Author: TSA Press

It
was
probably
inevitable
that
Alex
Jones
would
wind
up
suing
the
Sandy
Hook
parents.
After
years
of
calling
them
crisis
actors
who
faked
the
murders
of
their
own
children
and
encouraging
his
deranged
supporters
to
harass
them
for
years
on
end,
Jones
is
now
demanding
that

they
make
him
whole
for
his
pain
and
suffering.

Jones,
a
sentient
shitpost
who
is
rapidly
transforming
into
a
case
of
explosive
diarrhea,
is
trying
desperately
to
fend
off
the
sale
of
his
company
Free
Speech
Systems
to
the
owners
of
the
satirical
website
The
Onion.
And
because
the
parents
of
the
Sandy
Hook
kids
are
supportive
of
the
sale,
he’s
happily
willing
to
paint
a
target
on
their
backs
again.

The
issue
is
the
structure
of
the
bid
package,
in
which
the
parents
who
sued
in
Connecticut
agreed
to
disclaim
some
of
their
proceeds
in
favor
of
the
parents
who
sued
in
Texas.
Because
of
the
gross
disparity
in
their
damages
awards
—
$1.4
billion
compared
to
$50
million
—
the
Connecticut
plaintiffs
are
legally
entitled
to
97
percent
of
the
proceeds
of
the
sale.
To
ensure
that
the
Texas
plaintiffs
were
better
off
under
a
deal
with
The
Onion’s
parent
company
Global
Tetrahedron
than
with
the
Jones-aligned
bidder,
a
shell
company
calling
itself
First
United
American
Companies
LLC
(FUAC),
the
Connecticut
plaintiffs
agreed
to
disclaim
enough
of
their
share
to
make
the
Texas
plaintiffs
$100,000
better
off.

By
my
math,
that’s
about
$537,500.

The
asset
transfer,
along
with
a
promise
to
share
future
ad
revenues
with
the
Sandy
Hook
families,
convinced
Chapter
7
Trustee
Christopher
Murray
that
The
Onion’s
offer
maximized
value
for
all
creditors,
despite
the
fact
that
it
was
lower
than
the
competing
bid.
FUAC
is
already
challenging
this
decision,
filing
a
highly
incendiary

motion
to
disqualify
Global
Tetrahedron
that
made
allegations
of
gross
impropriety
against
Murray.
Murray
responded
with
a

threat
to
seek
Rule
11
sanctions
against
FUAC’s
lawyer
Walter
Cicack.

Jones
has
been
screaming
bloody
murder
on
his
show
about
the
Justice
Department
under
Trump
throwing
Murray
and
The
Onion’s
CEO
Ben
Collins
in
jail,
as
well
as
predicting
that
Elon
Musk
is
going
to
ride
to
his
rescue.
(He’s
not.)
And
last
night
he
went
one
further
and
filed
an
absolutely

batshit
complaint
against
Murray,
Global
Tetrahedron,
and
the
Connecticut
Sandy
Hook
parents
demanding
that
US
Bankruptcy
Judge
Christopher
Lopez
stop
the
sale,
declare
FUAC
the
winner,
and
order
the
putative
defendants
to:

a.
Cease
to
use,
directly
or
indirectly,
any
Jones
IP
Rights;
b.
Cease
from
using
any
reference
to
Alex
Jones
in
their
business
or
operations
or
suggesting
or
inferring
that
they
have
any
rights
to
use
of
Alex
Jones’s
name
or
persona;
c.
Return
to
the
business
offices
of
FSS
and
to
the
control
of
Alex
Jones,
who
is
the
duly
elected
Manager
of
FSS,
all
assets
of
FSS
and/or
Alex
Jones
that
have
been
taken;
d.
Identify
to
Alex
Jones
all
assets
(tangible
or
intangible)
of
FSS
and/or
Alex
Jones
known
to
have
been
taken
and/or
secreted;
e.
Cease
and
refrain
from
(i)
any
interference
with
the
operation
and
management
by
Alex
Jones
of
the
business
of
FSS,
including
InfoWars,
and
(ii)
dealing
with
any
and
all
third
parties
in
matters
that
relate
to
or
concern
the
assets
of
FSS
and/or
Alex
Jones,
without
the
express
written
permission
of
this
Court;
f.
Cease
to
advise
or
publish
that
any
of
the
Enjoined
Parties
owns
or
has
acquired
the
right
to
own,
any
assets
or
business
of
FSS
and/or
Alex
Jones,
including
without
limitation
any
Jones
IP
Rights;
and
g.
Notify
in
writing
all
persons
to
whom
any
of
the
Enjoined
Parties
has
told
they
own
or
have
acquired
the
right
to
own,
any
assets
or
business
of
FSS
and/or
Alex
Jones,
including
without
limitation
any
Jones
IP
Rights,
and
advise
them
that
statements
previously
made
to
the
contrary
were
made
in
error.

Leave
aside
the
whole

prior
restraint
thing.
How
Murray
is
supposed
to
simultaneously
convey
the
assets
to
FUAC
and
return
them
to
Jones
—
who
voluntarily
filed
for
Chapter
7
liquidation!
—
is
not
entirely
clear.
But
this
document
was
drafted
by

apparently
experienced
bankruptcy
counsel
who
are
unaware
of
the Barton
doctrine,
which
bars
suits
against
a
bankruptcy
trustee
without
leave
of
the
court.
They
also
seem
to
think
that
media
defendants
have
some
kind
of
magical
shield
of
invincibility
when
it
comes
to
issues
of
public
importance,
so
the
trail
court
verdicts
should
be
treated
as
presumptively
overturned.
And
if
Jones
hadn’t
defaulted
in
both
courts,
perhaps
he
could
have
made
that
point
to
the
jury.
Anyway,
it
violates
Jones’s
free
speech
rights
to
sell
his
IP
to
gun
control
advocates,
and
he
intends
to
seek
monetary
damages.
Also,
the
judgments
against
him
are
unfair
because something
something
Hillary
Clinton.

