2020 Census Citizenship question

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 5872
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#226

Post by neonzx » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:25 pm

Dan1100 wrote:
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
Clarification. The court stated Defendants filed a "Notice of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel"

What is the distinction between filing a "Notice of Motion" vs filing a "Motion"?

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the DOJ and AG Barr. Is this just semantics involved here. I understand they didn't qualify the withdrawal with a proper reason.
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: 2765
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#227

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:32 pm

Here's the entry from Recap for docket #605:
605

Jun 5, 2019

SCHEDULING ORDER terminating 595 Letter Motion to Compel. As discussed on the record at the conference held this afternoon, Plaintiffs shall file any motion for sanctions or other relief (including any request for discovery) and serve it on any party against whom relief is sought by July 12, 2019. Any opposition-whether by Defendants or by any non-party against whom relief is sought-shall be filed by July 26, 2019. Any reply shall be filed by August 2, 2019. At the time any reply is served, Plaintiffs shall deliver or mail one courtesy hard copy of all motion papers to the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 595. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/5/2019) (mro) (Entered: 06/05/2019)
ETA: So it appears that at least the sanctions motion in #605 is related to discovery (probably failing to provide the actual racial reason for the census question, which they got from (I think) the daughter of a consultant who passed away?)

and 617:
617

Jul 5, 2019

ORDER with respect to 616 Motion to Amend Judgment on Remand Pursuant to Rule 59(e) or for Injunctive Relief Pursuant to the All Writs Act. Defendants shall file any opposition to Plaintiffs' motion by July 12, 2019; Plaintiffs shall file any reply by July 16, 2019. The parties shall appear for oral argument on July 23, 2019, at 2:30 p.m. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only Order) (Furman, Jesse) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

Somerset
Posts: 4082
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#228

Post by Somerset » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:32 pm

neonzx wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:25 pm
Dan1100 wrote:
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
Clarification. The court stated Defendants filed a "Notice of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel"

What is the distinction between filing a "Notice of Motion" vs filing a "Motion"?

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the DOJ and AG Barr. Is this just semantics involved here. I understand they didn't qualify the withdrawal with a proper reason.
FWIW, the language in the Judge's order is:
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED — without prejudice to renewal — as to all
counsel other than Mr. Shumate and Ms. LaCour, as to which the motion is GRANTED.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 13238
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#229

Post by Kendra » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:32 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".
Me too :bighug:

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 13238
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#230

Post by Kendra » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:34 pm


On Fox & Friends, Kellyanne Conway argues that including a citizenship question in the US census is really no big deal because the census asks even more "intrusive/invasion" questions, such as "how many toilets [are] in your house" and "who's using them."

Somerset
Posts: 4082
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#231

Post by Somerset » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:36 pm

Kendra wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:34 pm

On Fox & Friends, Kellyanne Conway argues that including a citizenship question in the US census is really no big deal because the census asks even more "intrusive/invasion" questions, such as "how many toilets [are] in your house" and "who's using them."
How about asking of all of those toilets were installed to code?

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2765
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#232

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:37 pm

neonzx wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:25 pm
Dan1100 wrote:
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
Clarification. The court stated Defendants filed a "Notice of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel"

What is the distinction between filing a "Notice of Motion" vs filing a "Motion"?

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the DOJ and AG Barr. Is this just semantics involved here. I understand they didn't qualify the withdrawal with a proper reason.
A "notice" of motion informs the court and the other parties that a motion has been set on the court's docket. It is usually filed with an actual "motion" and does not substitute for a motion. They are two different things. For example, in my state court, we must file an actual court form called "notice of hearing," which is separate from the motion.

The information from the motion quoted by the judge is telling:
On July 8, 2019, Defendants filed a “Notice of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel” advising
the Court that, “going forward,” Defendants “will be represented in this matter by different counsel
from the Department of Justice,” and seeking leave for eleven attorneys from the Department of
Justice — many of whom have represented Defendants since this case began in early 2018 — to
withdraw.
This wording tells us that the judge was not happy that they merely filed a "notice" telling the court what they were going to do. He does also indicate that this "notice" sought "leave" for eleven attorneys to withdraw. The rest of the order explains why this request for "leave" to withdraw was insufficient and not really a motion at all because it didn't provide the information required by the local rule.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3364
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#233

Post by Dan1100 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:37 pm

neonzx wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:25 pm
Dan1100 wrote:
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
Clarification. The court stated Defendants filed a "Notice of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel"

What is the distinction between filing a "Notice of Motion" vs filing a "Motion"?

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the DOJ and AG Barr. Is this just semantics involved here. I understand they didn't qualify the withdrawal with a proper reason.
I was being a little snarky.

It is the lack of reasons and the assumption that it would be granted without reasons that matters, not the title.

I assume the title is wrong but I don't really know that it is.

edit: and what SQL said
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2765
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#234

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:46 pm

Dan1100 wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:37 pm
neonzx wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:25 pm
Dan1100 wrote:
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
Clarification. The court stated Defendants filed a "Notice of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel"

What is the distinction between filing a "Notice of Motion" vs filing a "Motion"?

