By David Oscar Markus
An attorney named Katherine Giannamore leaked a judicial complaint against Judge Roy Altman to Above the Law a few weeks ago. It generated a bunch of whisper buzz among the legal community, which was of course the purpose of leaking it.
Judge Altman issued a response, which is typically kept confidential. But he asked Chief Judge Pryor to make it public since the leaker's complaint was out there. Judge Pryor agreed to make the response and his order public, which can be accessed here. The conclusion from the Order dismissing the Complaint:
"Based on these Canons, the Complaint fails to present a basis for a finding of misconduct. The Complaint makes allegations lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that Judge Altman exhibited bias, made inappropriate statements, violated the Code of Conduct, or otherwise engaged in misconduct, and the limited inquiry "demonstrates that allegations in the complaint lack any factual foundation or are conclusively refuted by objective evidence."
"A lie travels half-way around the world before the truth puts its shoes on in the morning." That quote (or similar versions) have wrongly been attributed to Mark Twain. Whoever said it, it's especially true in this era of social media, email, and the like. So when Above the Law posted the complaint, Judge Altman was wrongly -- and quickly -- smeared. I have followed Above the Law since David Lat founded it many years ago. It's a fun website that posts interesting topics. I hope it posts this Order and Altman's response so that the false accusations against Altman get the same airtime.
51 comments:
Above the Law has gone totally into the toilet since Lat departed. It actually began when it was still his website when he hired a bunch of radical failed lawyers as contributors and a "general counsel expert" who thought he was a political pundit.
Nothing on above the law as of yet...
David Lat writes a very interesting and informative Substack now called Original Jurisdiction. Above the Law though is primarily articles by Joe Patrice where he gives his opinion on various legal issues except his opinion is worthless and in this case, defamatory. But I suppose in today’s world Patrice qualifies as a “journalist”. On the other hand, what’s with this lawyer that filed the complaint that’s littered with false allegations. Of course in our click bait society, people latched on to what she wrote but she ought to seek a different line of work given her inability to be truthful.
Does a “not guilty”’equal innocence?
The keffiyeh is a symbol of Palestine and Palestinian identity. When protesters against Israel's actions wear it, whether or not they are Palestinian or Muslim, they are not saying they support terrorism. They are saying they support Palestinians. Altman says that "often" the same protesters say things like Globalize the Intifada, By Any Means Necessary, or From the River to the Sea and Altman views those phrases as supporting terrorism. But that nuance (the terrorism is not the keffiyeh its the speech) is absent from what he acknowledges he actually said, which is simply that the keffiyeh is a terrorism scarf. That is an unequivocally racist thing to say, it reduces Palestinian and Terrorist to synonyms, and Altman is just pretending he said something else to avoid that reality.
His defense of the Hamas beheaded babies statement is weak at best. He says he didn't say that Hamas beheaded 40 babies on 10/7 he just said Hamas beheads babies and then says there is "plenty of evidence [the Hamas beheads babies claim] is true." But there isn't, and he doesn't provide any. He cites two sources, one is the UN Human Rights Council report on 10/7 at paragraphs 119-127. Those paragraphs describe Hamas operatives decapitating adults and a 12-year-old during 10/7, but nothing whatsoever about beheading babies, the factual claim it is being cited to support. His other source is a Jerusalem Post news story from 10/20/23, which I could not locate online with the date and title he cites, but again the Israeli government itself says there is no evidence to support that Hamas beheaded any babies on 10/7. The Jerusalem Post does not have some secret source that Netanyahu doesn't have. This was a big issue at the time as Israel was just mounting its Gaza offensive which was obviously going to kill and displace a lot of people and was justifying it internationally, Biden even repeated this rumor that was all over the place and had to walk it back almost 3 years ago now. This has been debunked a long time ago and surely anyone who follows the issues as closely as Altman knew that.
Altman could easily make his points about the evil of Hamas and horrors of 10/7 without resorting to false accusations of the type most likely to affect his audience emotionally--but he is going for precisely that emotional response, and even when called out he refuses to admit he is factually wrong.
I don't think he should be removed from the bench or anything. He has his right to his viewpoint on the conflict. I simply don't think he should be using racist language from chambers in political videos justifying Israel's actions, or knowingly repeating false sensationalist allegations and refusing to back down and acknowledge the truth when called on it. I thought the whole point of Israel on Trial was to use a rigorous fact-based legal analysis, Altman's response does not qualify as to either the terrorist scarves or baby-beheading issues.
Many of us admire Ms. Giannamore and the courage she displayed by writing the complaint. Judge Altman consistently cannot find the time to schedule a combined change of plea and sentencing for a person charged with illegally entering this county, while simultaneously speaking on podcasts, etc. during work hours. I hope that one day we will look back, and understand that Judge Altman's narrative is one of hate, prejudice, and propaganda.
