Trump Lawyers Shake What Their Mommas Gave ‘Em At Second Circuit In Effort To Fend Off NY Criminal Sentencing – Above the Law

Donald
Trump’s
lawyers
were

comin’
in
hot

last
night
at
the
Second
Circuit.

The
underlying
proceedings
arise
from
a
politically
motivated
investigation
by
the
Manhattan
District
Attorney’s
Office
(“DANY”),
dubbed
the
“zombie
case”
by
former
Special
Assistant
District
Attorney
Mark
Pomerantz
because
DANY
refused
to
abandon
efforts
to
target
President
Trump
until
star
witness,
felon,
and
serial
perjurer
Michael
Cohen-bolstered
by
other
financially
motivated
witnesses
such
as
Stormy
Daniels-concocted
the
type
of
false
and
implausible
story
President
Trump’s
political
opponents
wanted
to
hear.

If
they
have
a
non-insane
argument,
Trump’s
lawyers
Todd
Blanche
and
Emil
Bove
risk
burying
it
under
a
steaming
pile
of
unrelated
invective
in
a
brief
that
runs
to
79
pages,
with
four
appendices.
If
they

don’t

have
a
non-insane
argument,
well

this
is
exactly
how
they’d
proceed,
right?

What
they
want
is
for
the
Circuit
Court
to
swoop
in
and
remove
the
case
to
federal
court,
despite
the
fact
that
a
jury
found
Trump
guilty
in
May
of
creating
false
business
records
to
cover
up
the
hush
money
payment
to
Stormy
Daniels,
and
the

federal
removal
statute

requires
notice
of
removal
within
30
days
of
arraignment.

Indeed,
Trump
did
try
to
remove
the
case
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
in
timely
fashion
back
in
2023,
only
to
be

unceremoniously
booted

by
Judge
Alvin
Hellerstein,
who
found
that
making
false
“retainer”
payments
to
a
lawyer
to
reimburse
him
for
money
fronted
to
a
porn
star
prior
to
election
was
not
part
of
his
official
presidential
duties.
The
law
does
allow
a
criminal
defendant
to
move
for
removal
at
a
later
date
“for
good
cause
shown,”
but
in
a
desperate
bid
to
fend
off
sentencing,
Trump
simply
docketed
a
second
removal
notice
in
August
without
leave
of
the
court.
After
the
clerk
removed
the
notice,
Blanche
and
Bove
restyled
their
motion
as
a
petition.

They
argued
that
Justice
Merchan
was
biased,
that
he
had
improperly
allowed
the
use
of
impermissible
evidence
under

Trump
v.
US
,
and
that
the
conduct
at
issue
was
part
of
his
official
presidential
duties,
and
thus
immune
from
prosecution.
In
fact,
these
arguments
are
all
being
considered
by
state
appellate
courts
in
New
York,
as
Judge
Hellerstein
noted
a
day
later
when
he
summarily

dismissed

their
motion.

But
this
did
not
deter
Trump’s
lawyers,
who
gamely
repeated
them
last
night,
while
complaining
about
the
trial
judge’s
“rushed
and
conclusory
summary
remand
order
issued
without
adversarial
briefing
or
a
required
hearing.”

Not
to
put
too
fine
a
point
on
it,
but
that
is
BULLSHIT.

Under
28
USC
§
1455(b)(2):

A
notice
of
removal
of
a
criminal
prosecution
shall
include
all
grounds
for
such
removal.
A
failure
to state grounds
that
exist
at
the
time
of
the
filing
of
the
notice
shall
constitute
a
waiver
of
such
grounds,
and
a
second
notice
may
be
filed
only
on
grounds
not
existing
at
the
time
of
the
original
notice.
For
good
cause
shown,
the
United States district
court
may
grant
relief
from
the
limitations
of
this
paragraph.

Trump
was
entitled
to

and
got

a
hearing
and
full
briefing
on
his
original
removal
petition
back
in
2023,

and
he
lost
.
The
Supreme
Court’s
intervening
immunity
ruling
may
yet
blow
up
the
verdict,
since
testimony
by
White
House
aide
Hope
Hicks
might
have
been
inadmissible;
but
that’s
got
nothing
to
do
with
the
underlying
conduct,
which
Judge
Hellerstein
already
found
was
purely
personal.

