or the Deep State, knowing that the wrong format will buy them extra time to solve the riddle in their own rows :brickwallsmall:

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 22043
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#221

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:47 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:43 pm
SLQ wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:26 pm
And, hoo boy! Although the judge clearly stated they could file a renewed MOTION, he is requiring the attorneys who wish to withdraw to submit an affidavit stating satisfactory reasons for their withdrawal. And :hitthefan: to state in that affidavit (i.e. under oath) that they submit to the jurisdiction of the court regarding the upcoming sanctions motion and will be available to answer to that motion.
I thought I was following this but who/what sanctions?
Does the judge expect plaintiffs to file such a motion cause switching out a whole team with knowledge of the issues will bring delays in an important matter?

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2924
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#222

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:47 pm

It's not super clear from the order (which I linked above), but the judge said in his order that the plaintiffs have indicated in a filing at Doc. 616 (and also at Doc. 605 in this case or the related case) that they will be filing a motion for sanctions soon. I haven't gone to Pacer and looked up the documents to see what they are.

ETA: I'll copy the language from the order and be right back.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27052
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#223

Post by bob » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:00 pm

"If you don't want to countenance the president's next plausible lie, you'll need a plausible lie as to why you are withdrawing."
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2924
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#224

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:01 pm

Judge Furman mentioned the sanctions motion in two places. First, on page 2:
Measured against those standards, Defendants' motion is patently deficient (except as to Brett Shumate and Alice LaCour, who have left the Department of Justice and the Civil Division, receptively.) Defendants provide no reasons, let alone "satisfactory reasons," for the substitution of counsel. Local Civ. R. 1.4. And as to the second factor, Defendants' mere "expect(ation) that withdrawal of counsel will [not] cause any disruption" is not good enough, particularly given the circumstances of this case: Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' most recent motion to due in just three days, see 18-CV-2921, Docket No 617; Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for sanctions is due later this month, see 18-CV-2921, Docket No. 605; and, in the event that Defendants seek to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire based upon a "new rationale," 18-CV-2921, Docket No. 613, time would plainly be of the essence in any further litigation relating to that decision, see id. (acknowledging the need for "expedit[ed] litigation" . . . [remainder obscured by twitter stuff].
and again on page 3:
Any new motion to withdraw shall be supported by a signed and sworn affidavit from each counsel seeking to withdraw (1) stating "satisfactory reasons" for withdrawing at this stage of the litigation and (2) in light of Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for sanctions, see Docket No 616, at 4 n.2, confirming that (a) he or she submits to the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to that motion and any future motions (or orders to show cause) regarding sanctions and (b) he or she will be available in the event that the Court requires his or her attendance at any future hearings regarding such motions or orders. In the event any new motion is filed, new counsel for Defendants shall also file an affidavit providing unequivocal assurances that the substitution of counsel will not delay further litigation of this case (or any future related case.)
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3525
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#225

Post by Dan1100 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:16 pm

Link to better copy of Order on "Notice" to Withdraw.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... Order.html
July-9-2019-Memorandum-Opinion-and-Order.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”