And
if
that
wasn’t
nutty
enough,
Texas
Attorney
General
Ken
Paxton
has

entered
the
chat.
LOL,
what
even
is
federalism,

amirite?

Alexander
E.
Jones
and
Official
Committee
Of
Unsecured
Creditors [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

Once
the
Diddy
hit
the
fan,
it
was
only
a
matter
of
time
before
other
big
names
got
wrapped
up
in
it.
We
were
promised
as
much
—
Tony
Buzbee

promised
to
find
the
silent
accomplices
and
enablers
who
undergirded
Diddy’s
alleged
freakoffs.
But
the
line
between
tracking
down
collaborators
and
alleged
extortion
isn’t
always
clear.
Buzbee’s
tactics
have
resulted
in
an
unnamed
plaintiff
accusing
him
of
inflicting
emotional
distress
and
extortion.

Law360 has
coverage:

“Plaintiff
presently
faces
a
gun
to
his
head
—
either
repeatedly
pay
an
exorbitant
sum
of
money
to
stop
defendants
from
the
wide
publication
of
wildly
false
allegations
of
sexual
assault
that
would
subject
plaintiff
to
opprobrium
and
irreparably
harm
plaintiff’s
reputation,
family,
career
and
livelihood,
or
else
face
the
threat
of
an
untold
number
of
civil
suits
and
financial
and
personal
ruin,”
the
complaint
says.
“The
theme
of
defendants’
statements
and
correspondence
is
the
immediate
and
extensive
threat
of
exposure
if
plaintiff
fails
to
make
a
sufficient
offer
of
money.
This
is
textbook
extortion.”

There
isn’t
enough
information
at
the
moment
to
know
who
is
in
the
wrong
here.
Diddy
is
a
great
example
of
how
easy
it
can
be
to

take
the
moral
high
road
and
deny
any
involvement
or
wrongdoing
right
up

until
CNN
releases
video
evidence
to
the
public.
Buzbee
described
his
letter
to
the
plaintiff
as
a
request
for
confidential
mediation.
The
nature
of
the
correspondence
may
ultimately
be
determined
by
a
judge
and
jury.

---

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.

A
room
buzzing
with
energy,
filled
with
the
best
and
brightest
minds
in
IP
law.
The
air
is
electric
with
ideas,
and
the
conversations
are
nothing
short
of
enlightening.
This
was
my
experience
at
the
Anaqua
Client
Experience
Conference,
where
I
had
the
honor
of
delivering
a
keynote
and,
more
importantly,
soaking
in
invaluable
wisdom
from
in-house
IP
professionals.
Their
stories
and
insights
were
a
treasure
trove
of
practical
knowledge,
and
I’m
excited
to
share
three
key
takeaways
that
can
help
you
and
your
team
thrive
in
this
dynamic
field.

Deliberate
Upskilling:
A
Necessity,
Not
An
Option

Let’s
start
with
a
story.
I
met
an
in-house
counsel
who,
despite
her
impressive
credentials,
felt
she
was
falling
behind
in
the
rapidly
evolving
tech
landscape.
Her
solution?
Deliberate
upskilling.
Here’s
how
she
approached
it:

• 
  Identify
  Skills
  Gaps.
  She
  conducted
  a
  skills
  gap
  analysis
  for
  her
  team,
  identifying
  areas
  needing
  improvement
  to
  stay
  competitive
  and
  relevant.
• 
  Create
  A
  Learning
  Plan.
  She
  developed
  a
  structured
  plan
  to
  address
  these
  gaps.
  This
  included
  online
  courses,
  webinars,
  workshops,
  and
  in-house
  training
  sessions.
• 
  Encourage
  Continuous
  Learning.
  She
  fostered
  a
  culture
  where
  learning
  was
  a
  continuous
  process,
  encouraging
  team
  members
  to
  stay
  curious
  and
  seek
  knowledge
  proactively.

Her
deliberate
approach
to
upskilling
not
only
enhanced
her
team’s
capabilities
but
also
boosted
their
confidence,
positioning
them
as
leaders
in
the
field.

Beta-Testing
Partnerships:
Be
The
First
To
Innovate

Next,
let
me
introduce
you
to
an
IP
manager
who
shared
her
secret
to
staying
ahead
of
the
curve:
beta-testing
partnerships.
She
told
me
how
her
company
became
early
adopters
of
cutting-edge
tools,
giving
them
a
competitive
edge.
Here’s
her
strategy:

• 
  Build
  Relationships.
  She
  established
  strong
  relationships
  with
  tech
  providers,
  showing
  them
  her
  team
  was
  keen
  to
  collaborate
  and
  provide
  valuable
  feedback.
• 
  Volunteer
  For
  Beta
  Testing.
  She
  proactively
  offered
  her
  team
  as
  beta
  testers,
  gaining
  early
  access
  to
  new
  tools
  and
  influencing
  their
  development
  to
  better
  suit
  her
  company’s
  needs.
• 
  Evaluate
  And
  Implement.
  Her
  team
  carefully
  evaluated
  these
  new
  tools
  during
  the
  beta
  phase,
  implementing
  the
  ones
  that
  added
  value
  and
  enhanced
  their
  efficiency.