Trump
was
not
entitled
to
a
second,
post-conviction
bite
at
the
apple,
much
less
a
second
round
of
briefing
and
a
“required
hearing,”
absent
a
judicial
finding
of
“good
cause.”
And
two
former
federal
prosecutors
bloody
well
know
that. 

After
Justice
Merchan
postponed
Trump’s
sentencing
until
after
the
election,
the
Second
Circuit

denied

his
emergency
stay
motion.
That
panel
was
made
up
of
Judge
Michael
Park,
one
of
the
FedSoc
babies
installed
on
a
party-line
vote,
Judge
Lohier,
who
was
appointed
by
Obama
to
fill
the
seat
vacated
by
Justice
Sotomayor,
and
senior
Judge
John
Walker,
who
was
originally
appointed
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
by
Ronald
Reagan.
Perhaps
they
will
be
more
receptive
to
his
claims
that
it
should
snatch
the
case
from
state
courts
because
his
lawyers
take
several
hundred
pages
to
shout

TRUMP
V.
US

CHANGED
EVERYTHING.

Or
perhaps
not.


People
of
The
State
of
New
York
v.
Trump

[District
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

People
of
The
State
of
New
York
v.
Trump

[Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Fifth Circuit Rules Judge Can’t Micromanage Government Because Irony Is Dead – Above the Law

An
all-Republican
Fifth
Circuit
panel
has
removed
federal
district
judge
Janis
Graham
Jack
from
a
case
raising
due
process
concerns
over
the
Texas
foster
care
system.
According
to
the
Fifth
Circuit,
the
trial
judge
displayed
a
“highly
antagonistic
demeanor”
when
she
levied
sanctions
against
Texas
for
not
investigating
child
abuse
in
the
foster
care
system.

To
be
clear:
the
judge
was
removed
because
she
wanted
the
state
of
Texas
to
stop
child
abuse.
But
the
Fifth
Circuit
will
not
suffer
courts
trying
to
hijack
government
programs…
at
least
not
unless
the
Democrats
are
running
those
programs.

However,
as
a
general
rule
of
law
federal
judges
are
not
allowed
to
become
permanent
de
facto
superintendents
of
major
state
agencies.
Nor,
under
the
federalist
structure
created
by
the
Constitution,
is
it
appropriate
for
federal
court
intervention
to
thwart
the
state’s
self-management,
where
the
state
is
taking
strides
to
eliminate
the
abuses
that
led
to
the
original
decree.
Nor
are
federal
judges
even
suited,
by
training
or
temperament,
to
manage
institutions,
personnel,
or
the
provision
of
vital
state
services,
even
if
counselled
by
monitors.

(citations
omitted)

The
Fifth
Circuit
said
that?
Just
an
utter
lack
of
shame.

The
Fifth
Circuit

condones
a
forum
shopping
regime

allowing
trial
judges
to
micromanage
all
manner
of
government
policies,
from
the
FDA’s
approval
of
mifepristone
to
whether
or
not
fees
and
interest
on
student
loans
can
be
waived.
The
author
of
this
opinion,
Edith
Jones,
wrote
an
earlier
opinion

ranting
about
COVID
lockdowns,
citing
junk
science
.
But
those
are
policies
liked
by
Democratic
administrations.
The
panel
would
not
have
such
qualms
when
it’s
not
about
protecting
Republican
leaders
like
the
Texas
governor.

Giving
the
panel
an
unearned
benefit
of
the
doubt,
the
opinion
nods
to
a
distinction
between
federal
and
state
agencies
as
though
micromanaging
the
federal
government
is
more
appropriate
than
a
state
agency.
Which
is
a
distinction,
though
one
with
very
little
difference.
The
Fourteenth
Amendment,
for
instance,
would
very
much
disagree
with
this
reasoning.
But
this
is
also
why

Republicans
get
mad
when
nominees
are
asked
if
they
plan
to
overturn

Brown
v.
Board


there’s
nothing
in
the
above
reasoning
that
would
justify
the
historic
efforts
of
federal
courts
in
striking
down
segregation.

And
they

really

don’t
want
folks
to
realize
that.

