BREAKING: Federal judge DENIES Justice Department request to change Census legal team

A Federal Judge has denied the Justice Department request to change their legal team regarding the Census lawsuit:

BLOOMBERG – A federal judge rejected a request by the Trump administration to assign a new legal team to a lawsuit that blocked the U.S. from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan called the government’s request “patently deficient,” adding that the U.S. had provided “no reasons, let alone ’satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel.”

Government officials have been searching for a way to insert the citizenship question on the census following a Supreme Court ruling that put the administration’s plan on hold because its rationale for the query was “contrived.” The forms for the once-a-decade headcount must be prepared soon to meet the deadline for 2020.

The Trump administration hasn’t detailed why it sought to replace the U.S. lawyers handling the lawsuit. The Washington Post, citing a person familiar with the matter, said that some of the original lawyers on the case had concerns about the way the government was handling it.

The Justice Department’s “mere expectation that withdrawal of current counsel will not cause any disruption is not good enough,” Furman wrote in an order on Tuesday.



If it’s not one thing it’s another. It’s seems it’s almost every day we hear of a court denying one thing or another with respect to requests made by the Trump administration.

And in this case it’s one again an Obama judge. I don’t know how much this pertains to the specific denial, but some believe it’s all about being anti-Trump:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

138 thoughts on “BREAKING: Federal judge DENIES Justice Department request to change Census legal team

  1. This is out of control.

    We are headed to a very bad place with these judges.

    This must be addressed in Article V convention of states

  2. Seems to me that this judge wants to dictate to the executive branch how to carry out their lawful duties. Since what the judge is doing is in my opinion unlawful then there would be no reason whatsoever to pay him any heed. In other words, just ignore him. How would he enforce this anyway?

  3. Obama is no longer president. His legacy is alive by appointing judges who are making personal decision, rather than what laws are. A judge refusing change of Legal team is acting like a dictator. And they all say Trump is a dictator!

  4. Enough is enough! It’s time to ignore these activist judges. I can’t think of any cop who would arrest anyone in the administration for ignoring such rulings. These people don’t even realize that they are jeopardizing their own positions to this madness. Eff’em, I say. Ignore their BS and carry on…

  5. Judges in California in the past of with a stroke of the pen ruled against the will of the people who voted in propositions. Soon elections will not matter, if a Judge doesn’t like who got elected, he will void the election. Sounds far fetched but it going to reach that point.

  6. Daniel Horowitz
    ‏Verified account

    @RMConservative

    If a judge ordered Trump to come naked before his court, would he do it?
    4:07 PM – 9 Jul 2019

      1. The idea that every minor decision that cuts against this administration is “tyranny” is absurd.
        1. The motion did not meet the requirements in the rules.
        2. If they want to refile it and meet the requirements they can.
        3. All of the lawyers the DoJ wants can still appear.

        So where exactly is the tyranny? Suppose the Trump Administration didn’t have to follow any of the same rules as the rest of us, wouldn’t that be tyranny?

  7. Federal judiciary doing the establishments bidding by nullifying our vote to prevent everything we voted for and wanted. Ignore these tyrannical bastards on the Court.

  8. Well, AG Barr, do you think we might see an indictment of the deep state coup conspirators sometime this decade?! Aren’t you tired of being always on defense..when you have mountains of evidence of REAL criminality just sitting there begging to be used??!! We need to go on OFFENSE—NOW!!

  9. Stonewall Jackson
    @1776Stonewall
    New Harvard poll results are bad for Democrats. The Harvard study found that 67% of Americans believe that a citizenship question should be on the census. This includes 88% Republicans, 63% independents, 52% Democrats and a surprising 55% of Hispanics.

  10. Another day, another activist Judge. I’m fed up with someone in a black robe dictating policy that should be left to Congress and the Executive branch.

  11. SDNY/EDNY local rule 1.4 sets forth pretty stringent standards regarding substitution of counsel, and if the DoJ didn’t actually set forth its reasons for the substitution, it’s altogether not surprising that the request was denied.

    Both I and colleagues of mine have had withdrawal/substitution motions denied, though I don’t know of an instance wherein motion was denied upon a renewed motion with an affidavit setting forth the reasons with the level of specificity required and containing adequate assurances that the case won’t be disrupted by the substitution, and I suspect that DoJ will gets its wish soon enough.

