Post

The DoJ is still very much the bad guy in this, though. We’re not dealing with a law-abiding org anymore.

Shouldn’t the judge know the law??

So this dummy just signs anything put in front of him...

Lashing out at others for your own incompetence

Hey judge. Two words, “due diligence.”

As much as I don't like to judge people....

WTAF⁉️⁉️⁉️ The First Amendment wasn’t taught in his law school ⁉️⁉️⁉️

OOPS

🙄

I’m sorry. What? You’re a fucking judge. It’s your job to know the law.

Wait, so a judge is not aware of the law?! WTF, isn’t KNOWING the law a requirement for being a judge?! Even as an average citizen, I knew that raiding a reporter’s home to acquire her contacts, is Constitutionally illegal.

Wait, he didn't already know this? WTF!?

"Whadayamean, "that's illegal" "?

So much corruption, everyone pointing fingers Justice still fails

Were

Everyone making excuses for the judge is ridiculous. As many have pointed out - this is such basic knowledge.

#youhadonejob

For folks asking why the judge did this: the short answer is that attorneys have a "duty of candor to the court." I posted a fuller explanation here: bsky.app/profile/nanc...

"Why didn't you do my job for me, you feckless bastards?"

Making the judge look like a fool in the public record...

Betty, If the state came in and said, "we alleged this guy killed a dude," I would expect the judge to know that killing a dude IS AGAINST SOME FUCKING LAW!!! This was a dumb fucking judge.

Must be a Trump judge.

I assumed judges knew the laws

Something something "Ignorance of the law is not a defense, your honor..."

Good news! Now all of us without jobs might be qualified to be judges!

How the hell would a judge not know?

am i reading this right? because i am a littlr dumb so i might not be reading this right

A little late doncha think

Shouldn’t the judge know stuff?

Shouldn’t he know the law himself? 😳👀🥴

Fire the judge 😉

What the fuck is even happening?

Is this a joke?

That’s why I though after just the headline. He’s mad at them, but he should have known too!

so how does one become a judge with actually knowing the law

I think this reply takes the cake (for dessert).

Ummm, shouldn’t the judge have no this before it was approved?

Oh brother.

This is actually a little confusing. “The judge said during the hearing that he had declined to approve the warrant for materials from reporter Hannah Natanson several other times.” So why did he grant it this time? Did they mention the privacy law in earlier affidavits?

authority as if it won't be found. .... Members of this Bar have a duty of candor to the Court. The Government's response (Doc. 11) does not meet that standard." The Judge ordered the attorneys to file a doc explaining why they shouldn't be punished. So, to answer your Q: it's

Isn’t the first amendment something judges should know about?

I’m shocked that a judge is not required to k ow the law??!!

Apparently in our fucked up "adversarial" court system, the judge is a passive umpire who is not concerned about the law, truth, facts, innocence, guilt, they only do idiotic procedures. Everything is left to the prosecution or defense interpretation of the law and playing games on the jury.

Not to be bitchy but shouldn’t said judge know the law?

Why the hell wasn't the judge familiar with that law?

same here, the imaginable consequences of telling a judge "you're wrong" is the stuff of nightmares for US lawyers with any functioning brain cells generally you state the law in your motions practice in the case, and then if needed, do exactly as you've described here during oral argument in court

sorry just seeing this again. a handful of state court systems do allow non-lawyers to be magistrates, but to my knowledge they are (again) limited almost entirely to things like traffic tickets and spending a night in the drunk tank, etc.

not really sure what you mean by "professionals" in this context via a vis the distinction between prosecutors and judges many judges are former prosecutors, as well, at both federal and state levels

I guess I am a little confused/concerned why the immediate remedy is not returning every piece of evidence and material back to her for such a flagrant 1st Amendment violation.

Rule 3.3

Regardless of how it's supposed to be, any judge that's not themselves a fascist should treat anything coming from the regime as totally suspect. They should have their aides quadruple checking everything. Political and legal norms are moribund in this country. Judges should respond accordingly

Clear break of their duty of candor and should result in disbarment

Which one of the dime store lawyers Trump has running DOJ did the judge expect to know about laws or the constitution? That’s a pretty high bar for that bunch. It won’t get any better until they actually start paying a price for their insouciance and contempt of the law and the courts. Disbar them.