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the DOJ and AG Barr. Is this just semantics involved here. I understand they didn't qualify the withdrawal with a proper reason.
I was being a little snarky.

It is the lack of reasons and the assumption that it would be granted without reasons that matters, not the title.

I assume the title is wrong but I don't really know that it is.

edit: and what SQL said
Exactly. I think the caption calling it "Notice of Motion" was intentionally misleading. But what really matters is the content, which the judge found wholly inadequate. He called out the name of the motion and their high-handedness for a reason.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 5872
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#235

Post by neonzx » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:52 pm

SLQ wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:37 pm
A "notice" of motion informs the court and the other parties that a motion has been set on the court's docket. It is usually filed with an actual "motion" and does not substitute for a motion. They are two different things.
Again, Obrigado and Thank you. Your insight may help some people.
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: 2765
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#236

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:56 pm

For completeness: Here is the 1-page "Notice of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel" filed by the Dept. of Commerce:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63 ... -commerce/

It starts out with "PLEASE TAKE NOTICE".

And here is the letter response from the Plaintiffs:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63 ... -commerce/

ETA: Those reading the Plaintiff's letter response will recognize that huge chunks of it were incorporated by the judge in his order. That's a win for the Plaintiffs. :thumbs:
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2765
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#237

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:56 pm

neonzx wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:52 pm
SLQ wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:37 pm
A "notice" of motion informs the court and the other parties that a motion has been set on the court's docket. It is usually filed with an actual "motion" and does not substitute for a motion. They are two different things.
Again, Obrigado and Thank you. Your insight may help some people.
De nada.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8041
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#238

Post by RVInit » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:02 pm

:popcorn: Wowza. This is getting good.

So is Barr crapping himself whenever his phone rings in case it might be Trump on the other end thee line? :dance:
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2765
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#239

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:08 pm

RVInit wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:02 pm
:popcorn: Wowza. This is getting good.

So is Barr crapping himself whenever his phone rings in case it might be Trump on the other end thee line? :dance:
Image

:bag: :hitthefan: :shit: :shit: :hitthefan: :bag:
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2765
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#240

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:50 pm

I just noticed something interesting. The "Notice of Motion to Withdraw" was not signed by any of the attorneys who wish to withdraw. Those attorneys are: Kate Bailey, James Burnham, Garrett Coyle, Stephen Ehrlich, Carol Federighi, Joshua Gardner, John Griffiths, Martin Tomlinson, and Carlotta Wells (and the two who have actually left the DOJ or the Civil Division).

No, the "Notice" was signed by Christopher A. Bates, and these other names appeared on the "Notice" as representing the Dept of Commerce, but did not sign the "Notice":

GLENN M. GIRDHARRY
COLIN A. KISOR
CHRISTOPHER R. REIMER
DANIEL A. SCHIFFER

Two of those (Schiffer and Reimer) are new attorneys who filed Notices of Appearance on July 9, the day after the "Notice" was filed. One of them (Bates) seems to have appeared in the case for the first time on July 8, when he signed the "Notice." The other two do not appear to be listed as either existing or new attorneys. This is strange.

This is probably another reason the judge was incensed and required the "withdrawing" attorneys to submit sworn affidavits if they choose to refile this crap motion. Attorneys who withdraw virtually always are the attorneys signing the motion (and submitting supporting affidavits, which they didn't even bother to file). Instead, these new attorneys tried to sweep the "withdrawing" attorneys under the rug.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

chancery
Posts: 1627
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#241

Post by chancery » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:53 pm

The title is not incorrect, due to a quirk in SDNY practice under which a paper captioned "notice of motion" serves most of the purposes of a "motion" under FRCP 7. Filing a separate paper captioned "motion" is a mild gaucherie in almost all circumstances. This practice is not typical of federal courts and may be unique to the federal courts in New York City.

SDNY Local Rule 7 requires motions to be accompanied a separate memorandum and a separate supporting affidavit. Compliance with this rule can result in a set of papers that it unnecessarily verbose and repetitive in the case of routine motions that can be briefly presented and that are typically granted without opposition as a matter of course. If you have a solid familiarity with local practice you will know when you can get away with presenting the grounds for your motion in the notice of motion without including a separate memorandum, and sometimes without including a supporting affidavit, the function of the affidavit being supplied by implicit representations in the notice of motion.

Local Rule 1.4, of which the government lawyers were obviously aware (because of the statement about a charging lien), concerning withdrawal of counsel of record, requires "a showing by affidavit or otherwise of satisfactory reasons for withdrawal" (emphasis added), and I can imagine unusual circumstances where you could get away with omitting an affidavit because the grounds for withdrawal were already clearly on the record.