    1. Such an order may be granted only upon a showing by affidavit or otherwise of satisfactory reasons for withdrawal or displacement and the posture of the case, including its position, if any, on the calendar, and whether or not the attorney is asserting a retaining or charging lien.

      Wow. That’s a lot more than what most jurisdictions require isn’t it?

      1. Yes. In practice it’s not that hard to satisfy, but it requires a bit more thought than you’d have to put into a withdrawal motion filed elsewhere.

        1. It requires a bit more thought only from the Trump Administration.You know damn well whats going on here Slantry.

  12. so trump can defend himself, BUT only defend himself with people that the left approve? Doesn’t everyone have the right to competent council?

  13. One of the most fundamental rights we have within the judicial process it the ability to replace unsatisfactory legal representation with competent counsel. This is another outrage which only leads to more individuals asserting and believing that they will never ever get “their fair day in court” which only leads to a far more dire outcome in the end.

  14. Daniel Horowitz
    @RMConservatve

    I promise you that i was joking around with a colleague yesterday saying that a judge will “strike down” DOJ changing lawyers! Remember, this one MD judge has been empowered to control the entire Census.

  15. Wasn’t it Congress that approved the Census questions to begin with? If so tell them to pound sand! It’s the same as these Tyrannical goons telling him what to do with our sovereignty…borders and such…Time to ignore them

  16. How is it even the judge’s business who shows up to be counsel?

    Don’t we have the right to decide who will represent us in court anymore?

    1. Yes, and when you sue Wal-Mart for an injury they caused, and after three months they say we are changing attorneys. Our new attorneys need a month to catch up, and then three months later hire new attorneys, which need a month to catch up. Then, you keep paying your attorney to prosecute the case, and you go bankrupt and have to drop the case.

      As a result we will have justice for those that can afford to buy it. There are certain reasons that the courts do things a certain way.

  17. This is out of control.

    We are headed to a very bad place with these judges.

    This must be addressed in Article V convention of states

  18. Seems to me that this judge wants to dictate to the executive branch how to carry out their lawful duties. Since what the judge is doing is in my opinion unlawful then there would be no reason whatsoever to pay him any heed. In other words, just ignore him. How would he enforce this anyway?

  19. How is it even the judge’s business who shows up to be counsel?

    Don’t we have the right to decide who will represent us in court anymore?

    1. Yes, and when you sue Wal-Mart for an injury they caused, and after three months they say we are changing attorneys. Our new attorneys need a month to catch up, and then three months later hire new attorneys, which need a month to catch up. Then, you keep paying your attorney to prosecute the case, and you go bankrupt and have to drop the case.

      As a result we will have justice for those that can afford to buy it. There are certain reasons that the courts do things a certain way.

      1. You’ve pretty much summed up why leave of court is required to substitute counsel.

        How’s school treating you? Where are you this summer (if you care to share).

        1. I am doing well, I passed everything, my class rank is not great, but I am on pace to graduate with my class. I managed to pass each of my classes, so that I don’t have to retake the same ones.

          Sadly, due to money reasons as well as not having a drivers license I am only working as a manager at McDonald’s at the moment. The only place close enough to walk to was not looking for interns or the like, although it got my foot in the door and the partner who responded to my resume told me to check back once I graduated and passed the bar. He did say that it was not a firm offer, but check back and see. So, bummed about not getting internship, but my work at McDonald’s gets me a scholarship that helps pay for school. Hoping to get my 3L practice license as well as my drivers license by next year, which will I hope open some doors.

          So, all in all, fair and as always trusting in God, who I know will open doors for me that no others could.

  20. Enough is enough! It’s time to ignore these activist judges. I can’t think of any cop who would arrest anyone in the administration for ignoring such rulings. These people don’t even realize that they are jeopardizing their own positions to this madness. Eff’em, I say. Ignore their BS and carry on…

  21. Judges in California in the past of with a stroke of the pen ruled against the will of the people who voted in propositions. Soon elections will not matter, if a Judge doesn’t like who got elected, he will void the election. Sounds far fetched but it going to reach that point.

  22. Obama is no longer president. His legacy is alive by appointing judges who are making personal decision, rather than what laws are. A judge refusing change of Legal team is acting like a dictator. And they all say Trump is a dictator!

  23. I would like to see what AT suggested below.Lets Compare some of the recent Decisions some of these liberal Judges have made against the Trump Administration against decisions the same judge made against the Obama Administration.

