By David Oscar Markus
Sorry to write over Jordi's post below, but woooooweeeeee, this is a doozy and I wanted to get it out there. I can't do Judge Williams' order justice in a short post, so you'll just have to read it here.
The conclusion:
John Adams warned, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Thus, whatever may be the Parties’ wishes, inclinations, or the dictates of their passion, they cannot alter the state of the facts or evade the rule of law. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ concern, the Court did not have to “sally forth” to look for a wrong to right. See DE 89 at 17 (citing Margolin v. Nat’l Ass’n of Immig. Judges, 608 U.S. __ (2026)). The Court need only look to the uncontroverted facts here:
1. Donald Trump is President.
2. President Trump controls the actions of the Secretary of the Treasury Department Scott Bessent, IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, and all Executive Branch actors.
3. President Trump, through Executive Order § 7, also controls the litigation strategy and interpretation of the laws guiding the Department of Justice. See supra note 28.
4. For the 109 days that this case was pending, no attorney representing the United States filed a notice of appearance or any document indicating the government’s position, interest, or awareness of this matter.
5. Defendants’ actions are consonant with the dictates of Executive Order § 7.
These facts lead to the inexorable conclusion that the “settlement” terms, the individuals who signed the “settlement” as well as the putative beneficiaries of the “settlement,” demonstrate a shared, unitary interest. And the unilateral revision and renunciation of the “Fund” component of the “settlement” demonstrate the fact that all Parties were aligned, and ultimately, undifferentiated. This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law. The President may be the functional “dominus litus” of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this Court must discharge in light of the matter before it.
In sum, the facts before this Court demonstrate there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail.
And MSN's coverage is here:
A Florida federal judge in a blistering order on Monday said that President Donald Trump had filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service "for an improper purpose" — to gain the appearance of "judicial legitimacy" for a controversial settlement with the Justice Department that briefly led to the creation of a $1.8 billion fund to compensate purported victims of prosecutorial misconduct.
Judge Kathleen William referred Trump's lawyer in the lawsuit, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida bar for consideration on whether Brito should be disciplined in light of the findings in the new order.
Williams also ordered that a copy of her ruling be mailed to the State Bar of New York, of which Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is a member, as well as to the District of Columbia Bar, of which Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward is a member.
A spokesman for Trump's legal team, which includes Brito, in a statement responding to the order, said, "The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to the New York Times, ProPublica and other left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of people."
2 comments:
Sadly, because Murphy's Law saw this case assigned to Judge Williams, we can just cue the chorus of "liberal judge," "Obama appointee," etc. that will allow folks to completely cover their eyes and ears (and hold their noses) to all the facts here, without any need to even confront or reinterpret them.
On that note, who was the poor paralegal who accidentally clicked "Miami division" when filing this complaint? No obvious reason for it to be a Miami case, and picking S.D. Fla. at all was obviously an attempt to get Cannon (again).
Order also sanctions attorney Daniel Epstein. Epstein was recently appointed interim Dean of FIU Law school. https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/article316346665.html
Post a Comment