In
a
statement
given
to

Bloomberg

and
reprinted
by

ABA
Journal
,
Paul
Yetter,
an
attorney
for
foster
care
children,
said
this
was
“a
sad
day
for
Texas
children.”

Maybe
if
the
kids
tried
complaining
that
the
child
abuse
they
suffered
was
a
vaccination
or
watching
someone
else’s
student
loans
get
relieved
they
could
find
someone
on
the
Fifth
Circuit
to
bend
over
backward
to
care
about
them.


(Opinion
on
next
page…)


Fifth
Circuit
Removes
Texas
Judge
Critical
of
Foster
Care
System

[Bloomberg
Law
News]

Judge
with
‘highly
antagonistic
demeanor’
must
be
removed
from
foster
care
case,
5th
Circuit
says

[ABA
Journal]

Calling All Biglaw Associates: 2024 Bonus Season Awaits – Above the Law

If
you’re
a
Biglaw
associate
in
the
fall
of
2024,
two
things
are
probably
true:
(i)
you’re
billing
your
life
away
while
considering
if
a
lateral
move
is
right
for
you
while
the
market
is
still
hot,
and
(ii)
you’re
eagerly
awaiting
news
of
your
bonus,
which
may
be
right
around
the
corner.

To
kick
off
our
coverage,
we’re
asking
you
to
take
this
(always)
confidential,
(always)
brief
survey
to
share
your
thoughts
on
the
upcoming
bonus
season.
And
if
you’d
like
to
stay
on
top
of
any
changes
this
bonus
season,
enter
your
email
below
to
sign
up
for
our
free
bonus
alerts.


button_take-the-survey

And
as
a
little
reminder,
we
love
covering
the
Biglaw
bonus
season,
but
we
need
your
help.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
bonus
memo
comes
out,
please

email
us

(subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”).
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
bonus
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
the
memo
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
Please
be
sure
to
include
the
memo
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
bonus
memos
as
a
service
to
our
readers.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
attach
as
a
picture
if
you
are
worried
about
metadata
in
a
PDF
or
Word
file.

Don’t
forget,
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts,
please
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish

including,
of
course,
the
first
such
announcement.



Staci ZaretskyStaci
Zaretsky
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter

and

Threads

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.


Bonus Time

Enter
your
email
address
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s

Bonus
&
Salary
Increase
Alerts
.


Clio Cloud Conference Continues To Understand The Power Of Community – Above the Law

Back
in
2016,
in
the
recesses
of
the
Radisson
Blu
in
Chicago,
I
joined
a
group
of
500
or
600
attendees
for
the
fourth

Clio
Cloud
Conference
.
The
company
unveiled
the
Legal
Trends
Report,
the

Texas
Law
Hawk
talked
about
legal
marketing
,
and
I
already
realized
that
this
conference
operated
on
a
different
level
than
the
rest.

That
show
had
already
nearly
tripled
in
size
from
the
200
or
so
that
made
it
to
the
first
installment.
Last
week,
that
same
conference
boasted
5,000
attendees
with
around
2,600
physically
in
the
convention
center.
That’s
quite
the
explosion
in
attendance.

The
theme
this
year
was
momentum.
“Momentum
is
the
driving
force
that
turns
short
bursts
of
energy
into
sustained
success,”
said
CEO
and
co-Founder
Jack
Newton,
in
an
appropriate
nod
to
Newtonian
physics.
And
while
he
was
talking
about
the
legal
industry
generally,
as
someone
attending
their
ninth
iteration
of
this
show,

Clio

seems
to
have
a
lot
of
momentum
itself.

Newton
remarked
that
Clio


even
as
a
$3B
business


still
gets
a
lot
of
its
business
from
word-of-mouth.
Its
army
of
existing
users
providing
a
strong
grassroots
referral
network.
And
while
Clio
has
devoted
customers
based
on
product
alone,
Clio
approaches
its
annual
conference
as
a
vehicle
for
strengthening
that
community.
“I
want
our
users
to
come
into
the
conference
as
users,
as
customers,
but
leave
as
evangelists.
And
evangelists
not
just
about
Clio,
the
word
of
mouth
about
Clio,
but
there’s
a
new
way
of
doing
things.”