    1. Go ahead and do it, but it really doesn’t matter. rules or not, It’s just plain stupid to give anyone a hard time about changing counsel whether it’s Trump’s DOJ or Joe Blow’s divorce. It’s none of the judges business why I want to change counsel other than to know who the new attorneys are and how to reach them. If I want to change my counsel because I don’t like their eye color and its a distraction for me, I should be able to do that without the judge developing some bias against me for my lawyer selection criteria.

  24. Daniel Horowitz
    ‏Verified account

    @RMConservative

    If a judge ordered Trump to come naked before his court, would he do it?
    4:07 PM – 9 Jul 2019

      1. The idea that every minor decision that cuts against this administration is “tyranny” is absurd.
        1. The motion did not meet the requirements in the rules.
        2. If they want to refile it and meet the requirements they can.
        3. All of the lawyers the DoJ wants can still appear.

        So where exactly is the tyranny? Suppose the Trump Administration didn’t have to follow any of the same rules as the rest of us, wouldn’t that be tyranny?

        1. The idea that every minor decision that cuts against this administration is “tyranny” is absurd.

          Yes, it is. Which is why you shouldn’t be acting like someone has said it, let alone pretending it’s an excuse for actual tyranny.

          1. I was responding Kram Nivel, who posted:

            “Dammit Trump fight this judicial tyranny, now.”

            He referred to “this judicial tyranny.”

            Also, I’m not pretending anything is “an excuse for actual tyranny.” Rather, I’m pointing out that the DoJ is subject to the same rules as other litigants, and enforcing existing rules against the DoJ as they are enforced against everyone else is a proper check on executive authority.

  25. SDNY/EDNY local rule 1.4 sets forth pretty stringent standards regarding substitution of counsel, and if the DoJ didn’t actually set forth its reasons for the substitution, it’s altogether not surprising that the request was denied.

    Both I and colleagues of mine have had withdrawal/substitution motions denied, though I don’t know of an instance wherein motion was denied upon a renewed motion with an affidavit setting forth the reasons with the level of specificity required and containing adequate assurances that the case won’t be disrupted by the substitution, and I suspect that DoJ will gets its wish soon enough.

    1. Such an order may be granted only upon a showing by affidavit or otherwise of satisfactory reasons for withdrawal or displacement and the posture of the case, including its position, if any, on the calendar, and whether or not the attorney is asserting a retaining or charging lien.

      Wow. That’s a lot more than what most jurisdictions require isn’t it?

      1. Yes. In practice it’s not that hard to satisfy, but it requires a bit more thought than you’d have to put into a withdrawal motion filed elsewhere.

        1. It’d be interesting to see some of the other motions/affidavits for substitution this judge has heard and granted, and compare them to the one Team Donald proffered.

          1. Yeah, although even just looking at the motion itself would probably be sufficient. I will say that I’ve appeared before Furman before and he isn’t the type to jerk people around, but he does take the rules seriously.

          2. Here’s the filing: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.491254/gov.uscourts.nysd.491254.618.0.pdf

            It’s obviously noncompliant since it doesn’t even say why they’re withdrawing except to Shumate and LaCour (as to whom the motion was granted).

            It’s worth noting that all of the new lawyers have appeared and nothing is stopping them from participating. The previous attorneys, however, remain attached to the case unless and until they renew their motion and that motion is granted.

        2. It requires a bit more thought only from the Trump Administration.You know damn well whats going on here Slantry.

  26. Federal judiciary doing the establishments bidding by nullifying our vote to prevent everything we voted for and wanted. Ignore these tyrannical bastards on the Court.

  27. Well, AG Barr, do you think we might see an indictment of the deep state coup conspirators sometime this decade?! Aren’t you tired of being always on defense..when you have mountains of evidence of REAL criminality just sitting there begging to be used??!! We need to go on OFFENSE—NOW!!

  28. Obama has really screwed this country up beyond recognition. They can’t even change lawyers!? WTF!!! What do our in-house lawiars have to say about this? I’m sure they’ll have some stupid excuse like they always do.

    1. Here’s the governing local SDNY/EDNY rule. Without seeing the application, I can’t say whether it was deficient or not, but I’ve had this happen to me before, and it’s a pain in the you-know-what.

