1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,640 --> 00:00:14,600
Speaker 1: Judge shopping. The term is pretty much self explanatory, and

3
00:00:14,640 --> 00:00:18,079
Speaker 1: it's come up repeatedly in recent years. In Texas As,

4
00:00:18,120 --> 00:00:22,680
Speaker 1: Republican attorneys general and conservative litigants have filed challenges to

5
00:00:22,760 --> 00:00:27,640
Speaker 1: Biden administration actions in divisions where one judge who's sympathetic

6
00:00:27,680 --> 00:00:32,440
Speaker 1: to their causes is automatically assigned all cases. A lot

7
00:00:32,479 --> 00:00:36,920
Speaker 1: of attention has focused on Federal Judge Matthew Kesmark, a

8
00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:42,280
Speaker 1: Trump appointee and former conservative Christian legal activist who hears

9
00:00:42,400 --> 00:00:46,879
Speaker 1: all civil matters filed at his Amarillo, Texas courthouse. His

10
00:00:47,040 --> 00:00:51,280
Speaker 1: decision to issue a nationwide injunction suspending approval of the

11
00:00:51,320 --> 00:00:55,600
Speaker 1: abortion pilm if A pristone merited disapproval from many of

12
00:00:55,640 --> 00:01:00,080
Speaker 1: the justices at oral arguments last week, including Conservative of

13
00:01:00,360 --> 00:01:01,480
Speaker 1: Justice Neil Gorsuch.

14
00:01:02,120 --> 00:01:05,920
Speaker 2: We've had one might call it a rash of universal

15
00:01:05,959 --> 00:01:11,319
Speaker 2: injunctions or vacatures in this case seems like a prime

16
00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:15,240
Speaker 2: example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into

17
00:01:15,280 --> 00:01:23,600
Speaker 2: a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule or any

18
00:01:23,640 --> 00:01:24,840
Speaker 2: other federal government action.

19
00:01:25,959 --> 00:01:30,319
Speaker 1: The federal judiciary's Administrative Arm approved a new policy last

20
00:01:30,360 --> 00:01:34,600
Speaker 1: month aimed at curbing judge shopping by litigants who file

21
00:01:34,720 --> 00:01:40,680
Speaker 1: lawsuits that have nationwide or statewide implications in single judge divisions,

22
00:01:41,040 --> 00:01:45,800
Speaker 1: but just two days later, after a backlash from conservative senators,

23
00:01:46,160 --> 00:01:49,720
Speaker 1: the conference issued a revision making it clear that the

24
00:01:49,760 --> 00:01:53,560
Speaker 1: policy is just a recommendation and that they can't force

25
00:01:53,640 --> 00:01:56,760
Speaker 1: district courts to follow it. Joining me is Alan Trammel,

26
00:01:56,880 --> 00:02:00,120
Speaker 1: a law professor at Washington and Lee Law School, tell

27
00:02:00,200 --> 00:02:01,800
Speaker 1: us about judge shopping.

28
00:02:01,880 --> 00:02:06,400
Speaker 3: There's a difference between court shopping and judge shopping. So

29
00:02:07,080 --> 00:02:10,920
Speaker 3: court shopping forum shopping more generally, is something that happens

30
00:02:10,960 --> 00:02:14,639
Speaker 3: a lot. Lawyers and judges will often question whether that

31
00:02:14,960 --> 00:02:18,399
Speaker 3: is a good practice, but in essence, it is part

32
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:22,280
Speaker 3: of a lawyer's responsibility to identify the court that is

33
00:02:22,360 --> 00:02:25,920
Speaker 3: going to be most beneficial for a particular client's position

34
00:02:26,560 --> 00:02:28,919
Speaker 3: that has been going on for a very very long time.

35
00:02:29,080 --> 00:02:32,959
Speaker 3: And usually when you're thinking about that, you're thinking about

36
00:02:33,080 --> 00:02:35,960
Speaker 3: whether there is going to be circuit law that is

37
00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:38,880
Speaker 3: going to be most favorable to a particular person's client.