Being in the SDFL/11th circuit long enough, it's disappointing but not surprising to see this result. But to see this blog become a vehicle for racist propaganda in support of a judge who is essentially a second AUSA in the courtroom is truly beyond the pale.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DY8Jd2ZFhJu/?igsi=dnp5OW1ycTZiaXJl
Judge Altman's rebuttal claims the ethical standard for improper use of judicial office requires the bench or robes to appear directly in media. That is not what Canon 4(G) says. It addresses use of judicial chambers, resources, or staff. But even by his own incorrect standard, he amplified an Ami Magazine cover — part of his book tour — depicting him in judicial robes at what appears to be a courtroom bench under the banner "Federal Judge ROY K. ALTMAN: Israel on Trial."
Why does he get to make unfettered racist remarks?
Maybe he can get sent to Africa
I’m a lawyer who happens to be Jewish. I have appeared before Judge Altman many times and tried two cases before him. I happen to have views much different than him on certain aspects of the tragedies of what occurred on October 7 and the subsequent invasion of Gaza. But I respect Judge Altman and do not believe he would be anything but fair to any litigant of any racial or ethnic or religious background. Being the very best judge he can be is too important to him. As is the simple concept of being fair to everyone who appears in his courtroom. He applies the law without favor or bias. He makes a compelling case for his personal views and the lawyer who filed the complaint took a very cheap shot at him without engaging in fully understanding what he was saying and why. I applaud his handling of this but I am not in any way surprised. I’d offer to debate him on certain things except it would take several hundred hours for me to obtain a command of the facts as I have seen him exhibit in his public appearances. We need more judges like him. I’m proud he’s from the SDFL.
Strongly agree. It’s a shame.
This “response” is typical Altman. Zero mea culpa, double down, I’m always right. I’m just glad the legal community is catching on and the complaint was filed. It needed to be said. The appearance of impropriety with him is constant
anyone else know about Altman keeping everyone in court til 12:30 AM in his last criminal trial to get a verdict because he was headed out of town on another speaking engagement the next day? Staff didn’t get home til 1 AM… but please keep telling me how great he is
My favorite part of the opinion is where Judge Pryor says that Altman made various assertions and then “cited sources.” Ah yes, we all know that as long as you can cite a source, you can’t be held to account for misinformation you spread. Many people are saying that.
Unfortunately it was a missed opportunity. If the complainant had gotten her underlying facts right it would have warranted a more thorough investigation
Couldn't say it better myself. And surely, the author has no motive for brown-nosing Altman...
These are excellent points. On the two most important allegations, Altman's support is so thin that he would reject his own argument in 30 seconds flat if it were someone else making it.
And that's why I don't even need to read Israel on Trial to know it's more of the same garbage. The point isn't to use a rigorous fact-based legal analysis - it's to use his position as a judge to give propaganda a judicial imprimatur.
It's not defamatory because the two allegations that made it into Above the Law turn out to be true.
Regardless of whether he's impartial in the courtroom and works hard at being a judge, his actions give rise to the appearance of impropriety.
A judge simply has no business being a career whitewasher of genocide, especially from chambers. And forget the legalisms in his book -- as another Jew, I'll say it: it's a genocide.
Also, even if he's not discriminatory towards muslims (btw, how convenient that he had that list ready to go -- certainly doesn't seem odd that he was tracking parties' religions....) his laughable response to the beheaded babies point (citing a source that simply just doesn't back up his claim) -- and his propagandizing writ large -- show that he is very ready to let a preferred outcome, rather than impartiality, drive his decision-making. That's an issue that extends across other contexts.
and the sources are Israel advocacy groups and his own op-ed
To be fair to DOM although i think he’s clearly wrong he independently believes Israel is in the right re Gaza and has independently said so publicly. And he does allow critical comments on the issue when he could very easily just let them go unheard. Having a forum to have the discussion is important and he is under no obligation to provide it and does.
"whitewasher of genocide." Really written by a lawyer. Please point me to any court that has ruled that Israel's actions in Gaza are genocide under the legal standard. Or do lawyers now believe that unproven legal claims made in the public now adjudicate legal disputes. I am not posting anonymously and challenge the lawyer that wrote that statement to show any court that has considered all of the evidence and determined those highly inflammatory claims to be true. If you cannot, then please retract the statement.
Has any court ruled that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are a genocide? At least an attempted genocide? I’m not the lawyer who wrote the post, but I don’t think you need a court to rule before expressing an opinion on a blog that a genocide is underway.
On the topic of genocide, "Israel continues to commit genocide, atrocity crimes by deliberately targeting Palestinian children, UN independent commission finds": https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/06/1167790
It's very sad to see someone (or many someones; its impossible to tell given the anonymity) hiding under the "Anonymous" label, which allows the spewing of all sorts of ugly and false accusations such as "hate," "prejudice," and "racist" while concealing oneself. Very brave.