      An attorney who has appeared as attorney of record for a party may be relieved or displaced only by order of the Court and may not withdraw from a case without leave of the Court granted by order. Such an order may be granted only upon a showing by affidavit or otherwise of satisfactory reasons for withdrawal or displacement and the posture of the case, including its position, if any, on the calendar, and whether or not the attorney is asserting a retaining or charging lien. All applications to withdraw must be served upon the client and (unless excused by the Court) upon all other parties.

      1. Ya, in other words, it takes an a-hole of a judge to deny such request. It’s as simple request as asking to be excused to go to the restroom. A judge that denies that especially when it’s not abused is an a-hole (plain and simple)

        1. I mean, it falls into the category of “feel free to do this, so long as you do it right.” Lots of judges in SDNY and EDNY deny these motions when they’re not done right. The denials are always, as was the case here, without prejudice to renew. And they’re almost always granted once they’re done right.

          Edit: here’s their withdrawal motion: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.491254/gov.uscourts.nysd.491254.618.0.pdf

          Compare it to the text of the rule.

          1. So seeing this, you think it wasn’t done right? Looks pretty reasonable to me. My understanding is that these requests are generally a few lines instead of occupying a full page like in the DOJ example. Look, a-hole judges will always find an excuse to be a-holes when they don’t like one side or another.

            1. I’ve done these before and this wasn’t done right. It was done right as to the two attorneys who aren’t with the DoJ (or the civil division) anymore, and the motion was granted as to them. If you have a simple reason like “X attorney is no longer working for us,” then the thing only needs to be a few lines. When the reasons are more complicated, the filing gets more complicated, because the rule requires the withdrawing attorney to tell the court why they’re withdrawing.

              As to the other attorneys they don’t even give a reason at all, so it’s not a stretch to label this filing facially deficient.

              Again, I say this as someone who has dealt with this exact issue before.

              1. Its all BS. Like making sure they ask nicely. F-k him! It’s like Muellers process crimes. We can do away with these bureaucratic judges and it will be a much better country. You think the founders had this kind of BS in mind!.

                1. Yes, I do. A majority of the founders were lawyers and civil procedure was much more complex then than it is now.

                2. You really think they had to go through the red tape and paperwork just to change a counsel in early days of nation? With all due respect, slantry, you are full of BS unless you can provide evidence for your claim.

                3. First of all, if the client wants to fire his lawyer, that’s pretty much a no-questions-asked situation. Lawyers withdrawing without being fired is, and has always been, a different story. Different jurisdictions require different things, but every single one requires leave of court. (Leave of court is required when a client fires a lawyer too, but “they want someone else” is almost always considered a satisfactory reason for withdrawal).

                  I can’t tell you off the top of my head what, if anything, was required of withdrawing counsel in the 18th and 19th centuries. What I can tell you is that, up until the adoption of the federal rules of civil procedure in the mid-20th century, the practice of law was governed by even more insane and archaic rules than it exist now, and the founders were well accustomed with those rules. Here is a brief overview of common-law pleading, which is but one example of what used to be required, even after a century and a half of efforts to modernize and streamline civil procedure: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4770&context=mulr

                  Keep in mind that the predecessor to the FRCP, the Field Code, was about 10 times longer.

                4. First of all, if the client wants to fire his lawyer, that’s pretty much a no-questions-asked situation.

                  Well, if you are changing lawyers, isn’t that pretty much the reasoning? What business is it to the judge if the lawyer has personal/health/whatever reasons?

                  I don’t see anything in the link you sent about changing lawyers which further proves my point. It was probably a complete non-issue at the time–you probably could just walk in to court with a different lawyer each day!

                5. My point was that civil procedure rules (of which this is a part) were far more arcane and complex back then. I believe I stated at the outset that I didn’t know about substitution of counsel.

                  Leave of court is required so that the judge can protect the integrity of the proceedings and prevent prejudice to the parties . People “fire” their lawyers (or lawyers “quit”) on the eve of trial just to get an excuse to delay the proceedings and put pressure on the other side. Leave isn’t hard to get, but it is required for a reason.

                  If what happened here is that these lawyers were effectively fired, fine. All they need to do is tell that to the judge, and if they don’t want it to be publicly accessible, they can request that their submission be filed under seal. DoJ did this three days before a major brief was due, in a proceeding that’s on an expedited track, and didn’t tell the judge why they were doing it. Whether you think Local Rule 1.4 is stupid or not is beside the point; it’s a rule that applies to all lawyers in all proceedings before the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and if you want to withdraw as counsel, you need to follow the rule. Comparing the rule to their submission, do you really think it was followed here?