38
00:02:39,840 --> 00:02:43,240
Speaker 3: It's a really different beast when you're thinking about actually

39
00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:47,000
Speaker 3: picking the specific judge, not just the court and the

40
00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:48,880
Speaker 3: body of the law that are going to govern a

41
00:02:48,880 --> 00:02:51,600
Speaker 3: particular issue. And so we see this in a number

42
00:02:51,639 --> 00:02:55,080
Speaker 3: of high profile situations. The myth of pristone litigation that

43
00:02:55,560 --> 00:02:58,639
Speaker 3: ultimately led to oral arguments in the Supreme Court last

44
00:02:58,680 --> 00:03:02,160
Speaker 3: week is really good example of that. You have challengers

45
00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:05,280
Speaker 3: who are going not just to one specific circuit, not

46
00:03:05,360 --> 00:03:08,200
Speaker 3: just to one specific district, but in essence choosing the

47
00:03:08,440 --> 00:03:11,600
Speaker 3: very specific judge who at least in the first instance,

48
00:03:11,800 --> 00:03:14,720
Speaker 3: is going to hear a challenge to a particular piece

49
00:03:14,720 --> 00:03:19,080
Speaker 3: of legislation or a governmental policy. And that again strikes

50
00:03:19,120 --> 00:03:21,560
Speaker 3: a lot of people as a very very different beast.

51
00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:25,320
Speaker 1: Also, I mean you mentioned the mifipristone case and that

52
00:03:25,600 --> 00:03:31,600
Speaker 1: Judge Matthew Kesmarrick, a Trump appointee formerly a conservative Christian

53
00:03:31,720 --> 00:03:36,400
Speaker 1: legal activist involved in anti abortion cases, and he has

54
00:03:36,680 --> 00:03:42,280
Speaker 1: issued major rulings blocking Biden administration policies in addition to

55
00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:43,800
Speaker 1: the abortion pill.

56
00:03:44,240 --> 00:03:48,160
Speaker 3: That is correct, and it is no secret that Judge

57
00:03:48,240 --> 00:03:53,880
Speaker 3: Kasmark is the judge whom conservative activists and conservative litigators

58
00:03:54,400 --> 00:03:57,960
Speaker 3: want to get their cases in frontop. I don't think

59
00:03:57,960 --> 00:04:02,400
Speaker 3: that it's any surprise that this policy is in large

60
00:04:02,440 --> 00:04:07,000
Speaker 3: parts stemming from this really aggressive selection of judge Kesmark

61
00:04:07,080 --> 00:04:10,040
Speaker 3: to hear these kinds of challenges. In theory, it applies

62
00:04:10,080 --> 00:04:13,920
Speaker 3: more broadly set a minority leader. Mitch McConnell decribed this

63
00:04:14,280 --> 00:04:20,320
Speaker 3: as targeted ad litigation by conservative causes and conservative activists.

64
00:04:20,360 --> 00:04:22,839
Speaker 3: But I think that there is a much broader problem,

65
00:04:22,920 --> 00:04:26,719
Speaker 3: even if at this very specific snapshot in time, it

66
00:04:26,839 --> 00:04:30,080
Speaker 3: is going to be felt most acutely in districts where

67
00:04:30,240 --> 00:04:33,720
Speaker 3: there is a conservative judge who is hearing challenges by

68
00:04:33,800 --> 00:04:35,680
Speaker 3: conservative litigators and activists.

69
00:04:36,000 --> 00:04:37,680
Speaker 4: Tell us about that broader problem.

70
00:04:38,200 --> 00:04:42,520
Speaker 3: It goes back to the difference between simply selecting the

71
00:04:42,600 --> 00:04:45,800
Speaker 3: courts selecting the specific judge, because it does strike me

72
00:04:45,839 --> 00:04:49,279
Speaker 3: as a difference in kind when you're selecting a court

73
00:04:49,400 --> 00:04:52,640
Speaker 3: versus a judge, and the shoe can always be on

74
00:04:52,720 --> 00:04:54,960
Speaker 3: the other foot. I mean, that's the thing that we

75
00:04:55,080 --> 00:04:58,400
Speaker 3: always have to remember is even if today it is

76
00:04:58,960 --> 00:05:03,400
Speaker 3: conservative activists who are targeting a particular conservative judge and

77
00:05:03,520 --> 00:05:06,640
Speaker 3: bringing their cases in front of that specific judge, if

78
00:05:06,680 --> 00:05:10,200
Speaker 3: there is a Republican president and you have liberal activists

79
00:05:10,279 --> 00:05:14,640
Speaker 3: who are trying to challenge a particular policy by Trump

80
00:05:14,680 --> 00:05:19,000
Speaker 3: administration or another conservative president, then You've got to be

81
00:05:19,080 --> 00:05:21,960
Speaker 3: wary of whether you're going to be in a situation

82
00:05:22,200 --> 00:05:24,960
Speaker 3: where progressives and liberals are going to be able to

83
00:05:25,000 --> 00:05:28,920
Speaker 3: engage in this exact same kind of behavior that, if

84
00:05:28,960 --> 00:05:32,200
Speaker 3: we zoom out, seems antithetical to the rule of law,

85
00:05:32,400 --> 00:05:36,240
Speaker 3: which is supposed to be more neutral and not dependent

86
00:05:36,360 --> 00:05:39,760
Speaker 3: on the specific judge hearing the case. It is true

87
00:05:39,960 --> 00:05:44,479
Speaker 3: that there are not that many single judge districts where

88
00:05:44,880 --> 00:05:48,440
Speaker 3: you have a progressive or a Democratic appointee the way

89
00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:51,680
Speaker 3: that you have with AIG, for example, Judge Psmark right now.