Philosophically,
Clio
aims
to
build
that
evangelist
mindset
by
placing
the
technology

its
actual
product

as
one
piece
in
a
larger
conversation.

“Building
cool
technology
and
building
cool
products
was,
I
realized,
maybe
even
less
than
half
the
battle,”
Newton
said.
“What
we
were
trying
to
really
do
with
lawyers
is
catalyze
a
different
way
of
thinking
about
the
world.
Being
more
client-centered.
How
do
you
become
more
responsive
to
clients?
Thinking
about
how
you
use
technology,
not
to
just
get
10%
more
productive,
but
how
do
you
actually
transform
the
way
you’re
interacting
with
clients?”

But
first,
the
company
needs
to
get
clients
to
make
the
trip.
Ever
since
Newton
first
pitched
holding
a
conference
to
the
company’s
event
mastermind
Lauren
Sanders,
Clio’s
seen
the
role
of
its
show
a
little
differently
than
most.
“I’d
been
to
a
couple
of
dozen
different
legal
technology
conferences
that
were
pretty
grim
affairs.
like
in
the
basement
of
convention
centers,
windowless
rooms,
like
obviously
very
low
budgets,
and
an
energy
that
was
so
focused
around
CLE,
like
just
compliance,
as
opposed
to
real
education,
and
as
opposed
to
helping
lead
legal
professionals
into
what
the
next
part
of
the
journey
is
going
to
be
about.
I
thought
we
can
do
better.”

The
numbers
don’t
lie…
they
can
do
this
better.




HeadshotJoe
Patrice
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky

if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.

Lawyers Face Consequences For Countering Trial Expert’s Test – Above the Law

There
is
a
fine
line
between
zealous
advocacy
and
doing
too
much

the
side
you
land
on
is
usually
determined
by
the
outcome.
One
example
would
be
Clement
Vallandigham’s
zealous
defense
of
his
last
client.
He
represented
a
man
who
was
accused
of
shooting
someone
to
death
in
a
bar
brawl.
His
client
didn’t
have
a
gun
on
him,
but
that
wasn’t
enough
to
prove
he
didn’t
do
it. 
Vallandigham’s
theory
of
the
case
was
that
the
deceased
actually
could
have
just
shot
himself
by
accident;

which
Vallandigham
then
demonstrated
at
the
cost
of
his
life
.
Zealous
or
doing
too
much?
Hard
to
tell.
While
it
did
cost
him
his
life,
his
client
walked!

While
we’re
on
the
topic
of
lawyer
demonstrations,
a
federal
judge
recently
ruled
that
a
group
of
lawyers
has
to
go
apologize
to
Philly
residents.

ABA
Journal

has
coverage:

Lawyers
who
wakened
South
Philadelphia
residents
with
a
looped
recording
of
a
screaming
woman
to
prove
a
point
in
a
lawsuit
must
go
door
to
door
to
issue
in-person
apologies,
a
federal
judge
has
ruled.

In
an
Oct.
10
opinion,
U.S.
District
Judge
John
F.
Murphy
of
the
Eastern
District
of
Pennsylvania
said
lawyers
for
former
inmate
Termaine
Hicks
will
have
to
mail
written
apologies
to
nearby
residents.
At
least
one
lawyer
will
have
to
go
door
to
door
to
apologize
to
those
living
closest
to
the
recording.

Let
it
be
known
that
there
was
a
big
point
to
prove:
they
were
representing
a
man
who
was
alleging
that
officers
framed
him
for
a
rape
he
did
not
commit.
He
said
that
he
heard
a
woman
screaming
from
two
blocks
away
and
went
to
the
source
of
the
sound.
The
City’s
lawyers
tried
to
prove
that
he
couldn’t
have
heard
a
scream
from
two
blocks
away
by
relying
on
an
acoustics
expert’s
judgment
and
a
siren
test.
Hicks’s
lawyers
responded
with
a
much
more
apt
test:

The
122-decibel
recording
broadcast
for
more
than
an
hour
beginning
at
5:30
a.m.
Sept.
23.
That
volume
is
“somewhere
on
the
border
between
uncomfortable
and
painful
and
is
similar
to
an
ambulance
siren,
a
rock
concert
or
a
chainsaw,”
Murphy
wrote…Lawyers
for
the
plaintiffs
acknowledged
that
“residents
were
clearly
upset,”
Murphy
said.
One
man
came
over
with
a
baseball
bat.
A
woman
yelled
at
the
acoustics
expert.
Many
wanted
to
know
who
was
responsible
for
the
recorded
scream
and
asked
whom
they
could
contact
to
complain.