                6. My point was that civil procedure rules (of which this is a part) were far more arcane and complex back then. I believe I stated at the outset that I didn’t know about substitution of counsel.

                  Actually, you gave impression that you included substitution of counsel, but nevertheless, I still don’t see how you can say things have become more simple than complex. Maybe you mean to say it’s more organized and structured rather than ad-hoc? Which would logically entail more red-tape and paper work.

                  People “fire” their lawyers (or lawyers “quit”) on the eve of trial just to get an excuse to delay the proceedings and put pressure on the other side. Leave isn’t hard to get, but it is required for a reason.

                  I didn’t know that courts were run on a timer. I hear of cases that go on for almost a decade. I don’t think a reasonable judge would deny a request for more time if its critical to the case.

                  Comparing the rule to their submission, do you really think it was followed here?

                  I think they provided sufficient information–way more than what I would have expected. And I honestly think they were thinking the same thing–these are experts at what they do and I would be surprised if they simply forgot to cross their t’s and dot their i’s; nevertheless, the judge has can show leeway and flexibility if he wishes and I’m sure if it was Obama administration arguing the case, he would have done so.

                7. 1) I said: “I can’t tell you off the top of my head what, if anything, was required of withdrawing counsel in the 18th and 19th centuries.“

                  When I mean things have gotten more simple, I mean they have gotten more simple. The rules of civil procedure were much more complex and entailed a lot more red tape than today. There were a lot of pleading and procedural formalities that are no longer required, law and equity were separate courts (NJ and DE still have separate law and chancery courts, but I believe they’re the last two holdouts) etc. The old demurrer, pleading of abatement, pleading of traversal, etc etc etc are all now just one motion (that is no longer treated as a pleading).

                  Property is the one field where the complexities remain, although efforts to streamline that have been successful to various degrees. For example, in most states still, conveying property by deed to someone “to use as a school” vs conveying that same property with language stating that it is conveyed “so long as it is used as a school” will create two entirely different ownership interests with different remedies if the subject property is no longer used as a school.

                  2) Judges loath delays and you have to have good reasons to ask for one. You can ask for them and get them, but that’s never a sure thing. Any and all requests for extensions for more than a day or two in this case (by either side) are almost certain to be rejected, as this case needs to be resolved in the next few months. The point about the example of quitting on eve of trial is that it’s being undertaken in bad faith to create leverage by delay. This is why leave of court is necessary.

                  3) Except as to the two lawyers for whom the motion was granted, what information do you think they gave beyond the names of the lawyers withdrawing? Serious question: did you even bother reading it?

                8. Okay, you want the old rules on withdrawal of counsel? From “a treatise on the practice of the Supreme Court of the judicature of the state of New York” published in 1794:

                  “Where an attorney once appears, or undertakes to be attorney or another, he shall not be permitted to withdraw himself, and, it is said to be his duty to proceed in the suit, although his client neglect to bring him money … Where an attorney, having been retained, has undertaken to appear, the defendant cannot countermand the appearance after his retainer, nor can he change his attorney at any time pending the suit, without leave of court, granted upon payment of his bill, and upon notice to the adverse party or his attorney.”

                  So, yeah, I suppose the founders would have envisioned this.

                9. As set forth below, in the early days of the nation, the client couldn’t change his attorney at all… except with leave of court.

  29. One of the most fundamental rights we have within the judicial process it the ability to replace unsatisfactory legal representation with competent counsel. This is another outrage which only leads to more individuals asserting and believing that they will never ever get “their fair day in court” which only leads to a far more dire outcome in the end.

  30. Daniel Horowitz
    @RMConservatve

    I promise you that i was joking around with a colleague yesterday saying that a judge will “strike down” DOJ changing lawyers! Remember, this one MD judge has been empowered to control the entire Census.

  31. If I was Trump, I would move ahead as planned and finish up in the courts later… The Issue could easily be resolved in the end by either asking the question or not asking the question

    1. Print the damned forms, ignore the judge’s orders blocking the census, and dare him to enforce it.

      Time to go Andy Jackson on this thug.

      1. @johngaltfla
        :thumbsup: :clapping: AMEN BROTHER, it’s time to take off the gloves and fight the black robed tyrants!