This
proactive
approach
not
only
kept
her
team
at
the
forefront
of
technological
advancements
but
also
fostered
a
culture
of
innovation
and
adaptability.

Scheduled
Learning
And
Reviews:
Consistency
Is
Key

Lastly,
I
met
a
general
counsel
who
swears
by
the
power
of
regular
learning
schedules
and
progress
reviews.
His
approach?
Rigorous
and
consistent.
Here’s
how
he
did
it:

• 
  Set
  A
  Learning
  Schedule.
  He
  dedicated
  specific
  times
  in
  his
  calendar
  for
  learning
  activities,
  ensuring
  his
  team
  could
  focus
  on
  professional
  development
  without
  interruptions.
• 
  Monthly
  Progress
  Reviews.
  He
  conducted
  monthly
  reviews
  to
  assess
  the
  progress
  of
  their
  learning
  initiatives,
  identifying
  what
  was
  working
  and
  what
  wasn’t,
  allowing
  for
  timely
  course
  corrections.
• 
  Align
  With
  Best
  Practices.
  He
  ensured
  their
  learning
  activities
  and
  reviews
  were
  aligned
  with
  current
  best
  practices,
  keeping
  his
  team
  at
  the
  forefront
  of
  the
  industry.

This
structured
approach
to
continuous
improvement
ensured
his
team
remained
agile,
knowledgeable,
and
ready
to
tackle
any
challenge
the
dynamic
world
of
IP
law
threw
at
them.

The
Anaqua
Client
Experience
Conference
was
more
than
just
an
event;
it
was
a
masterclass
in
practical
wisdom
from
in-house
IP
professionals.
Deliberate
upskilling,
beta-testing
partnerships,
and
scheduled
learning
and
reviews
are
three
strategies
that
stood
out,
providing
a
roadmap
to
staying
ahead
in
the
field
of
IP
law.
Remember,
continuous
learning
and
adaptation
are
your
best
allies
in
this
fast-paced
landscape.

So,
as
we
navigate
the
future,
let’s
stay
curious,
innovative,
and
committed
to
excellence.
Keep
learning,
keep
growing,
and
watch
your
team
thrive!

---

Olga
V.
Mack


is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and  Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:


Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Turley
Really
Wants
You
To
Put
Gaetz’s
17
Year
Old
Thing
Aside:

Loyalists
are
loyal
to
a
fault.

Harvard
Law
Students
Avoid
Getting
Pushed
For
Studying:

You’ll
never
guess
how
they
skirted
punishment!

Law
Firms
Sitting
Ringside:

Did
you
catch
these
firms
during
the
Paul-Tyson
bout?

Biglaw
Partner
Suspended
Over
Inappropriate
Contact
Allegations:

He
was
also
ordered
to
pay
£66,000.

You
Weren’t
Supposed
To
See
That:

Poor
in-house
email
security
has
firm
scrambling
over
what
junior
associates
saw.

I
don’t
have
many
tweets
that
automatically
come
to
mind
whenever
Ohio
is
mentioned,
but
the
two
that
do
should
cross
your
mind
whenever
Ohio’s
race
and
education
policy
decisions
pop
on
your
timeline:

Now
that
that’s
out
the
way,
5
law
schools
in
Ohio
just
dropped
their
race
based
scholarships
and
programs.

The
Center
Square
has
coverage:

Pressure
from
a
Columbus-based
policy
group
has
forced
five
university-based
Ohio
law
schools
to
stop
race-based
scholarship
or
internship
programs.

The
Buckeye
Institute
announced
law
schools
at
Cleveland
State,
Ohio
State,
Akron,
Cincinnati
and
Toledo
stopped
the
programs
after
it
announced
an
investigation.

Glad
that
groups
are
targeting
the
real
threat
to
our
democracy:
people
getting
money
so
they
can
attend
school!
The
impacted
schools
are
Cleveland
State,
Ohio
State,
Akron,
Cincinnati
and
Toledo.
They
won’t
be
the
last.
Public
universities
all
across
the
nation
are
likely
to
follow
suit
—
few
things
put
a
damper
on
solidarity
like
getting
sued
over
it.

Ohio
Law
Schools
Stop
Race-Based
Scholarships,
Programs
[The
Center
Square]

Earlier:

The
Affirmative
Action
Cases
Went
About
As
Well
As
You’d
Expect
Them
To.
What
Now?

---

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.

“We
always
knew
the
guys
who
currently
run
InfoWars
were
going
to
take
this
badly
and
use
the
loss
to
fundraise
off
of
it,
and
they
did
not
disappoint,”
the
Onion’s
CEO
Ben
Collins

posted
on
Bluesky
last
week,
adding
that
“Buying
this
site
was
always
going
to
be
fun
later
on,
but
annoying
right
away.”
And
boy
was
he
ever
right!

Last
week
Chapter
7
bankruptcy
trustee
Christopher
Murray

announced
that
Global
Tetrahedron,
parent
company
of
The
Onion,
was
the
winning
bidder
in
the
auction
of
Free
Speech
Systems,
Alex
Jones’s
corporate
firehose
of
hate.
The
runner-up
bidder
was
a
company
called
First
United
American
Companies,
LLC,
which
would
appear
to
be
associated
with
one
of
FSS’s
suppliers.
FUAC’s
attorney
Walter
Cicack
previously

represented
Charlie
Cicack
in
this
case,
and
Charlie
is
described
by
the

New
York
Times
as

“an
entrepreneur
who
had
sold
products
through
Free
Speech
Systems
in
the
past”
and
then
“claimed
ignorance
of
the
relationship
and
then
deleted
references
to
Infowars
from
his
social
media
accounts”
when
the
paper
contacted
him.

