Tag Archives: courts

The FJC Has Become Unreliable

Posted on by
Reply

Federal Judicial Center writes a manual that it alleges—and too many judges and Justices accept at face value—to be an unbiased source of information to help judges make unbiased assessments about scientific testimony.

It has ceased to be that. The Wall Street Journal has written before that the FJC‘s manual had a thoroughly biased chapter on so-called climate science, and that when that chapter was exposed for the disinformation section that it was, the FJC removed the chapter.

But wait—there’s more.

In the climate science chapter, footnote 77 says “discussion of attribution research has been adapted, and, in some cases, excerpted from the authors’ prior publications on this topic.” A review by American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Roger Pielke Jr noticed that one of those earlier publications was co-authored with a third person who wasn’t named as an author in the climate chapter.
Mr Pielke says the mystery author is Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center [of which the late chapter’s lead author is a Senior Fellow]. But here’s the shocker. He is also of counsel at Sher Edling, a plaintiff firm pushing climate-related lawsuits. The firm has promoted dubious legal theories, suing fossil-fuel companies for failure to warn about climate effects and public nuisance over the “cost of weather induced events.”

As nakedly biased as this chapter was, and which the FJC removed only when exposed, and whose authors defended the bias of their chapter with no correction of that disinformation, the obvious question becomes: what other nakedly biased “educational information” is included elsewhere in its manual that hasn’t been discovered yet?

The FJC, by rendering itself unreliable, has made itself irrelevant. Judges and Justices need to rely on their native intelligence and on better—or at least more and more varied—advisors.

Most of all, judges and Justices need to limit themselves to the evidence, scientific or otherwise, actually presented at trial. Outside sources of information are irrelevant and should be disregarded, even when disguised as “information” by sources like the FJC manual.

At Whose Cost?

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal courts, in the person of Judge Robert Conrad in his capacity as Director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts, wants that office to take control of and responsibility for the physical Federal courthouses around the nation.

This request is a long-standing Judicial Conference position, originally adopted in 1989, and reaffirmed again in 2006. This position is being sought now because the condition of many buildings housing the Judiciary has reached a crisis point after decades of inadequate management and oversight.
This has led to over $8 billion worth of delinquent infrastructure repairs that have created risks to safety, security, and court operations. The recent unilateral actions and reorganization of GSA have only exacerbated these conditions[.]

Whether that last is accurate is a separate question. It’s nevertheless a valid beef, but my questions here are these: who will produce those $8 billion, the AOUSC through some sort of fee structure (levied on whom), some sort of GSA-/Congressional-mandated fee structure (levied on whom)? A line item in one of Congress’ appropriation bills? Something else?

Next, is this a one-time fund, or is it ongoing? At what sustainment level?

Then, who will administer the fund, whether it’s one-time or ongoing? Will this be an AOUSC function, or will it be GSA, Congressional, …?

Finally, who will let, agree, and administer the upgrade/maintenance contracts? Again, would this fall to the AOUSC, to GSA, to someone else?

In Which the Judge is Wrong on Principle

Posted on by
Reply

Even if he might be correct in a strictly legal sense (which does constrain him via his oath of office). Magistrate Judge William Porter has ruled that DoJ may not search the electronic devices seized from Washington Post news writer Hannah Natanson. Porter claimed, as paraphrased by Just the News

seizing Natanson’s devices the department took her work product, documentary material, and access to the confidential sources—”all the tools she needs as a working journalist.”

The underlying case centers on Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, an IT employee of a government contractor, supposedly removing classified information and passing that information to Natanson.

This is Porter claiming that received stolen property is legitimately a news writer’s “work product.”

For anyone outside the journalism guild, receiving stolen property is a serious felony. It’s long past time to end this criminal carveout for news writers and the news outlets that employ them. Stolen property is precisely that, not more and not less, no matter who gets it.

Of Course He Is

Posted on by
Reply

Because he must. SecDef Pete Hegseth is appealing a district court’s ruling blocking him from proceeding with investigation of, and potential retirement-related sanctioning, Arizona Progressive-Democrat Senator Mark Kelly over Kelly’s participation in a video encouraging disorder in the military ranks by emphasizing what every service member already knows—they have an obligation to disobey illegal orders—and by which emphasis he encouraged especially the lower and bottom ranks to question every order they’re given.

It may be that Hegseth is wrong with his move vis-à-vis Kelly, but the magistrate’s ruling is, it seems to me, badly premature. The Federal courts should not be interfering with what is at bottom a strictly military matter. Furthermore, until a final ruling regarding Kelly’s retirement status and retired rank is issued, no material harm has come to Kelly. That makes the magistrate’s ruling rationale speculative at best.

What should happen is for the civilian courts to let DoD’s investigation take its course and any potential sanction be realized. Only then would a civilian Federal court have any jurisdiction over the matter.

Who Drove the Settlement?

Posted on by
Reply

Centerview Partners, a niche investment bank, agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by an intern who claimed she was terminated improperly over a disability she said she had. As is usual in many civil suits, the terms are unknown. The settlement came just before the trial was due to start, and

just a few days after the judge seemed to cast doubt on [Kathryn ] Shiber’s ability to claim the millions of dollars in compensation. During a pretrial conference Thursday, the judge said at one point that it would be improper for the jury to consider what she would have earned had she stayed at Centerview beyond the three-year program.

That timing raises questions in my suspicious pea brain, primary of which is who was the motivator for the settlement. Was it Centerview, looking to avoid the potential of an enormous payout to Shiber? Was it Shiber, who was satisfied with the settlement terms, whatever they are? Was it her lawyers, who in a fee-seeking imperative, bailed on Shiber since they no longer would be guaranteed their own enormous payout cut from those millions of dollars in compensation that otherwise would have been available to get access to?

Enquiring minds want to know.