90
00:05:52,120 --> 00:05:55,760
Speaker 3: But that can change. That can change through congressional action

91
00:05:56,279 --> 00:05:59,080
Speaker 3: and just through the evolving nature of the way that

92
00:05:59,120 --> 00:06:00,800
Speaker 3: the judicial vacant these are created.

93
00:06:01,560 --> 00:06:05,080
Speaker 1: What that brings to mind is that during the Trump administration,

94
00:06:05,880 --> 00:06:09,680
Speaker 1: Republicans complained and now say, well, Democrats were doing the

95
00:06:09,720 --> 00:06:14,159
Speaker 1: same thing. They were going to friendly districts in California.

96
00:06:14,320 --> 00:06:14,919
Speaker 4: Is it the same?

97
00:06:16,000 --> 00:06:19,800
Speaker 3: In some ways? It is different, because what you're dealing

98
00:06:19,880 --> 00:06:25,120
Speaker 3: with here is not simply the phenomenon of progressive activists

99
00:06:25,160 --> 00:06:28,520
Speaker 3: going to courts that tend to lean towards the left

100
00:06:28,839 --> 00:06:32,280
Speaker 3: versus conservative activists going to courts that lean to the right.

101
00:06:32,839 --> 00:06:34,920
Speaker 3: When you're thinking about what was going on during the

102
00:06:34,960 --> 00:06:39,080
Speaker 3: Trump administration. Yes, it is absolutely true that you had

103
00:06:39,360 --> 00:06:43,120
Speaker 3: progressive lawyers and progressive clients who are trying to challenge

104
00:06:43,520 --> 00:06:47,960
Speaker 3: various Trump administration policies early on that included the so

105
00:06:48,040 --> 00:06:52,440
Speaker 3: called Muslim Ban, where the Trump administration was essentially denying

106
00:06:52,680 --> 00:06:56,520
Speaker 3: entry into the United States by people from predominantly Muslim countries.

107
00:06:56,920 --> 00:07:00,960
Speaker 3: Having said that, even though progressive activists were going to

108
00:07:01,000 --> 00:07:04,799
Speaker 3: the Ninth Circuit, there wasn't this phenomenon where you would

109
00:07:04,839 --> 00:07:08,479
Speaker 3: have divisions within a particular district where there was a

110
00:07:08,520 --> 00:07:14,239
Speaker 3: single progressive judge whom progressive activists and litigators were trying

111
00:07:14,280 --> 00:07:18,360
Speaker 3: to target. They basically didn't exist. So it is a

112
00:07:18,400 --> 00:07:21,280
Speaker 3: different in kind, and I think that it is much

113
00:07:21,320 --> 00:07:24,240
Speaker 3: more severe when you're looking at what is going on

114
00:07:24,400 --> 00:07:29,400
Speaker 3: right now, where again you have conservatives who can identify

115
00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:34,520
Speaker 3: a very specific judge in a particular division within one district. Again,

116
00:07:34,600 --> 00:07:36,680
Speaker 3: that just doesn't really exist on the left.

117
00:07:37,400 --> 00:07:41,040
Speaker 1: So on March twelfth, the Judicial Conference, which is the

118
00:07:41,040 --> 00:07:45,200
Speaker 1: policymaking body of the federal Judiciary, announced this new policy.

119
00:07:45,600 --> 00:07:48,800
Speaker 1: Two days later, after getting pushed back, they revised it.

120
00:07:48,840 --> 00:07:52,440
Speaker 1: But let's talk first about what the initial policy said

121
00:07:53,200 --> 00:07:53,600
Speaker 1: that is.

122
00:07:53,560 --> 00:07:57,240
Speaker 3: In some point, it's difficult because they announced a policy,

123
00:07:57,240 --> 00:08:00,000
Speaker 3: but they didn't give us really specific language to latch

124
00:08:00,120 --> 00:08:03,000
Speaker 3: onto to figure out whether it in fact was going

125
00:08:03,040 --> 00:08:07,440
Speaker 3: to comply with existing statutes or whether there was going

126
00:08:07,480 --> 00:08:08,880
Speaker 3: to be any room for change.

127
00:08:09,360 --> 00:08:12,440
Speaker 1: Tell us about the broad outlines of the policy then.