At
an

emergency
status
conference
on
Thursday,
Walter
Cicack
protested
that
Murray,
the
trustee,
had
illegally
changed
the
terms
of
the
auction
and
colluded
with
the
Sandy
Hook
families
to
rig
the
auction
in
favor
of
a
party
who
put
less
cash
on
the
table.
And
US
Bankruptcy
Judge
Christopher
Lopez
appeared
sympathetic,
despite
Murray’s
protests
that
he’d
done
what
was
in
the
best
interests
of
all
the
creditors.

This
morning,
Cicack
filed
an

emergency
motion
to
disqualify
The
Onion’s
bid
on
the
theory
that
Murray
violated
the
court’s
winddown
order
authorizing
the
sale.
It
was
chock
full
of
highly
inflammatory
claims
that
Murray
acted
“in
complete
bad
faith
and
with
improper
collusion
with
the
Connecticut
Families.”

Within
an
hour,
Murray
docketed
a
two-page

preliminary
response
denying
the
“barrage
of
baseless
allegations,
selective
quoting
and
half-truths
in
FUAC’s
recent
filings”
and
“reserv[ing]
all
rights,
including
those
under
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
11
and
Federal
Rule
of
Bankruptcy
Procedure
9011
regarding
the
duties
of
attorneys
who
sign
their
names
to
pleadings
in
this
Court.”

Then
this
afternoon,
Murray
filed
an expedited
motion
to
ratify
the
sale
making
clear
why
he
chose
The
Onion’s
bid,
even
though
it
was
for
less
cash
upfront.

Thanks
to
the
numerous
exhibits,
the
sealed
auction
negotiations
have
now
been
functionally
unsealed
(with
the
exception
of
the
identity
of
FUAC
and
its
funders).
FUAC’s

initial
bid
was
$1.2
million,
and
The
Onion’s
was

$1
million.
But
The
Onion’s
bid
included
a
Distributable
Proceeds
Waiver
by
the
Connecticut
plaintiffs
in
favor
of
the
Texas
plaintiffs
addressing
a
rift
between
the
two
sets
of
Sandy
Hook
parents
that
opened
up
when
FSS
exited
Chapter
11
proceedings.

In
brief,
the
Connecticut
plaintiffs
have
a
$1.4
billion
judgment;
and
the
Texas
plaintiffs
have
a
$50
million
judgment.
And
so,
under
a
pro
rata
distribution
of
assets,
the
Texas
plaintiffs
are
going
to
get
just
three
percent
of
the
payout.
And
so,
to
address
this
disparity,
while
simultaneously
ensuring
that
Jones
doesn’t
get
to
keep
the
company,
the
Connecticut
plaintiffs
agreed
to
disclaim
as
much
of
the
sale
proceeds
as
necessary
to
make
the
Texas
plaintiffs
$100,000
better
off
than
they
would
be
under
the
second-place
bid.

To
the
extent
an
alternative
Qualified
Bid
is
submitted
by
a
third
party
that
consists
of
cash
consideration
in
a
higher
amount
than
the
Purchase
Price
set
forth
herein,
the
Connecticut
Families
commit
to
forego
receipt
of
the
Distributable
Proceeds
Waiver
Amount
(as
defined
herein),
and
shall
assign
the
Distributable
Proceeds
Waiver
Amount
to
the
Chapter
7
Trustee
for
the
benefit
of
all
other
unsecured
creditors
of
FSS.
The
waiver
described
in
this
section
(the
“Distributable
Proceeds
Waiver”)
is
intended
to
enhance
the
terms
of
this
Bid,
such
that
creditors
other
than
the
Connecticut
Families
will
receive
greater
cash
recovery
pursuant
to
this
Bid
than
they
would
under
an
alternative
Qualified
Bid,
notwithstanding
a
higher
cash
purchase
price.

Murray
went
back
to
both
FUAC
and
The
Onion
and
asked
them
to
submit
their
best
and
final
offers,
as
was
within
his
discretion
according
to
the
plain
language
of
Judge
Lopez’s
order
authorizing
the
sale.
Notably,
FUAC

did
not
object
at
the
time
to
the
change
in
procedures.

The
submissions
were
to
include
bids
on
multiple
different
lots,
in
varying
combinations,
since
the
assets
include
Infowars’
IP,
the
Infowars
store,
various
domain
names,
and
the
FSS’s
tangible
personal
property.

Goblinlove
dot
com???

This
appears
to
have
been
an
effort
to
extract
maximum
value
for
creditors
by
selling
the
IP
to
The
Onion,
and
the
store,
which
The
Onion
didn’t
care
much
about,
to
FUAC.

FUAC
came
back
with
a
bid
for
$3.5
million.
The
Onion’s
bid
was
$1.75
million.
But
it
was
accompanied
by
a
promise
from
the
Connecticut
families
to
disclaim
as
much
of
the
purchase
price
as
necessary
to
put
the
Texas
families
in
a
better
position
than
they
would
have
been
with
the
FUAC
deal,
even
if
FUAC
raised
its
offer
to
$7
million.

