Trump files lawsuit seeking special master over search at Mar-a-lago

Trump filed this lawsuit seeking a special master to oversee the search of Mar-a-lago.  But he didn't file a motion in the Reinhart case, which is strange.  The lawsuit was filed in West Palm Beach, but was randomly assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon,* the best draw that Trump could have hoped for.  It will be interesting to see whether it is reassigned or referred to Magistrate Judge Reinhart. (The Trump lawyers did not check the box on the civil cover sheet indicating that there was a related case.) 

The case didn't get off to the best of starts for the Trump lawyers as their motions for pro hac were denied for not following the local rules.

* I deleted an earlier post suggesting that the former President was forum shopping by filing in Ft. Pierce.  I was wrong as the case was filed (correctly) in West Palm Beach and just randomly assigned to Judge Cannon.  My apologies.

"Bruce Reinhart unsealed."

 That's the title of this CBS deep dive into Magistrate Judge Reinhart's background since he is presiding over the Trump search warrant litigation.  It's a very positive article for Judge Reinhart.  Here's the start by Arden Farhi and Robert Legare:

The third week of March 2018 was a momentous one for the Reinhart-Bell family. 

That Monday, Florida's then-Governor Rick Scott appointed federal prosecutor Carolyn Bell to serve as a state circuit court judge.

Days later, Bell's husband — Bruce Reinhart — was sworn in as a federal magistrate judge in South Florida, beating out 63 other candidates for the job.

Quite a week, but nothing compared to the week they just had — and perhaps the ones that lie ahead. 

Since Reinhart approved an FBI warrant that authorized a search of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home, he and his family have become the target of violent threats from right-wing internet trolls seeking to discredit and intimidate the judge. 

His address and personal information were posted online. "I see a rope around his neck," wrote one poster on a pro-Trump site. Anti-Semitic threats followed.

"This is truly an awful situation and completely undeserved with someone who is just trying to do his job. And to be personally attacked is just absolutely wrong," said Michelle Suskauer, a family friend of more than 15 years.

Late last week, Reinhart unsealed the search warrant and on Thursday, heard arguments from media organizations and the Justice Department, battling over whether to release the warrant's underlying affidavit. That document explains the government's reason for seeking the search warrant and currently may be the nation's most politically charged pieces of paper.

Reinhart said he was open to unsealing at least some portions of the affidavit and asked the government for suggested redactions.

In the courtroom, a lawyer for media organizations seeking to make the affidavit public told Reinhart, "I get paid to be nosy sometimes." 

"I get paid to say 'no' sometimes," Reinhart quipped. 

Friends and acquaintances say that sort of congenial, yet quick retort is vintage Reinhart. Those who have spoken with him since last week told CBS News he remains unfazed by the political vortex swirling around him and the threats he now faces.

 

 

Judge Reinhart orders government to prepare redactions for search warrant affidavit

 The Miami Herald covers the ruling here:

A federal judge in Florida ordered Thursday that the Justice Department propose redactions to a key document supporting the Aug. 8 search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, opening the door to its disclosure to the public. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart in the Southern District of Florida told the government to propose redactions to the affidavit — which established probable cause that crimes were committed, leading to the search — by noon on Thursday, and said that he is leaning toward unsealing the document with appropriate redactions. “I’m inclined not to seal the entire affidavit,” The judge said.

The Justice Department had asked the court on Monday to keep the affidavit under seal in its entirety, warning that its disclosure could cause “significant and irreparable damage” to its criminal probe. “If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a roadmap to the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a manner that is highly likely to compromise future investigative steps,” the government argued. “This investigation implicates highly classified materials.”

Judge Newsom, concurring, asks whether the categorial approach has "jumped the shark."

 

Here's the opinion.  For those of you who don't get the reference, here's a link the wiki page on it.

Gotta love it.

When will the actual search warrant affidavit get unsealed?

 That's really the most important document, by far.  It has the justification -- or the explanation of probable cause -- for the search.  

Meantime, the insane attacks on Magistrate Judge Reinhart have led to renewed calls for extra security for judges.  From Reuters:

The federal judiciary is renewing calls for Congress to pass a stalled bill aimed at bolstering judges' security after the magistrate judge who signed off on a warrant authorizing an FBI search of Donald Trump's Florida home became the subject of online threats.