Telling is the comment that Mr./Ms. "Anonymous" "knows" Israel on Trial is filled with "garbage" without reading it and declaring it "propaganda." Maybe you should read it; I did and it contains a plethora of carefully-cited factual support in each section that you can check yourself. I sure hope Mr./Ms. "Anonymous" making that comment isn't a lawyer; I would fear for any client that has to rely on that level of "rigorous" legal analysis for their representation.
Judge Altman has authored many insightful and well-written decisions (has anyone anonymously commenting read any of them?) and has been considered by many attorneys over the years to be the best the S.D. Fla. has to offer. And yes, being a lawyer myself, I've actually had those discussions with identifiable, non-anonymous folks who practice in federal court and before Judge Altman.
So the UN independent commission is now a court? Show me a court that has heard evidence and adjudicated the legal issue of genocide. Not a biased organization that every year for decades now sanctions Israel tenfold more than any other nation on earth.
If your standard is that one should not call something “genocide” unless a court has heard the evidence and adjudicated the legal issue of genocide, then that standard needs to be applied consistently.
Nuremberg heard extensive evidence concerning the Holocaust, but it did not convict anyone of the legal crime of genocide. The term appeared in the prosecution's indictment, but the tribunal's judgment convicted defendants of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Moreover, the Genocide Convention wasn't adopted until 1948.
Yet we quite properly describe the Holocaust as a genocide based on the historical evidence and the subsequent development of international genocide law.
So which is it? Is a court judgment actually a prerequisite for calling an event genocide, or isn't it?
If it isn't, then you can't demand a court judgment as a prerequisite for describing Russia's actions in Ukraine—or Israel's actions in Gaza—as genocide while accepting the Holocaust as genocide without such a judgment.
And to be clear, this isn't an argument that the Holocaust wasn't a genocide. It's an argument about applying the evidentiary standard consistently. If historical evidence can establish genocide without a court judgment, then that's a principle that has to be available to evaluate contemporary cases too.
I'm pretty sure Jesus wore a keffiyeh. The problem with Altman's "Israel on Trial", it conflicts with G-d and the Torah. The Jewish People are in exile and forbidden to return to Israel or to create a Jewish sovereignty. G-d has not called his people back to Israel, or called them to create a Jewish sovereignty anywhere else. Altman is just another lawyer who has harmed the Jewish People. Some say it began with Theodor Herzl, a Hungarian Jewish journalist and lawyer who was the father of modern political Zionism. It continued in Germany, with Nazi lawyer Wilhelm Frick and his ilk. Fortunately enough Jews reject Israel, and remain in exile, to guarantee the survival of the Jewish People until G-d ends their exile. Currently Mike Huckabee is ambassador to Israel, and his Christian Evangelical followers are awaiting The Rapture, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. How does that scenario end for the Israelis? Trump attacked Iran on behalf of Netanyahu. What will Trump (or his successor) do to defend the Israelis from the Second Coming? Kill Jesus? (again?). Or is all religion just a neurosis?
4:33 you are quite right that in the Nuremberg Trials in 1945-1946 they did not convict of a crime that didn’t even exist until 1948. I can’t find any cases dealing with cell phone searches from back then either. I wonder why.
The word “genocide” was specifically created and added to the dictionary because of the Holocaust. But to say no one was convicted of the legal crime when the legal crime didn’t even exist is a pretty shameful argument.
Love the post. But then the source.in your argument is still the written word of God, to wit the Torah. The biological problem is Jewish is a distinct identity you can usually see (not with Altman) so they must be from the same tribe somewhere. Most of us kept our general original tribal locations or at least have some approximately similar place to go back to where we look and feel like the majority. Where we feel protected. Jews don’t have that without Israel. And with minority status and no safe country they were genocided and the rest of the world cares a lot more now than it did when it was happening about that genocide. The US fought WWII for totally different reasons, liberating the Jews was a consequence of winning not the goal. Jews don’t have a good experience of being protected as a minority. So I get why they want Israel.
That doesn’t mean they or the world had the right to take it from the people who lived there. And it certainly means that 75 years later a reasonable accommodation with Palestinians should be reached.
Literally said, "...but the tribunal's judgment convicted defendants of crimes against humanity and war crimes"
So when a person learned what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, they should not have called it a genocide? It hadn't yet been determined by a court to be one. It was a genocide, Gaza is a (less bad, but only because its being compared to THE HOLOCAUST) genocide, both aim to extinguish a minority and purify a country of evil within it, justified because otherwise (the leader believes or at least sells the people) the enemy will surely destroy it.