To
be
clear,
the
Connecticut
plaintiffs
calculated
this
by
grossing
the
share
of
all
other
creditors
up
to
25
percent.
In
reality,
everyone
else’s
claims
against
the
Jones
estate
are
just
a
rounding
error
compared
to
the
$1.4
billion
plus
post-judgment
interest
the
Connecticut
plaintiffs
entitled
to.
And,
despite
Cicack’s
suggestion
that
The
Onion
was
bidding
with
“monopoly
money,”
the
Sandy
Hook
parents
will
get
a
continuing
share
of
the
ad
revenue
post-sale.

So
Murray,
exercising
his
broad
discretion
under
the
winddown
order
and
the
business
judgment
rule,
chose
the
offer
that
maximized
value
to
the
creditors,
even
though
it
was
not
the
deal
that
put
the
most
cash
on
the
table
up
front.

Presumably
he
will
respond
to
Cicack’s
attack
in
short
order.
Wonder
if
we’ll
find
out
exactly
which
goblinlover
is
behind
that
FUAC
bid
…

Alexander
E.
Jones
and
Official
Committee
Of
Unsecured
Creditors [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
David
Rosewater,
head
of
Morgan
Stanley’s
shareholder
activist
defense
practice,
public
campaigns
by
shareholder
activists
were
up
how
much
in
2024
over
the
year
prior?

Hint:
Disney,
News
Corp.,
Norfolk
Southern,
and
Southwest
Airlines
all
saw
very
public
battles
in
the
past
year.
And
Rosewater
expects
the
trend
to
continue,
“There
is
a
tremendous
amount
of
activity
kind
of
under
the
surface
that
I
expect
to
sort
of
ramp
up
more
significantly
into
next
proxy
season.”

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Some
judges
apparently
believe
they
should
be
exempt
from
criticism
and
public
scrutiny
—
in
addition
to
being
exempt
from

Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964
and
other
anti-discrimination
laws,
and
from
oversight
and
accountability.

That
was
one
of
my
takeaways
from
Thursday’s
Federalist
Society
panel
on
“the
continued
independence
of
the
federal
judiciary.”

For
anyone
who
wonders
why
public
confidence
in
the
courts
has
declined,
watch
this
hour-long
event
featuring
Fifth
Circuit
Judge
Edith
Jones,
Georgetown
Law
Professor
Stephen
Vladeck,
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law
Professor
Daniel
Epps,
Paul
Weiss
Partner
Kannon
Shanmugam,
and
moderator
Fifth
Circuit
Judge
James
Ho.
At
a
time
when
the
federal
judiciary
should
be
a
bulwark
against
political
partisanship
and
government
abuses,
this
panel
may
make
you
almost
as
skeptical
of
the
courts
as
I
am.

This

grievance-fest
was,
importantly,
marketed
as
“promoting
respectful
dialogue”
about
the
courts.
Yet
Judge
Ho
kicked
things
off
by
framing
the
current
landscape
as
a
“war
on
the
judiciary.”
Ho
and
Jones
both
bemoaned
what
they
perceive
to
be
the
less
respectful
(subtext:
less
obsequious)
tone
with
which
the
courts
are
discussed,
which
they
associated
with
declining
public
confidence
in
the
institution.

Apparently,
even
the
slightest
hint
of
criticism
is
equivalent
to
“attacking”
the
courts.
It’s
too
bad
some
law
professors
and
advocates
want
to
hold
life-tenured
public
servants
to
basic
standards
of
human
decency!

As
someone
who

regularly
engages
with
federal
law
clerks
—
and
as
much
as
practicable
with
the
courts
where
they
work
—
my
faith
in
the
courts
as
an
institution
is
low.
Why?
Because
the
way
judges

treat
their
clerks
behind
closed
doors,
when
no
one
is
watching,
speaks
to
who
they
really
are.
How
can
we
have
confidence
that
judges
are
neutral
arbiters
of
disputes
and
fair,
impartial
interpreters
of
the
law,
when
they
mistreat

their
own
employees
and
believe
the
anti-discrimination
laws
they
interpret

should
not
apply
to
them?

The
federal
judiciary

deserves
significant
scrutiny
—
far
more
than
meager
attempts
by
some
in
the
Congress
and
the
media.
Yet
the
judiciary

refuses
to
recognize
the
scope
of
abusive
conduct
in
their
ranks,

refuses
to
engage
with
lawmakers
or
law
clerk
advocates,

refuses
to
release
any
data,
and

refuses
to
enact
meaningful
reforms
in
the
wake
of

high-profile
scandals
and

sustained
criticism.
I
do
not
think
the
judiciary
is
beyond
repair.
But
they
must
admit
there
are
problems,
and

implement
solutions.
I
have

a
few
ideas.

The
benefit
of
live
streaming
this
panel
is
that
we
could
all
tune
in.
The
downside
is
that
we
can
literally
roll
the
tape.
And
“roll
the
tape”
moments,
there
were.

Judge
Jones’s
exchanges
with
Professor
Vladeck
generated
the
most
attention.
Vladeck,
a
federal
courts
expert,
studies
“judge
shopping”
—
the
practice
whereby
litigants
seek
a
friendly
home
for
their
lawsuits
by
filing
suit
in
single-judge
districts.
He
also
writes,
speaks,
and
tweets
regularly
about
the
courts.

In
a
particularly
meme-worthy
exchange,
Jones
held
up
a
manila
folder
containing
Vladeck’s
“mean
tweets”
(prompting
some
to
joke
about
the
time
Jones’s
law
clerks
probably
spent
printing
them
out
for
her),
claiming
she
has
“studied”
Vladeck.
Jones
read
several
tweets
(“Hold
on
—
I
only
have
three
more!”)
as
alleged
“evidence”
of
Vladeck’s
“attacks”
on
the
judiciary.