However, as other members have noted, this notice of motion to withdraw was inadequate as to its substance, and the government lawyers might well have hoped that they could get away with putting as little as possible on the record about the reasons for withdrawal. It didn't work.
SLQ wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:46 pm
Dan1100 wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:37 pm
neonzx wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:25 pm

Clarification. The court stated Defendants filed a "Notice of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel"

What is the distinction between filing a "Notice of Motion" vs filing a "Motion"?

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the DOJ and AG Barr. Is this just semantics involved here. I understand they didn't qualify the withdrawal with a proper reason.
I was being a little snarky.

It is the lack of reasons and the assumption that it would be granted without reasons that matters, not the title.

I assume the title is wrong but I don't really know that it is.

edit: and what SQL said
Exactly. I think the caption calling it "Notice of Motion" was intentionally misleading. But what really matters is the content, which the judge found wholly inadequate. He called out the name of the motion and their high-handedness for a reason.

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3364
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#242

Post by Dan1100 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:59 pm

Probably the plan was to transfer the withdrawing attorneys to the federal misdemeanor docket in Wyoming and then blame them for all the implausible lies so far, in preparation for the new and improved Executive Ordered lie. ( :sarcasm: well maybe just the Wyoming part.)
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2765
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#243

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:13 pm

chancery wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:53 pm
If you have a solid familiarity with local practice you will know when you can get away with presenting the grounds for your motion in the notice of motion without including a separate memorandum, and sometimes without including a supporting affidavit, the function of the affidavit being supplied by implicit representations in the notice of motion.
:snippity:
However, as other members have noted, this notice of motion to withdraw was inadequate as to its substance, and the government lawyers might well have hoped that they could get away with putting as little as possible on the record about the reasons for withdrawal. It didn't work.
Good to know. Thanks.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2765
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#244

Post by SLQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:15 pm

Dan1100 wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:59 pm
Probably the plan was to transfer the withdrawing attorneys to the federal misdemeanor docket in Wyoming and then blame them for all the implausible lies to far, in preparation for the new and improved Executive Ordered lie. ( :sarcasm: well maybe just the Wyoming part.)
Yep. That's what happens to those who demonstrate disloyalty to der trumpenfuhrer by following the law.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 13238
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#245

Post by Kendra » Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:26 pm


This is:
1. Not Normal
2. Notably Angry Even For A Federal Judge
3. Professionally Humiliating
4. Not A Good Sign For the Government's Case

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10185
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#246

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:56 pm

Mass transfers/resignations of some attorneys in the near future?

User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 2736
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:36 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#247

Post by MN-Skeptic » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:26 pm

Well, obviously the judge is wrong in this case. After all, that's what Trump has said:



Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

So now the Obama appointed judge on the Census case (Are you a Citizen of the United States?) won’t let the Justice Department use the lawyers that it wants to use. Could this be a first?
8:44 PM - 9 Jul 2019
MAGA - Morons Are Governing America

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44241
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#248

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:33 am

The method used by the lawyers to withdraw, if signed by them, would be sufficient in California. But it would have been easy to supply a reason to make the withdrawal bulletproof, such as the 10 lawyers assigned to the case were all assigned to other matters, or some such.

To some extent the judge is letting them twist in the wind, quite possibly for the sins of the lawyers' lying clients (Wilbur Ross and Trump, ad their enablers). Since most of those lawyers are careerists, I think it's unfortunate they've been caught in this case, especially if they believed their clients when they made representations as to the need for a decision by June 30th.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#249

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:08 am

Given Trump's tweet, doesn't it appear that the order came from the Offal Office:

"What?! Those lousy DOj lawyers couldn't get it done?! Fire them! Fire them all!! Put in a new team and tell them to get the job done, pronto!"

"But, but, Mr. President …"

"No, no arguments, fire every one of them, they're useless. I need great people working for me. Now I'm going to take a dump and watch Fix & Friends."

I think some earlier comments suggested or implied that lawyers were trying to withdraw for ethical reasons, such ss difficulty with being asked to misbehave. But this – to my uninformed nose – has the stench of Trump on it.

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2765
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Census Citizenship question

#250

Post by SLQ » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:00 am

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:08 am
Given Trump's tweet, doesn't it appear that the order came from the Offal Office:

"What?! Those lousy DOj lawyers couldn't get it done?! Fire them! Fire them all!! Put in a new team and tell them to get the job done, pronto!"

"But, but, Mr. President …"

"No, no arguments, fire every one of them, they're useless. I need great people working for me. Now I'm going to take a dump and watch Fix & Friends."

I think some earlier comments suggested or implied that lawyers were trying to withdraw for ethical reasons, such ss difficulty with being asked to misbehave. But this – to my uninformed nose – has the stench of Trump on it.
According to an NBC News article, that’s exactly what happened:
Attorney General William Barr has said that given the department's decision to press ahead on the issue, "I can understand if they're not interested in participating in this phase."

DOJ officials said privately that Barr acted before the lawyers could officially object to further work on the matter.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... e-n1028026
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”