128
00:08:12,880 --> 00:08:17,520
Speaker 3: So that was essentially saying that in districts where there

129
00:08:17,560 --> 00:08:22,480
Speaker 3: are these separate divisions, that litigant is not going to

130
00:08:22,520 --> 00:08:28,880
Speaker 3: be able to necessarily select the specific division, that the

131
00:08:28,960 --> 00:08:31,680
Speaker 3: court is going to need to randomize the assignment of

132
00:08:31,760 --> 00:08:36,360
Speaker 3: cases throughout the entire district. And so there's not going

133
00:08:36,400 --> 00:08:40,120
Speaker 3: to be this possibility under the proposal for a litigant

134
00:08:40,120 --> 00:08:43,160
Speaker 3: to go to a specific division within the district and

135
00:08:43,320 --> 00:08:46,480
Speaker 3: essentially handpick the judge. There's going to be some sort

136
00:08:46,520 --> 00:08:49,960
Speaker 3: of random distribution of the cases throughout the district if

137
00:08:50,000 --> 00:08:54,320
Speaker 3: the proposal goes into effect. Again, they are not trying

138
00:08:54,360 --> 00:08:59,679
Speaker 3: to address the broader phenomenon of litigants being able to

139
00:08:59,760 --> 00:09:04,160
Speaker 3: pick the districts and the circuits where they're litigating. So

140
00:09:04,200 --> 00:09:07,680
Speaker 3: a circuit is going to embrace a number of states,

141
00:09:07,720 --> 00:09:12,640
Speaker 3: and each circuit essentially develops its own interpretations of the Constitution.

142
00:09:13,040 --> 00:09:17,600
Speaker 3: And the various federal statutes that they apply, and there

143
00:09:17,640 --> 00:09:21,160
Speaker 3: can be differences between the circuits until the Supreme Court

144
00:09:21,200 --> 00:09:25,920
Speaker 3: resolves those differences. That's been a phenomenon that we've had

145
00:09:26,160 --> 00:09:30,800
Speaker 3: since Congress designed the present organization of the Federal Court

146
00:09:31,280 --> 00:09:34,640
Speaker 3: in eighteen ninety one. So none of this is super new.

147
00:09:34,960 --> 00:09:38,760
Speaker 3: The phenomenon that the Judicial Conference was trying to address

148
00:09:38,920 --> 00:09:42,880
Speaker 3: is when you have not just a district within a state,

149
00:09:43,000 --> 00:09:46,440
Speaker 3: but even divisions within that and there is going to

150
00:09:46,480 --> 00:09:50,800
Speaker 3: be a single judge within that division. Now, that's a

151
00:09:50,920 --> 00:09:53,960
Speaker 3: relatively rare phenomenon, and it's going to be even more

152
00:09:54,080 --> 00:09:59,120
Speaker 3: rare that you can identify a very specific judge with

153
00:09:59,280 --> 00:10:03,160
Speaker 3: a particular political bent who is going to be especially

154
00:10:03,200 --> 00:10:05,760
Speaker 3: receptive to your case. So I don't want to say

155
00:10:05,760 --> 00:10:08,200
Speaker 3: that it is a solution in search of a problem.

156
00:10:08,280 --> 00:10:11,920
Speaker 3: It's not at all. But the very specific problem that

157
00:10:12,000 --> 00:10:15,720
Speaker 3: the Judicial Conference is addressing is pretty narrow. There are

158
00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:19,599
Speaker 3: a whole host of other concerns with forum shopping that

159
00:10:20,320 --> 00:10:23,360
Speaker 3: the Conference essentially said that it's not addressing in this

160
00:10:23,400 --> 00:10:24,439
Speaker 3: particular proposal.

161
00:10:24,800 --> 00:10:29,000
Speaker 1: There was a backlash from conservative senators, including Minority Leader

162
00:10:29,040 --> 00:10:32,560
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, who characterized this as an attempt to grab

163
00:10:32,600 --> 00:10:38,280
Speaker 1: power from conservative jurists in isolated jurisdictions, and he said

164
00:10:38,320 --> 00:10:41,240
Speaker 1: that it's up to Congress to decide how cases should

165
00:10:41,280 --> 00:10:42,960
Speaker 1: be assigned to the lower courts.