The chair of a key judiciary security committee and the president of the Federal Judges Association in separate remarks on Thursday pushed for the bill after U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart became the target of a wave of violent, anti-Semitic threats.

***

That legislation, the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, was named for the deceased son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed in an attack at the New Jersey judge's home in July 2020 by a disgruntled lawyer.

That bill would allow federal judges to redact personal information displayed on government websites and bar people and businesses from publishing such information online if they have made a written request not to do so.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the bill on a bipartisan 22-0 vote in December, but attempts to quickly pass it unanimously in the Senate have been blocked by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who says it should also cover members of Congress.

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Clifton, the president of the Federal Judges Association, in an interview said with time running out in the current Congress to pass the bill, judges are being encouraged to contact their local lawmakers.

"The news of the last few days underscores the concern that we have," said Clifton, who former Republican President George W. Bush appointed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Reinhart Orders Unsealing of Search Warrant and attachments

 By John R. Byrne

 Hot off the presses. Here's the order. The inventory of the seized items will remain redacted. Here are the unsealed materials.

Here's a write up from the Sun Sentinel. But some notable items described in the property receipt include an "Executive Grant of Clemency re: Roger Jason Stone, Jr.,""Info re: President of France," and numerous entries for "Miscellaneous Top Secret Documents."

Motion to unseal search warrant

 Here's the motion, signed by the U.S. Attorney (Tony Gonzalez) and Jay Bratt, the Chief of the Counterintelligence section.

Just filed in the Mar-a-Lago warrant case: “UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO UNSEAL LIMITED WARRANT MATERIALS” pic.twitter.com/YK5DEkVwjc

— Andrew Solender (@AndrewSolender) August 11, 2022

NACDL hosting its annual meeting in West Palm Beach

 And it's been renamed the Albert Krieger annual meeting, which is very cool.

Other news:

1.  Trump takes 5.  Get ready for all of the bad 5th Amendment takes.

2. If the government moves to dismiss 4 counts so that the defendant can plead guilty to the remaining count, can the district court deny that motion?  Nope, says the 8th Circuit (but it can reject the plea to the remaining count).  From the opinion (h/t Sentencing Law & Policy):

The district court had strong views about what charges fit Tiffany Bernard’s crimes. It rejected both her plea agreement and a motion by the government to dismiss four of the five counts in the indictment. The latter ruling went too far, which is why we reverse and remand with instructions to grant the government’s motion....

The parties frame the issue around Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), which permits the government, “with leave of [the] court,” to dismiss “an indictment, information, or complaint.”...

Even if the government had to get “leave of [the] court,” it is no blank check for second-guessing charging decisions. To the contrary, “[f]ew subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding . . . whether to dismiss a proceeding once brought.” United States v. Jacobo-Zavala, 241 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). For that reason, although the district court has some discretion in this area, it “is sharply limited by the separation of powers balance inherent in Rule 48(a).” Id. at 1011–12....

For a dismissal to be “clearly contrary to manifest public interest,” the prosecutor must have had an illegitimate motive rising to the level of bad faith. See United States v. Rush, 240 F.3d 729, 730–31 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted); United States v. Smith, 55 F.3d 157, 159 (4th Cir. 1995).  Examples include the “acceptance of a bribe, personal dislike of the victim, and dissatisfaction with the jury impaneled.”  Smith, 55 F.3d at 159. Anything less is not enough. See In re United States, 345 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2003) (explaining that district courts do not get to “play[] U.S. Attorney”).

Here, the district court merely “disagreed with the prosecutor’s assessment of what penalty the defendant[] ought to face.” Jacobo-Zavala, 241 F.3d at 1014. Rather than addressing whether the prosecutor acted in bad faith, the court just listed the reasons it thought Bernard was getting off too easy: she was “very dangerous” and “by far the most culpable”; Alaniz suffered life-threatening injuries; and a “conviction for robbery alone strip[ped] the [c]ourt of any ability to sentence [her] to a just punishment.”  These may be important factors to consider at sentencing, but they are not reasons to interfere with the government’s charging decisions, no matter how much the court may disagree with them.