According
to
Jones,
“attacks
on
the
judiciary
are
attacks
on
the
rule
of
law,”
and
she
misleadingly
suggested
that
critiques
of
the
judiciary
led
to,
for
example,
threats
on
Texas
federal
judge

Matthew
Kacsmaryk’s
life.
(Kacsmaryk
is
the
judge
at
the
center
of
the
politically
charged
Mifepristone
case.)

Vladeck
interjected
several
times
to
clarify:
“That’s
not
what
I
meant,”
and
“I
think
we
should
provide
the
context,”
to
which
Jones
snapped
“I
don’t
think
that’s
right.”
Frustrated
by
Vladeck’s
attempts
to
clarify
Jones’s
misleading
statements,
Jones

slammed
the
table
and
scowled.
Her
irreverent
behavior
was
not
particularly
becoming
of
a
life-tenured
federal
circuit
judge
—
and
former
chief
judge
—
to
say
the
least.

Given
Jones’s
anger,
you’d
think
these
tweets
would
be
quite
scathing.
Yet
the
mundane
tweets
Jones
read
appeared
to
simply
describe
the
process
of
judge-shopping.
Vladeck
responded,
“Where
was
the
attack
in
that?”
What
seemed
to
set
Jones
off
was
not
the
content
of
the
criticism,
but
the
mere
fact
that
Vladeck
dared
to
disagree
with
her.

When
I
watched
Jones’s
conduct,
my
first
thought
was,

If
this
is
how
Jones
treats
a
well-respected
law
professor,
in
public,
I
wonder
how
she
treats
her
20-something-year-old
law
clerks,
behind
closed
doors,
in
stressful
circumstances,
when
no
one
is
watching
and
no
one
will
hold
her
accountable?

We
should
not
conflate
criticism
or
critique
of
institutions
—
particularly
the
most
powerful
and
least
accountable
—
with
“attacks.”
As
Vladeck
said,
“that’s
a
dangerous
road
to
go
down.”
This
is
particularly
true
if
we
want
to
promote
respectful,
balanced
dialogue
about
the
courts.

Importantly,
Vladeck’s
tweets
were
not
“attacks,”
since
they
were
neither
aggressive,
nor
intended
to
spark
violence.
As
someone
who

regularly
criticizes
the
federal
judiciary’s

unethical
behavior,
his
statements
seemed
mild.

It
was
disheartening,
though
not
surprising,
that
only
Epps
defended
Vladeck
in
the
moment.
But
the
overwhelming
deference
granted
to
judges
during
this
event
underscores
a
much
larger
issue
in
the
legal
profession
and
media:
an
industry-wide

unwillingness
to
hold
the
federal
judiciary
accountable
through
dogged
reporting
and
honest
dialogue
about
misconduct
in
the
courts.

Law
schools
and
legal
employers
purvey
overwhelmingly
positive
—
and

biased
and
misleading
—
messaging
about
judicial
clerkships,
and

rhetoric,
intended
to
inculcate
students,
that
one
should
never
say
anything
negative
about
a
judge,
even
if
you
were
mistreated.

The
media,
too,
has
failed
to
hold
judges
accountable.
Unless
journalists
or

Congress
hold
the
judiciary’s
feet
to
the
fire
and
ask
tough
questions
about
their
repeated
failures
to
protect
law
clerks
from
harassment
and
abusive
conduct,
and
their
refusal
to
implement
reforms
in
the
wake
of

numerous
scandals,
the
judiciary
will
refuse
to
make
any
changes.

The
public
deserves
to
know:

1. Why
   does
   the
   federal
   judiciary
   oppose
   extending
   federal
   anti-discrimination
   protections
   to
   employees?
2. Is
   there
   evidence
   that
   judiciary
   “alternatives”
   to
   Title
   VII
   have
   been
   effective
3. How
   many
   law
   clerks
   per
   year
   are
   mistreated?
   How
   many
   are
   fired
   or
   quit
4. How
   often
   do
   law
   clerks
   use
   internal
   
   employee
   dispute
   resolution
   mechanisms,
   and
   what
   are
   the
   outcomes?
5. What
   metrics
   does
   the
   judiciary
   use
   to
   assess
   the
   effectiveness
   of
   its
   reporting
   and
   disciplinary
   mechanisms?
6. How
   does
   the
   judiciary
   protect
   law
   clerks
   who
   report
   misconduct
   against
   retaliation
   by
   judges?

Judicial
misconduct
is
only
covered
by
the
media
when
there
is
a
sexy
scandal.
Even
then,
the
courts
are
covered
with
kid
gloves.
Reporters
are
loathe
to
criticize
the
judiciary
and
nearly
always
prioritize
“both-sides-ing”
over
honest
reporting.
Actually,
there
are

not
two
sides
to
sexual
harassment.

Too
many
of
my
timely
pitches
to
media
outlets
about
judicial
accountability
are
declined
as
not
“newsy”
enough,
even
though
they
offer
an
under-represented
perspective
on
the
federal
courts
—
the
law
clerk
perspective
—
and
a
much-needed
critique
of
the
judiciary’s
shortcomings.
Yet
if
skittish
editors
tightly
control
what
gets
published
and
are
unwilling
hold
the
judiciary
accountable
but,
rather,
cower
in
the
face
of
judges,
what
good
is
the
Fourth
Estate?
This
is
why
I
view
part
of
my
responsibility,
through
platforms
like

Above
the
Law
and
my
own

social
media,
to
ensure
the
law
clerk
perspective
is
properly
represented.