  32. Now this one sounds shady doesn’t it. Tinyhands Magoo probably has a legitimate gripe here.

    I’ve never heard of a substitution of counsel request being denied, unless the reason was to (or it would) delay the case.

    the U.S. had provided “no reasons, let alone ’satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel.” … “mere expectation that withdrawal of current counsel will not cause any disruption is not good enough,”

    That’s the part that sounds bogus. As long as current counsel, new counsel, and the client all agree to it and it doesn’t disrupt any hearing dates – a SOC is basically rubber stamped. They usually don’t even have a hearing on it.

    Maybe current counsel complained, which is why it went to hearing at all – we don’t know. But if all three are on the same page, then judge sounds like he’s coloring outside the lines.

    1. You’re nothing if not inconsistent. You’ve already established that you believe the courts can use the arbitrary standard of “intent” to make rulings, that’s all this judge did. The intent to change the legal team didn’t meet his arbitrary standard, therefore it was denied. The exact same reasoning that Roberts used and you championed.

          1. Cite where I said that I believe the courts can use the arbitrary standard of intent to make rulings. Because I guarantee you I have never said anything of the sort.

            I have said that government shouldn’t act on pretexts.
            I have said that it’s fair to review the record to determine if they are acting on pretexts, and enjoin them from acting if they are.

            And now I have said that a substitution of counsel only requires mutual agreement between client, counsel, and new counsel without delaying the proceedings.

            I don’t know what you think the two even HAVE to do with each other, let alone how you think they might bet “stupid” or “inconsistent.”

  33. Another day, another activist Judge. I’m fed up with someone in a black robe dictating policy that should be left to Congress and the Executive branch.

        1. Whoa. Done interacting with AT?

          Not trying to start a fight. Just wondering what made you so adamant about AT…..

        2. Just ignore her. I don’t reply to any of her comments anymore, but she continues to stalk me. She’ll no doubt reply to this one, she leaves no perceived slight unchallenged. Like a certain politician.

          1. I like how you don’t reply to my comments, but still can’t resist the urge to talk about me and how much you ignore me all the time. (ps. Up/Downvotes are replies too. 😀 )

            My favorite part about living rent free in your brain is all the empty space I have here!

          2. Why be pissed off at AT,she replied she felt this Judge was Coloring a little bit over the Lines,what else do you want her too say.Damn she just called out the crooked Judge.[My Words\

            1. I’m not pissed off. AT never admits to being wrong, and when I’ve called her on it, called me names and used abusive language. She’s highly argumentative and and takes over threads with her trolling. She’s earned the animosity of many here. Watch this thread, she’ll be back to reply to this comment because she searches to see who’s talking about her and never leaves any perceived slights unanswered.

              1. AT never admits to being wrong

                That’s not true. I’ve done that lots of times. Scoop puts my knowledge of Catholicism to shame. Slantry is far more versed in law than I am. Bob and I butt heads on principles and ideology, but he’s made fair points that I’ve had to concede more than once.

                I just don’t do it with YOU, Doc – because despite your claims of “calling me on it” – you don’t make an effective argument that changes anything. You rely extremely heavily on fallacious reasoning (ad populum, ad passiones, and ad verecundiam, most frequently) and even when this is pointed out to you, rather than making a RATIONAL argument you instead just spike a football you don’t even have in possession, and claim that you’ve won the argument. Then you whine in perpetuity that your opponent simply isn’t accepting it.

                1. You’re simply not a rational person, Doc. I’m not saying that as an insult – it’s just that your positions don’t come from a place of objectivity and logic. They come from feeling. That’s fine. That’s most people in life. But I don’t admit that I’m wrong to you – because you have never once, ever, proved me wrong about anything.

                  Because you just don’t employ the tools of reasoning by which to do so.

  34. Stonewall Jackson
    @1776Stonewall
    New Harvard poll results are bad for Democrats. The Harvard study found that 67% of Americans believe that a citizenship question should be on the census. This includes 88% Republicans, 63% independents, 52% Democrats and a surprising 55% of Hispanics.

  35. so trump can defend himself, BUT only defend himself with people that the left approve? Doesn’t everyone have the right to competent council?