166
00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:47,559
Speaker 3: Part of this, I think was geared at addressing the

167
00:10:48,000 --> 00:10:52,040
Speaker 3: basic idea that somebody who is a plaintiff should be

168
00:10:52,080 --> 00:10:54,800
Speaker 3: able to sue at home. Now, there are all sorts

169
00:10:54,800 --> 00:10:57,559
Speaker 3: of doctrines that are going to limit that, but one

170
00:10:57,600 --> 00:11:00,520
Speaker 3: of the things that Senator McConnell talked about was the

171
00:11:01,280 --> 00:11:04,920
Speaker 3: Judicial Conferences proposal was going to limit access to justice,

172
00:11:05,080 --> 00:11:08,720
Speaker 3: and that if I'm a plaintiff and I'm suing somebody

173
00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:12,400
Speaker 3: who has harmed me here at home, then it shouldn't

174
00:11:12,760 --> 00:11:15,319
Speaker 3: result in the case being sent to some far flung

175
00:11:15,400 --> 00:11:18,880
Speaker 3: place elsewhere in the district. And that point I think

176
00:11:19,000 --> 00:11:22,240
Speaker 3: is generally well taken. What the Judicial Conference said in

177
00:11:22,280 --> 00:11:26,400
Speaker 3: its clarification is, look, we're trying to train on the

178
00:11:26,559 --> 00:11:33,359
Speaker 3: very specific phenomenon of challenging broadly applicable statutes broadly applicable

179
00:11:33,440 --> 00:11:39,000
Speaker 3: policies by hand selecting a very specific judge. In other words,

180
00:11:39,600 --> 00:11:45,000
Speaker 3: they were trying to identify the very specific problems of

181
00:11:46,080 --> 00:11:53,120
Speaker 3: challenges to nationwide policies or statutes, regulations, or otherwise when

182
00:11:53,280 --> 00:11:56,680
Speaker 3: activists will go to a specific judge in one of

183
00:11:56,720 --> 00:12:00,680
Speaker 3: these single judge divisions. They were trying trying to make

184
00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:04,240
Speaker 3: clear that they were leading alone the normal process of

185
00:12:04,280 --> 00:12:07,439
Speaker 3: litigation where you and I have a breach of contract

186
00:12:07,480 --> 00:12:10,200
Speaker 3: and I'm suing in the place where we had formed

187
00:12:10,200 --> 00:12:14,000
Speaker 3: the contract or where the election breach happened. In other words,

188
00:12:14,000 --> 00:12:16,240
Speaker 3: they were saying, in the mind run of cases, we

189
00:12:16,280 --> 00:12:19,560
Speaker 3: are leaving well enough alone. We're really trying to home

190
00:12:19,640 --> 00:12:25,280
Speaker 3: in on the specific problem of identifying a specific judge

191
00:12:25,320 --> 00:12:28,680
Speaker 3: who's going to give a favorable nationwide ruling.

192
00:12:28,840 --> 00:12:29,680
Speaker 4: Coming up next.

193
00:12:29,880 --> 00:12:33,600
Speaker 1: A Texas district says it's not following the guidance I'm

194
00:12:33,679 --> 00:12:37,559
Speaker 1: June Gross when you're listening to Bloomberg shopping for judges.

195
00:12:37,640 --> 00:12:41,319
Speaker 1: It's come up repeatedly in recent years in Texas As.

196
00:12:41,360 --> 00:12:45,840
Speaker 1: Republican attorneys general and conservative litigants have filed challenges to

197
00:12:45,920 --> 00:12:51,080
Speaker 1: Biden administration policies in divisions where one judge who's sympathetic

198
00:12:51,080 --> 00:12:55,920
Speaker 1: to their cause is automatically assigned all cases. Last month,

199
00:12:55,960 --> 00:13:00,319
Speaker 1: the federal judiciary's administrative arm approved a new policy aimed

200
00:13:00,320 --> 00:13:04,520
Speaker 1: at curbing judge shopping by litigants. But two days later,

201
00:13:04,679 --> 00:13:10,040
Speaker 1: after a backlash from Senate Republicans, the conference clarified that

202
00:13:10,120 --> 00:13:13,839
Speaker 1: the new policy was just a recommendation. I've been talking

203
00:13:13,840 --> 00:13:17,319
Speaker 1: to Professor Alan Trammell of the Washington and Lee Law School,

204
00:13:18,040 --> 00:13:21,920
Speaker 1: So basically, in its revision, the conference said that this

205
00:13:21,960 --> 00:13:23,760
Speaker 1: new policy was discretionary.

206
00:13:24,320 --> 00:13:26,360
Speaker 3: They did say that it was discretionary, and I think

207
00:13:26,400 --> 00:13:29,720
Speaker 3: that that is in part to make sure that their

208
00:13:29,840 --> 00:13:33,680
Speaker 3: policy is going to be consistent with the federal statute

209
00:13:33,720 --> 00:13:36,040
Speaker 3: that says that the chief judge of a district is

210
00:13:36,080 --> 00:13:40,160
Speaker 3: in charge of distributing cases to the judges within that district.