Jones
used
her
platform
at
the
FedSoc
convention
to
“defend
her
colleagues”
from
what
she
characterized
as
unfair
criticism.
So,
it’s
equally
important
for
me
to
defend
the
hundreds
—
probably
thousands,
over
the
past
few
decades
—
of
law
clerks
who
have
been
mistreated
by
her
judiciary
colleagues
nationwide.
I’ll
continue
to
use
my
public
platforms
to
provide
a
necessary
counterweight
to
the
judiciary’s
misleading
rhetoric,
since
formal
checks
and
balances
like
Congress
and
the
press
have
failed,
while
also
offering

concrete
third-party
solutions.

What
is
the
takeaway
from
this
panel?
Jones
apparently
believes
that
judges
and
the
judiciary
should
not
be
criticized.
She
bemoaned
the
failure
of
legal
academia
and
bar
associations
to
defend
the
judiciary
—
as
if
the
judiciary
needs
defending
(it
does
not).
And
she
complained
about
the
“unregulated
podium
in
the
press
and
law
blogs
to
cast
…
aspersions”
(referring
to
journalism
and
social
media),
which
she
seems
to
perceive
as
unfair
criticism.

Considering
the
enormous,
unchecked
power
judges
wield,
it’s
ridiculous
to
claim
that
judges
should
not
be
criticized.
With
great
power
comes
both
the
responsibility
to
wield
it
ethically,
and
the
expectation
that
you’ll
be
held
accountable,
including
by
those
who
disagree
with
you.
To
suggest
that
speech
we
don’t
like
should
be
restricted,
based
on
some
judges’
hurt
feelings
—
or
that
the
unaccountable
judiciary
needs
more
defenders
—
is
antithetical
to
an
impartial
judiciary.

I
critique
the
courts
to
make
them
better.
It
is,
of
course,
our
First
Amendment
right
to
speak,
and
to
speak
critically
—
a
right
protected
under
the
Constitution,
which
Jones
swore
to
uphold.
Criticism
holds
our
institutions
accountable,
especially
when
few
are
willing
to

speak
truth
to
power,
fearing
reputational
harm
or
retaliation.

When
I
launched
The

Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP),
a
clerkship
transparency
and
judicial
accountability
nonprofit,
several
years
ago,
I
suspected
most
judges
had
never
been
confronted
with
a

negative
experience
like
mine
—
certainly
not
on
a
sustained
basis.
The
federal
judiciary

should
be
regularly
confronted
with
experiences
like
mine
—
which
are
not
rare
—
and
urged
to
make
changes,
until
they

finally
ensure
future
generations
of
clerks
do
not
endure
experiences
like
mine,
and
those
who
do,
have
legal
recourse.

As
I
continued
to
engage
with
federal
judges,
clerks,
and
those
working
within
the
federal
courts
through
LAP,
it
quickly
became
clear
just
how
cloistered
judges
are.
They
don’t
engage
on
social
media.
They
don’t
make
regular
public
statements
or
comment
in
the
press
because
they
might
be
perceived
by
litigants
as
biased,
if
they
expounded
on
an
issue
that
later
came
before
the
court.
And
they
perceive
themselves
to
be
“untouchable”
—
a
word
some
used
privately
with
me
—
exemplified
by
Jones’s
behavior
during
this
panel.

But
Jones
is
not
alone:
I
have
found
that,
the
longer
judges
serve
on
the
bench,
the
more
removed
from
reality
some
become.
Some
have
gone
decades
without
anyone
challenging
or
criticizing
them.
And
while
they
supervise
law
clerks
—
new
attorneys
at
the
start
of
their
careers
—
they
are
decades
removed
from
the
daily
experience
of
being
a
judicial
clerk.
Too
many
seem
unsympathetic
to
the
enormous
power
disparity
between
judge
and
clerk
and
the
heightened
risk
of
abuses
of
power
in
a
hierarchical
judicial
chambers.

And
some
restrictions
on
speech
are
what
judges
sign
up
for.
In
exchange,
they
are
granted
enormous
power
to
interpret
laws
having
national
significance,
substantial
prestige
of
office,
life
tenure,
decent
salaries
—
and,

they’re
exempt
from
anti-discrimination
laws.
Judges
do
not
have
bosses,
nor
do
they
face
oversight
over
their
dealings
with
subordinates.
Judges
who
don’t
like
this
are
free
to
leave
the
bench
—
and
resume
their
right
to
expound
publicly.

Judges
are
not
gods.
We
should
no
longer
place
them
on
pedestals.
Judges
are
public
figures
and
public
servants,
and
they
are
accountable
to
those
they
serve.
No
other
public
figures
are
immune
from
scrutiny
or
criticism.
In
fact,
Ho
himself
once
said,
“If
you’re
afraid
of
being
booed,
you
shouldn’t
be
a
judge.”
If
Jones
does
not
want
to
be
booed,
or
criticized,
she
can
leave.

The
public
—
who
judges
serve
—
has
not
only
the
right,
but
the

obligation,
to
criticize.
We
should
hold
judges
—
the
most
powerful
members
of
the
legal
profession
and,
perhaps,
the
entire
federal
government,
who
make
decisions
affecting
litigants’
lives,
livelihoods,
and
liberty
—
to
the
highest
ethical
standards,
not
the
lowest.