@5:59 PM. A reasonable accommodation with the Palestinians was reached, the Oslo Accords (September 13, 1993), with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, President of Palestine and the PLA, with the help of U.S. President Bill Clinton. Then on November 4, 1995, Yigal Amir assassinated Rabin, ending peace with the Palestinians. Yigal Amir was an Israeli law student. Yes, I know firsthand the argument that Jews believe they need Israel as a place to run to for safety. But that is a false argument based on victimhood, and is counterintuitive. The Jewish People survived Nazi Germany because many were in exile. The problem: Israel cannot protect its Jewish residents. Rob Eshman of The Forward wrote December 12, 2023, Israel is no safe haven. "There is no more ridiculous place to say, "Were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world that is safe," than at the annual White House Hanukkah celebration."
https://forward.com/opinion/573254/biden-israel-safe-haven-jews/
Israel and the people now running the country are a clear and present danger to themselves, the Jewish People worldwide, and now the United States, with the failing Iran War. There is a faction in Israel who cannot be satiated: Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, Smotrich and Jonathan Pollard, the American-born Israeli spy. Israel now has another "enemy", the so-called ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel, the Haredi or Hasidic Jews, who refuse to join the IDF, and who have large families who rely on government support. Ironically this group of Jews is oppressed in Israel.
The Last Day of Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgpOvC6EodA
Pretty hard to take this seriously, given your sycophantic praise of the judge and his non-judicial views. Wow, you're so brave for posting with your full name!
And, no, I'm not the "Mr./Ms. 'Anonymous'" at 4:10. Just another one. And it's Mr.
"Chief Judge Pryor Tosses Judge Altman ‘Terror Scarf’ Complaint, Showing Off Bipartisan Leniency Toward Misconduct Claims":
https://abovethelaw.com/2026/09/chief-judge-pryor-tosses-judge-altman-terror-scarf-complaint-showing-off-bipartisan-leniency-toward-misconduct-claims/
@5:39 PM, yes Altman appearing in his judicial robe here too.
Podcast #332: The Historical Case for Israel
https://quillette.com/2026/04/07/podcast-332-the-historical-case-for-israel/
Does anyone know if Altman has his own blog or podcast, or does he just appear on other people's platform? When Altman appears in his judge robe promoting Judaism/Israel, that appears to violate the Establishment Clause.
Central Republic of Africa... there he can regale them with hos self promoting privileged wit! Surprised he didn't hyphenate his name too...
Of course you are!
Amen
GEN.O.CIDE! And history will correctly report it!
Those with power think they can lie in their recounting of history... that's long over! The revolution will not be televised...
How about we focus on what is happening on our OWN shores... the tearing down of democracy and the promotion of sycophants, worshipping their wannabe king the world's new oppressor and oligarch and criminal. I hope Dump and BeBe can be in the same funky cell!
Oh.... bit that's ok with most.of you, because you think you are on top.... well the Nazis thought they would rule too...
Great photo of President Trump last week in the White House with a number of Hasidic leaders. The article claims several of the rabbis are explicitly anti-Zionist or non-Zionist. Looks like Mayor Mamdani is there too.
JNS: Trump hosts historic White House meeting with Hasidic leaders
https://www.jns.org/news/u-s-news/trump-hosts-historic-white-house-meeting-with-hasidic-leaders
Would like to hear more about this
"An honest judge operates within a dry system of legal precedent, and his personal opinions are almost irrelevant." - Rabbi Yitzchok Frankfurter, Ami Magazine, Brooklyn, NY
https://amimagazine.org/2017/11/29/father-son-visit-justice-arthur-m-diamond-son-shmelke/
European countries are now calling it ethnic cleansing. Feel better? I know, I know, still not a “court of law,” which you will instantly find a reason to dismiss when those too start saying what this is. You don’t get to relentlessly attack, maim, kill, displace, and isolate a civilian population and claim the cause is just. Will also note the irony - you don’t seem to demand that a court of law weigh in on anyone’s guilt or innocence before these senseless actions are taken by a state.
You mean how Altman stayed in chambers until 12:30am on a Friday night/Saturday morning because the jury unanimously decided to keep deliberating and not have to come back after the weekend? Unusual, sure. But it was jury-driven, not judge-driven. And "the next day" was a Saturday -- so whether the judge had a speaking engagement or a day at the beach, it wouldn't have impacted the jury.
@10:22 - pretty sure "was headed out of town" is the more pertinent part of the criticism, which you've left wholly unaddressed. In any event, while I guess not impossible, I find it REALLY hard to believe any jury, especially in this district, "drove" this decision.
@1:05, perhaps you didn't read my comment fully. The next day was a Saturday, so whether the judge "was headed out of town" or not is irrelevant. The jury wouldn't be deliberating on Saturday whether judge was in town or not. If you think a jury would be forced to stay against their will, or that a jury wouldn't say "we'd rather get it done tonight than come back again next week," you haven't been involved in many juries.
Post a Comment