The
main
issue
seems
to
be
that
no
one
in
the
community
was
given
notice
that
the
test
would
be
conducted.
Going
around
to
apologize
to
the
affected
Philadelphians
is
an
understandable
punishment.
Zealous
advocacy
or
doing
too
much?
I
think
the
determinant
will
be
whether
the
apology
range
will
be
in
a
one
block
radius
or

two
.


Lawyers
Ordered
To
Provide
Door-To-Door
Apology
After
Their
Early-Morning
‘Scream
Test’

[ABA
Journal]



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Am Law 100 Firm’s Founder Retires Early, Leaving Biglaw Behind – Above the Law

Last
May,
Lewis
Brisbois

a
firm
that
brought
in
$720,000,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
71
in
the
Am
Law
100

suffered
a
one-two
punch
of
losses.
First,
the
firm
suffered
a
defection
en
masse,
when

more
than
100
attorneys

left
to
join
a
(now
defunct)
boutique
firm.
Shortly
thereafter,
Robert
“Bob”
Lewis,
the
firm’s
founder
and
then
chair,
decided
to

step
down
.
At
the
time,
Lewis
was
one
of
the
longest-serving
chairs
of
any
Am
Law
100
firm.

In
the
wake
of
stepping
down
from
his
leadership
role,
Lewis
announced
that
he’d
retire
from
the
firm
on
December
31,
2024.
Now,
just
three
months
before
the
end
of
the
year,
it
seems
that
things
have
taken
a
turn

as
we
mentioned
in

Morning
Docket
,
Lewis
Brisbois
now
has
“considerably
less
‘Lewis,’”
as
Lewis,
and
several
of
his
family
members,
are
no
longer
with
the
firm.

Bloomberg
Law

has
additional
details:

Lewis

moved
up
his
scheduled
retirement
to
Oct.
1
from
Dec.
31
so
he
“can
spend
more
time
with
his
family
this
holiday
season,”
the
firm’s
management
committee
said
in
an
Oct.
2
email
viewed
by
Bloomberg
Law.

Bob
Lewis’
son,
Tommy
Lewis,
who
was
the
firm’s
chief
technology
officer
for
more
than
a
decade,
is
also
leaving
Lewis
Brisbois,
according
to
an
Oct.
3
email
from
the
firm’s
management
committee
viewed
by
Bloomberg
Law.
Tommy
Lewis
left
the
firm
Oct.
4,
according
to
a
person
familiar
with
the
matter.

Bob
Lewis’
grandson,
Ryan
Lewis,
the
IT
administrator
in
the
firm’s
Costa
Mesa,
California
office,
left
the
same
day
as
Tommy
Lewis,
according
to
two
people
familiar
with
the
matter.

Three
generations
of
Lewis
have
officially
left
the
firm
that
will
continue
to
operate
with
its
founder’s
name.
Best
of
luck
to
the
Lewis
family.


Lewis
Brisbois
Founder
Bob
Lewis,
Two
Family
Members
Leave
Firm

[Bloomberg
Law]



Staci ZaretskyStaci
Zaretsky
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter

and

Threads

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.

Video: Besides, Pharma and PBMs, Who Drives Up Drug Costs? – MedCity News

Bipartisan
Congressional
scrutiny
has
shone
a
harsh
spotlight
on
the
many
tactics
used
by
pharmacy
benefit
managers
(PBMs)
and
Big
Pharma
that
contribute
to
the
sky
high
costs
of
prescription
drugs
in
the
U.S.
Last
year,
the
nation
spent
$723
billion
in
prescription
drugs
alone

the
rest
of
the
world
combined
paid
nearly
the
same
amount.
Now,
the

FTC
has
sued
the
Big
3
PBMs

for
their
practices
tied
to
insulin.
Some
CEOs
of
pharma
companies
have
been

hauled
to
Congress

to
provide
testimony
about
why
drugs
cost
so
much.