Critiques
of
judiciary
ethical
lapses,
lack
of
transparency,
and
opposition
to
reform
are
not
personal
attacks,
though
some
judges
who’d
prefer
not
to
be
criticized
at
all
take
them
personally.
The
public
square
may
be
the
only
real
mode
of
accountability
for
the
federal
judiciary
right
now,
considering
not
only
that
they
are
exempt
from
Title
VII,
but
also
that
the
internal
judicial
complaint
processes
are

under-utilized
shams.

My
critiques
are
not
partisan.
I
suspect
Jones
would
find
sympathetic
ears
for
her
arguments
that
the
judiciary
should
not
be
criticized,
and
should
not
change
their
rules
to
account
for
the
changing
times,
from
other
entrenched
judges
of
her
generation
across
the
ideological
spectrum.

I’ve
identified
a
generational
divide
through
my
work:
younger
judges,
both
conservative
and
liberal,
are
more
sympathetic
to
the
need
for
workplace
protections
and
greater
transparency
and
accountability.
Yet
we
cannot
wait
several
decades
for
those
wedded
to
the
status
quo
to
retire
or

die,
to
make
change.
(Toward
the
end
of
the
panel,
in
response
to
Epps’s
arguments
about
term
limits,
Jones
quipped,
“I’m
sorry
we’re
living
longer,
but
that’s
the
way
it
is”
—
perhaps
a
good
advertisement
for
term
limits.)

Jones,
too,
criticized
the
“exploitation
of
the
judicial
complaint
process,”
complaining
that
“anyone”
can
file
a
complaint
about
a
judge
and
suggesting
the
process
has
been
weaponized.
Apparently,

she
herself
is
no
stranger
to
the
complaint
process.
What
she
misses
is
that
it’s
difficult
—
by
design
—
if
you’re
a
law
clerk,
considering
the
lack
of
basic
protection
against
retaliation.
In
fact,
she
failed
to
mention
that
only
a
handful
of
complaints
per
year
are
filed
by

law
clerks,
due
in
part
to
statements
like
hers,
which
appear
intended
to
chill
complaints.

Law
clerks
should
not
be
silenced
by
these
statements.
While
Jones
believes
complaints
are
“distracting”
to
judges,
they
should
be,
for
those
accused
of
misconduct,
to
properly
incentivize
good
behavior
and
disincentivize
misconduct.

Judges
are
far
more
concerned
with
their
roles
as
jurists
than
they
are
with
their
positions
as
managers,
running
small
workplaces,
with
all
the
inherent
vulnerabilities
this
entails.
A
reshuffling
of
judicial
priorities
is
necessary.
And
more
mistreated
clerks
should
file
complaints
and
hold
judges
accountable
for
misconduct.

In
the
Third
Branch,
where
judges
are
immune
from
suit
for
sexual
harassment;
and
where
law
clerks
rarely
file
complaints,
complaints
are
rarely
investigated,
and
judges
are
rarely
disciplined
or

held
accountable,
Jones’s
opposition
to
this
modicum
of
accountability
under
the
Judicial
Conduct
and
Disability
Act
is
particularly
unpersuasive.
Judges
have
gotten
away
with

egregious
misconduct.

We
should
criticize
the
federal
judiciary
more,
not
less.
It
is
an
institution
crying
out
for
reform.
Clearly,
our
critiques
have
been
effective
—
and
not
just
because
they
have
gotten
under
some
judges’
very
thin
skins.
Calls
for
reform
have
not
gone
unnoticed,
even
if
the
judiciary
has
not
yet
taken
the
necessary
steps
to
ensure
safe
and
respectful
workplaces.
More
lawyers
should

speak
out
and
hold
the
judiciary’s
feet
to
the
fire.
The
public
square
provides
our
best
hope
in
the
years
ahead
to
hold
the
judiciary
accountable
and
finally
enact
meaningful
reform.

---

Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.

In
this
episode,
I
chat
with

Elizabeth
Kelley,
a
dedicated
criminal
defense
attorney
fighting
for
justice
for
individuals
with
mental
disabilities.
Kelley
shares
her
journey
from
literature
student
to
a
passionate
advocate
in
a
field
needing
reform.
Her
insights
into
mental
health
law
and
her
hands-on
approach
to
client
representation
are
inspiring
and
thought-provoking.
Tune
in
to
discover
why
compassion
and
understanding
are
vital
in
the
legal
world,
and
how
her
work
hopes
to
shape
a
more
inclusive
justice
system.

Highlights

• Balancing
  humanities
  and
  law.
• Outrage
  about
  mental
  disabilities.
• Finding
  fulfillment
  in
  criminal
  defense.
• Starting
  a
  law
  firm.
• Lessons
  from
  opening
  a
  practice.
• Importance
  of
  wellness
  and
  coaching.
• Mental
  wellness
  in
  law
  school.
• Writing
  practical
  guides
  for
  lawyers.
• Value
  of
  independent
  forensic
  evaluations.
• A
  powerful
  courtroom
  experience.
• The
  role
  of
  problem-solving
  courts.
• Advice
  for
  pursuing
  justice
  for
  mental
  disabilities.

The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.

Happy
listening!

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

She’s
in
great
health,
and
the
court
needs
her
now
more
than
ever.

—
A
source
close
to
Justice

Sonia
Sotomayor,
70,
the
most
senior
liberal
jurist
on
the
Supreme
Court,
in

comments
given
to
CNN,
in
response
to
calls
for
her
to
step
down
and
be
replaced
with
a
younger
successor
by
President
Joe
Biden
before
President-elect
Donald
Trump
takes
office.

---

Staci
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.