211
00:13:40,640 --> 00:13:42,200
Speaker 4: That was going to be my next question.

212
00:13:42,280 --> 00:13:45,360
Speaker 1: I was wondering whether you thought that the initial policy

213
00:13:46,120 --> 00:13:50,079
Speaker 1: was within federal statutes or whether they were violating that

214
00:13:50,200 --> 00:13:51,400
Speaker 1: statue you just mentioned.

215
00:13:52,400 --> 00:13:56,400
Speaker 3: There is a decent textual argument that the policy could

216
00:13:56,440 --> 00:13:59,120
Speaker 3: have violated a federal statute. It could have worked an

217
00:13:59,200 --> 00:14:03,719
Speaker 3: incursion on the chief judge's ability to assign cases as

218
00:14:03,760 --> 00:14:06,439
Speaker 3: the chief judge does fit. I think that there is

219
00:14:06,480 --> 00:14:09,480
Speaker 3: a better argument, which is that the policy and the

220
00:14:09,480 --> 00:14:14,120
Speaker 3: federal statute are consistent. And again we need to see

221
00:14:14,600 --> 00:14:17,199
Speaker 3: how the policy is actually crafted. We need to get

222
00:14:17,280 --> 00:14:19,480
Speaker 3: language in front of us. But I think that if

223
00:14:19,640 --> 00:14:22,720
Speaker 3: the Judicial Conference is careful, they will craft the policy

224
00:14:22,760 --> 00:14:27,160
Speaker 3: in a way that is not going to be inconsistent

225
00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:31,640
Speaker 3: with the governing statutes. It's going to essentially find a

226
00:14:31,680 --> 00:14:36,560
Speaker 3: way to address this particular problem without again working an

227
00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:40,520
Speaker 3: in persion on the statutory authority that a chief judge

228
00:14:40,600 --> 00:14:44,560
Speaker 3: has to assign cases. My view is that a chief

229
00:14:44,640 --> 00:14:47,280
Speaker 3: judge is going to ignore this policy at his or

230
00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:50,080
Speaker 3: her own peril. I think that there is a good

231
00:14:50,120 --> 00:14:53,000
Speaker 3: way of viewing this policy again, if it's put in

232
00:14:53,080 --> 00:14:56,680
Speaker 3: the correct language as being consistent with the federal statute.

233
00:14:56,800 --> 00:14:59,160
Speaker 1: In a letter on Friday, the chief Judge of the

234
00:14:59,200 --> 00:15:02,880
Speaker 1: Northern District of Texas said that the judges in his

235
00:15:03,000 --> 00:15:06,520
Speaker 1: district met on Wednesday, quote, the consensus was not to

236
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:10,040
Speaker 1: make any change to our case assignment process at this time,

237
00:15:10,840 --> 00:15:14,560
Speaker 1: so they decided not to follow the policy.

238
00:15:14,600 --> 00:15:18,800
Speaker 3: I don't know that they are not following the policy,

239
00:15:18,880 --> 00:15:23,480
Speaker 3: because again, we don't really have hard and fast language

240
00:15:23,480 --> 00:15:26,120
Speaker 3: in front of us. I think that there's going to

241
00:15:26,120 --> 00:15:28,840
Speaker 3: be a lot of give and take, and I guess

242
00:15:28,840 --> 00:15:31,640
Speaker 3: it is true that the Northern District seems to be

243
00:15:31,760 --> 00:15:35,200
Speaker 3: conveyed that they are not interested in altering their behavior

244
00:15:35,240 --> 00:15:38,560
Speaker 3: in any way whatsoever with respect to the assignment of cases.

245
00:15:39,000 --> 00:15:42,280
Speaker 3: But this is an iterative process. I suspect that the

246
00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:45,680
Speaker 3: Judicial Conference is going to come back with more specific language,

247
00:15:46,080 --> 00:15:49,320
Speaker 3: and at that point we will see whether courts are

248
00:15:49,400 --> 00:15:53,080
Speaker 3: essentially coming their noses at the conference or if they

249
00:15:53,080 --> 00:15:56,640
Speaker 3: are trying to find some sort of accommodation. Again, I

250
00:15:56,680 --> 00:16:00,160
Speaker 3: think that there is a genuine concern here. It is

251
00:16:00,640 --> 00:16:03,760
Speaker 3: small board. It is a small piece of a much

252
00:16:03,880 --> 00:16:09,600
Speaker 3: larger puzzle with respect to access to justice and perceptions

253
00:16:09,640 --> 00:16:13,520
Speaker 3: of cherry picking particular courts or judges. But I don't

254
00:16:13,560 --> 00:16:16,800
Speaker 3: think that the Judicial Conference has gone out too far

255
00:16:16,840 --> 00:16:17,480
Speaker 3: on a limb here.