However,
it
would
be
inaccurate
to
think
that
only
these
two
entities
drive
up
drug
costs
domestically.
Others
do
too.
As
Paul
Markovich,
CEO
of
Blue
Shield
of
California,
explained
in
an
event
in
spring,
both
drug
distributors
and
hospitals
are
also
to
blame.
See
these
videos
below.


Photo:
champc,
Getty
Images

Video: Besides, Pharma and PBMs, Who Drives Up Drug Costs? – MedCity News

Bipartisan
Congressional
scrutiny
has
shone
a
harsh
spotlight
on
the
many
tactics
used
by
pharmacy
benefit
managers
(PBMs)
and
Big
Pharma
that
contribute
to
the
sky
high
costs
of
prescription
drugs
in
the
U.S.
Last
year,
the
nation
spent
$723
billion
in
prescription
drugs
alone

the
rest
of
the
world
combined
paid
nearly
the
same
amount.
Now,
the

FTC
has
sued
the
Big
3
PBMs

for
their
practices
tied
to
insulin.
Some
CEOs
of
pharma
companies
have
been

hauled
to
Congress

to
provide
testimony
about
why
drugs
cost
so
much.

However,
it
would
be
inaccurate
to
think
that
only
these
two
entities
drive
up
drug
costs
domestically.
Others
do
too.
As
Paul
Markovich,
CEO
of
Blue
Shield
of
California,
explained
in
an
event
in
spring,
both
drug
distributors
and
hospitals
are
also
to
blame.
See
these
videos
below.


Photo:
champc,
Getty
Images

Video: Besides, Pharma and PBMs, Who Drives Up Drug Costs? – MedCity News

Bipartisan
Congressional
scrutiny
has
shone
a
harsh
spotlight
on
the
many
tactics
used
by
pharmacy
benefit
managers
(PBMs)
and
Big
Pharma
that
contribute
to
the
sky
high
costs
of
prescription
drugs
in
the
U.S.
Last
year,
the
nation
spent
$723
billion
in
prescription
drugs
alone

the
rest
of
the
world
combined
paid
nearly
the
same
amount.
Now,
the

FTC
has
sued
the
Big
3
PBMs

for
their
practices
tied
to
insulin.
Some
CEOs
of
pharma
companies
have
been

hauled
to
Congress

to
provide
testimony
about
why
drugs
cost
so
much.

However,
it
would
be
inaccurate
to
think
that
only
these
two
entities
drive
up
drug
costs
domestically.
Others
do
too.
As
Paul
Markovich,
CEO
of
Blue
Shield
of
California,
explained
in
an
event
in
spring,
both
drug
distributors
and
hospitals
are
also
to
blame.
See
these
videos
below.


Photo:
champc,
Getty
Images

Trump Lawyers Shake What Their Mommas Gave ‘Em At Second Circuit In Effort To Fend Off NY Criminal Sentencing – Above the Law

Donald
Trump’s
lawyers
were

comin’
in
hot

last
night
at
the
Second
Circuit.

The
underlying
proceedings
arise
from
a
politically
motivated
investigation
by
the
Manhattan
District
Attorney’s
Office
(“DANY”),
dubbed
the
“zombie
case”
by
former
Special
Assistant
District
Attorney
Mark
Pomerantz
because
DANY
refused
to
abandon
efforts
to
target
President
Trump
until
star
witness,
felon,
and
serial
perjurer
Michael
Cohen-bolstered
by
other
financially
motivated
witnesses
such
as
Stormy
Daniels-concocted
the
type
of
false
and
implausible
story
President
Trump’s
political
opponents
wanted
to
hear.

If
they
have
a
non-insane
argument,
Trump’s
lawyers
Todd
Blanche
and
Emil
Bove
risk
burying
it
under
a
steaming
pile
of
unrelated
invective
in
a
brief
that
runs
to
79
pages,
with
four
appendices.
If
they

don’t

have
a
non-insane
argument,
well

this
is
exactly
how
they’d
proceed,
right?