A lie of omission is still a lie. The founders should have anticipated this and put it in one of the early Amendments that this sort of thing was illegal. Somewhere around the 4th Amendment, maybe.

I genuinely thought this was a @theonion.com headline!

WTAF??

Exactly. This is another reason so few have real faith in our judicial system. How can you uphold the law or make judgements on it when you don’t know the laws?

but the key word here is "application". if the government doesn't disclose material things like specific laws that apply in this specific situation, how's the judge supposed to know? officers of the court have duties to explain this shit.

Judges know procedural stuff for the most part. They rely on their staff and lawyers before them to point out the substantive laws because literally nobody can be an expert on every area of law. Same way you don't really want a neurosurgeon taking care of a preemie in a NICU if possible

They can't know everything. Even with staff.

This was my first thought, as well. On reflection though, you can't expect jidges to know *everything* about the law. I'm guessing It's like expecting a medical director to be an expert in every field of medicine.

I specialize in bankruptcy law, for 36 years. I was up for consideration as a bk judge against another specialist. I know consumer inside out, he knows cirporate inside out. We both freely admitted we were going to lean heavily on litigants to educate us. The judges who appoint bk judges knew that.

Not his job to know law ? Huh ?

it is his job, and the job of his clerks or interns, to research applicable case law. he fucked up.

Counsel’s duty. Typo fix

and was this little fact disclosed to the judge in the warrant application?

It kinda is.

It's a magistrate judge.

The DOJ is absolutely in the wrong here, but a request by this DOJ to search a reporter's files should have at least raised a red flag with a judge of even modest street smarts. If you think I'm off base here, what do you think he'll do next time he gets a request like this?

No, its the job of the attorneys to be candid. Maybe people see too many movie & TV judges, no one knows the entire massive breadth of the law. Lawyers have an ethical obligation to disclose.

lawyers who lie to the court can and should be disbarred

What? It was his job to know before he signed anything.

Or just Google. 🤯

Well, I knew most judges had law clerks. And, a delay would have meant they had a grand jury sitting doing nothing until the judge got his answer. My only experience in a court room was way too many times being called to jury duty.

How about… why didn’t the judge know the law?!!

No, it's when requesting warrants. The person whose home, possessions, etc, will be searched isn't present to object. In those circumstances, the law adverse to the governments request must be presented to the judge.

American judges aren’t expected to have a legal education. They are appointed. They aren’t expected to know the law.

how would you know the address in question belonged to a news reporter?

magistrates aren't "presiding over" anything

As I have posted on my own account, I have represented journalists subject to search warrants several times and in those case, the cops never identify the target as a journalist, usually because they know that will lead to greater judicial scrutiny.

Attorney here who was also a practicing journalist; I'd never heard of it.

This shows why disclosure is so important. When rare laws aren’t shared properly, it puts defendants at an unfair disadvantage

I learned something new today.

I promise you that this magistrate (appointed by Article lll district judges) got turned out by his bosses. They get at least one full time career clerk and one term clerk, almost all from Ivy. Fuck, even a Google AI search for “can the DOJ search a reporters files” gives the right answer.

Judge must suck to not have known that.

4) Getting warrants is NOT adversarial. Only one side—the prosecutors—present their argument. (This kind of one-sided presentation is called “ex parte”, and is only allowed in certain circumstances. Legal ethics and judicial ethics make this clear).

Not good enough. The search should never have happened.

It’s the first amendment… you don’t even have to read very much to find it

I'm just a car mechanic, how I am supposed to know which hole the wiper fluid goes in?!?

So the judges are as incompetent as the lawyers?

ANY judge having ANY dealings with this DOJ has to presume chicanery.

Even if it's a rubber stamp, a LEO still has to ask for it. For too many of them, the ask is still an unreasonable requirement. But it also means their name gets attached to the ask. They're sol If the search turns into something the LEO wanted no part of.

What kind of crap judge doesn’t know something this basic?