256
00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:23,359
Speaker 1: This judge Shopping didn't address patent litigation or bankruptcy cases exactly.

257
00:16:23,440 --> 00:16:26,560
Speaker 3: So Judge Hoe on the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas,

258
00:16:27,360 --> 00:16:31,800
Speaker 3: was essentially saying, look, you've addressed one tiny piece of

259
00:16:31,840 --> 00:16:36,400
Speaker 3: the puzzle, But the bigger problem is not a single

260
00:16:36,920 --> 00:16:41,080
Speaker 3: judge division such as Judge Kesmark. It's the fact that

261
00:16:41,560 --> 00:16:46,080
Speaker 3: you've got certain districts that have become magnets for patent litigation,

262
00:16:46,320 --> 00:16:50,320
Speaker 3: bankruptcy litigation, and the light So the Eastern District of Texas,

263
00:16:50,320 --> 00:16:55,040
Speaker 3: for example, has developed its own law on patent litigation,

264
00:16:55,240 --> 00:16:58,600
Speaker 3: and so called patent trolls often flocked to the Eastern

265
00:16:58,600 --> 00:17:02,840
Speaker 3: District of Texas because of the unique rules that have

266
00:17:02,920 --> 00:17:06,919
Speaker 3: developed around patent litigation. I would agree that that is

267
00:17:06,960 --> 00:17:12,000
Speaker 3: a much bigger concern in the broader scheme. But just

268
00:17:12,080 --> 00:17:15,520
Speaker 3: because the Judicial Conference has focused on one aspect of

269
00:17:15,560 --> 00:17:19,399
Speaker 3: the problem, namely single judge divisions, doesn't mean that it

270
00:17:19,440 --> 00:17:22,280
Speaker 3: can't also address some of these other problems. I can

271
00:17:22,320 --> 00:17:26,359
Speaker 3: see the point from the perspective of the conservative blowback

272
00:17:26,520 --> 00:17:29,800
Speaker 3: that this looks a little bit too cherry picked, that

273
00:17:30,200 --> 00:17:35,040
Speaker 3: if you're concerned about access to justice the impartial administration

274
00:17:35,160 --> 00:17:37,960
Speaker 3: of the law, then you should be focused on all

275
00:17:38,000 --> 00:17:40,679
Speaker 3: of this. Again, I agree with that. I think that

276
00:17:41,280 --> 00:17:44,000
Speaker 3: certainly the Judicial Conference should be looking at the extent

277
00:17:44,040 --> 00:17:47,280
Speaker 3: to which particular districts within the country have become magnets

278
00:17:47,280 --> 00:17:51,919
Speaker 3: for patent and bankruptcy litigation. But that's a slightly different

279
00:17:51,920 --> 00:17:54,880
Speaker 3: issue and I think more complex. It's a little bit

280
00:17:54,920 --> 00:17:59,120
Speaker 3: more complicated to resolve than trying to address the problem

281
00:17:59,200 --> 00:18:03,040
Speaker 3: of single judge divisions that have attracted some of these

282
00:18:03,119 --> 00:18:07,160
Speaker 3: cases seeking nationwide injunctions against the current administration.

283
00:18:07,760 --> 00:18:13,359
Speaker 1: So you mentioned nationwide injunctions, and when Judge Jeffrey Sutton,

284
00:18:13,359 --> 00:18:17,040
Speaker 1: who's the chair of the Judicial Conference as Executive Committee,

285
00:18:17,200 --> 00:18:19,600
Speaker 1: announced the change, he said it was prompted by the

286
00:18:19,600 --> 00:18:23,080
Speaker 1: plethora of national, statewide injunctions being.

287
00:18:22,920 --> 00:18:25,080
Speaker 4: Issued by judges in such cases.

288
00:18:25,440 --> 00:18:30,520
Speaker 1: And during oral arguments last week we heard from Justice

289
00:18:30,520 --> 00:18:35,800
Speaker 1: Neil Gorsuch complaining about the issuance of these nationwide injunctions

290
00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:38,879
Speaker 1: and how you know during FDR's tenure there were none.

291
00:18:39,200 --> 00:18:40,920
Speaker 1: Is it up to the Supreme Court to put its

292
00:18:40,920 --> 00:18:44,240
Speaker 1: foot down and stop these nationwide injunctions.

293
00:18:44,920 --> 00:18:49,040
Speaker 3: I think that nationwide injunctions are a huge part of

294
00:18:49,280 --> 00:18:53,840
Speaker 3: this problem, but I think that it's a separate conversation.