What
they
want
is
for
the
Circuit
Court
to
swoop
in
and
remove
the
case
to
federal
court,
despite
the
fact
that
a
jury
found
Trump
guilty
in
May
of
creating
false
business
records
to
cover
up
the
hush
money
payment
to
Stormy
Daniels,
and
the

federal
removal
statute

requires
notice
of
removal
within
30
days
of
arraignment.

Indeed,
Trump
did
try
to
remove
the
case
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
in
timely
fashion
back
in
2023,
only
to
be

unceremoniously
booted

by
Judge
Alvin
Hellerstein,
who
found
that
making
false
“retainer”
payments
to
a
lawyer
to
reimburse
him
for
money
fronted
to
a
porn
star
prior
to
election
was
not
part
of
his
official
presidential
duties.
The
law
does
allow
a
criminal
defendant
to
move
for
removal
at
a
later
date
“for
good
cause
shown,”
but
in
a
desperate
bid
to
fend
off
sentencing,
Trump
simply
docketed
a
second
removal
notice
in
August
without
leave
of
the
court.
After
the
clerk
removed
the
notice,
Blanche
and
Bove
restyled
their
motion
as
a
petition.

They
argued
that
Justice
Merchan
was
biased,
that
he
had
improperly
allowed
the
use
of
impermissible
evidence
under

Trump
v.
US
,
and
that
the
conduct
at
issue
was
part
of
his
official
presidential
duties,
and
thus
immune
from
prosecution.
In
fact,
these
arguments
are
all
being
considered
by
state
appellate
courts
in
New
York,
as
Judge
Hellerstein
noted
a
day
later
when
he
summarily

dismissed

their
motion.

But
this
did
not
deter
Trump’s
lawyers,
who
gamely
repeated
them
last
night,
while
complaining
about
the
trial
judge’s
“rushed
and
conclusory
summary
remand
order
issued
without
adversarial
briefing
or
a
required
hearing.”

Not
to
put
too
fine
a
point
on
it,
but
that
is
BULLSHIT.

Under
28
USC
§
1455(b)(2):

A
notice
of
removal
of
a
criminal
prosecution
shall
include
all
grounds
for
such
removal.
A
failure
to state grounds
that
exist
at
the
time
of
the
filing
of
the
notice
shall
constitute
a
waiver
of
such
grounds,
and
a
second
notice
may
be
filed
only
on
grounds
not
existing
at
the
time
of
the
original
notice.
For
good
cause
shown,
the
United States district
court
may
grant
relief
from
the
limitations
of
this
paragraph.

Trump
was
entitled
to

and
got

a
hearing
and
full
briefing
on
his
original
removal
petition
back
in
2023,

and
he
lost
.
The
Supreme
Court’s
intervening
immunity
ruling
may
yet
blow
up
the
verdict,
since
testimony
by
White
House
aide
Hope
Hicks
might
have
been
inadmissible;
but
that’s
got
nothing
to
do
with
the
underlying
conduct,
which
Judge
Hellerstein
already
found
was
purely
personal.

Trump
was
not
entitled
to
a
second,
post-conviction
bite
at
the
apple,
much
less
a
second
round
of
briefing
and
a
“required
hearing,”
absent
a
judicial
finding
of
“good
cause.”
And
two
former
federal
prosecutors
bloody
well
know
that. 

After
Justice
Merchan
postponed
Trump’s
sentencing
until
after
the
election,
the
Second
Circuit

denied

his
emergency
stay
motion.
That
panel
was
made
up
of
Judge
Michael
Park,
one
of
the
FedSoc
babies
installed
on
a
party-line
vote,
Judge
Lohier,
who
was
appointed
by
Obama
to
fill
the
seat
vacated
by
Justice
Sotomayor,
and
senior
Judge
John
Walker,
who
was
originally
appointed
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
by
Ronald
Reagan.
Perhaps
they
will
be
more
receptive
to
his
claims
that
it
should
snatch
the
case
from
state
courts
because
his
lawyers
take
several
hundred
pages
to
shout

TRUMP
V.
US

CHANGED
EVERYTHING.

Or
perhaps
not.


People
of
The
State
of
New
York
v.
Trump

[District
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

People
of
The
State
of
New
York
v.
Trump

[Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.