  36. Wasn’t it Congress that approved the Census questions to begin with? If so tell them to pound sand! It’s the same as these Tyrannical goons telling him what to do with our sovereignty…borders and such…Time to ignore them

  37. I would like to see what AT suggested below.Lets Compare some of the recent Decisions some of these liberal Judges have made against the Trump Administration against decisions the same judge made against the Obama Administration.

    1. Go ahead and do it, but it really doesn’t matter. rules or not, It’s just plain stupid to give anyone a hard time about changing counsel whether it’s Trump’s DOJ or Joe Blow’s divorce. It’s none of the judges business why I want to change counsel other than to know who the new attorneys are and how to reach them. If I want to change my counsel because I don’t like their eye color and its a distraction for me, I should be able to do that without the judge developing some bias against me for my lawyer selection criteria.

  38. Obama has really screwed this country up beyond recognition. They can’t even change lawyers!? WTF!!! What do our in-house lawiars have to say about this? I’m sure they’ll have some stupid excuse like they always do.

    1. Here’s the governing local SDNY/EDNY rule. Without seeing the application, I can’t say whether it was deficient or not, but I’ve had this happen to me before, and it’s a pain in the you-know-what.

      An attorney who has appeared as attorney of record for a party may be relieved or displaced only by order of the Court and may not withdraw from a case without leave of the Court granted by order. Such an order may be granted only upon a showing by affidavit or otherwise of satisfactory reasons for withdrawal or displacement and the posture of the case, including its position, if any, on the calendar, and whether or not the attorney is asserting a retaining or charging lien. All applications to withdraw must be served upon the client and (unless excused by the Court) upon all other parties.

      1. Ya, in other words, it takes an a-hole of a judge to deny such request. It’s as simple request as asking to be excused to go to the restroom. A judge that denies that especially when it’s not abused is an a-hole (plain and simple)

        1. I mean, it falls into the category of “feel free to do this, so long as you do it right.” Lots of judges in SDNY and EDNY deny these motions when they’re not done right. The denials are always, as was the case here, without prejudice to renew. And they’re almost always granted once they’re done right.

          Edit: here’s their withdrawal motion: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.491254/gov.uscourts.nysd.491254.618.0.pdf

          Compare it to the text of the rule.

          1. So seeing this, you think it wasn’t done right? Looks pretty reasonable to me. My understanding is that these requests are generally a few lines instead of occupying a full page like in the DOJ example. Look, a-hole judges will always find an excuse to be a-holes when they don’t like one side or another.

            1. I’ve done these before and this wasn’t done right. It was done right as to the two attorneys who aren’t with the DoJ (or the civil division) anymore, and the motion was granted as to them. If you have a simple reason like “X attorney is no longer working for us,” then the thing only needs to be a few lines. When the reasons are more complicated, the filing gets more complicated, because the rule requires the withdrawing attorney to tell the court why they’re withdrawing.

              As to the other attorneys they don’t even give a reason at all, so it’s not a stretch to label this filing facially deficient.

              Again, I say this as someone who has dealt with this exact issue before.

  39. If I was Trump, I would move ahead as planned and finish up in the courts later… The Issue could easily be resolved in the end by either asking the question or not asking the question

    1. Print the damned forms, ignore the judge’s orders blocking the census, and dare him to enforce it.

      Time to go Andy Jackson on this thug.

      1. @johngaltfla
        :thumbsup: :clapping: AMEN BROTHER, it’s time to take off the gloves and fight the black robed tyrants!

  40. Now this one sounds shady doesn’t it. Tinyhands Magoo probably has a legitimate gripe here.

    I’ve never heard of a substitution of counsel request being denied, unless the reason was to (or it would) delay the case.

    the U.S. had provided “no reasons, let alone ‘satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel.” … “mere expectation that withdrawal of current counsel will not cause any disruption is not good enough,”

    That’s the part that sounds bogus. As long as current counsel, new counsel, and the client all agree to it and it doesn’t disrupt any hearing dates – a SOC is basically rubber stamped. They usually don’t even have a hearing on it.

    Maybe current counsel complained, which is why it went to hearing at all – we don’t know. But if all three are on the same page, then judge sounds like he’s coloring outside the lines.

    1. You’re nothing if not inconsistent. You’ve already established that you believe the courts can use the arbitrary standard of “intent” to make rulings, that’s all this judge did. The intent to change the legal team didn’t meet his arbitrary standard, therefore it was denied. The exact same reasoning that Roberts used and you championed.

Comments are closed.