295
00:18:54,119 --> 00:18:58,040
Speaker 3: That is to say, nationwide injunctions have been with us

296
00:18:58,080 --> 00:19:02,919
Speaker 3: for much longer than justice courses, and some scholars have

297
00:19:03,000 --> 00:19:06,440
Speaker 3: wanted to acknowledge. It is true that there has been

298
00:19:06,480 --> 00:19:11,320
Speaker 3: a proliferation of these nationwide injunctions, particularly starting with the

299
00:19:11,320 --> 00:19:14,760
Speaker 3: Obama administration, and then we really see them explode in

300
00:19:14,800 --> 00:19:17,960
Speaker 3: a lot of ways during the Trump administration. It seemed

301
00:19:17,960 --> 00:19:23,400
Speaker 3: as though every single time you had individuals and organizations

302
00:19:23,480 --> 00:19:28,000
Speaker 3: challenging particular Trump administration policies. The remedies that they would

303
00:19:28,080 --> 00:19:32,520
Speaker 3: seek would be a nationwide injunction, not just an injunction

304
00:19:32,720 --> 00:19:36,600
Speaker 3: limiting the effect of a particular regulation or policy to

305
00:19:36,720 --> 00:19:40,919
Speaker 3: those particular plaintiffs. So, yes, there is a broader conversation

306
00:19:40,960 --> 00:19:46,600
Speaker 3: about whether federal courts are abusing their discretion in the

307
00:19:46,640 --> 00:19:49,400
Speaker 3: types of remedies that they are issuing, whether the remedies

308
00:19:49,440 --> 00:19:54,320
Speaker 3: are are too sweeping, encompassing far too many individuals. I

309
00:19:54,400 --> 00:19:58,119
Speaker 3: don't think that that is necessarily a constitutional problem, but

310
00:19:58,200 --> 00:20:02,120
Speaker 3: I do agree that the Supreme Court should probably provide

311
00:20:02,119 --> 00:20:07,879
Speaker 3: some clarity about the circumstances under which nationwide injunctions are appropriate. Now,

312
00:20:08,119 --> 00:20:11,480
Speaker 3: the way that this ties back into the problem of

313
00:20:12,240 --> 00:20:16,840
Speaker 3: single judge divisions is that if you know the judges

314
00:20:16,920 --> 00:20:20,520
Speaker 3: are willing to issue these really really sweeping at junctions,

315
00:20:20,840 --> 00:20:23,680
Speaker 3: and you can then choose the specific judge you want

316
00:20:24,040 --> 00:20:27,560
Speaker 3: who is going to hear your particular challenge, then that

317
00:20:27,720 --> 00:20:31,600
Speaker 3: just ratchets up the stakes. It means that if you

318
00:20:31,640 --> 00:20:35,240
Speaker 3: are a plaintiff and you can identify one single judge

319
00:20:35,280 --> 00:20:38,719
Speaker 3: in the country, then you might be able to undermine

320
00:20:38,880 --> 00:20:42,919
Speaker 3: an entire policy nationwide in less than until the Supreme

321
00:20:42,960 --> 00:20:45,480
Speaker 3: Court steps in and as we've seen with the the

322
00:20:45,480 --> 00:20:49,760
Speaker 3: Pristone litigation, that can take time even when there's been

323
00:20:49,920 --> 00:20:51,760
Speaker 3: expedited briefing an argument.

324
00:20:52,520 --> 00:20:57,000
Speaker 1: Does this all show, I mean, has the federal judiciary

325
00:20:57,119 --> 00:20:58,240
Speaker 1: become more.

326
00:20:58,040 --> 00:21:00,000
Speaker 4: Polarized in recent.

327
00:20:59,760 --> 00:21:03,560
Speaker 1: Years with the confirmation of a lot of Trump appointees

328
00:21:03,600 --> 00:21:07,240
Speaker 1: who were not just conservative but ideologues.

329
00:21:07,800 --> 00:21:10,520
Speaker 3: I certainly think that that is true. I think that

330
00:21:11,440 --> 00:21:15,359
Speaker 3: it's always been true that different judges bring their backgrounds

331
00:21:15,400 --> 00:21:18,640
Speaker 3: and experiences to bear on the cases that they hear.

332
00:21:19,200 --> 00:21:24,520
Speaker 3: But there's really been a conservative effort by the conservative

333
00:21:24,560 --> 00:21:30,600
Speaker 3: legal movement to, as you say, not just place conservatives

334
00:21:30,640 --> 00:21:33,800
Speaker 3: on the various federal courts, but to place the ideologue.

335
00:21:34,119 --> 00:21:36,840
Speaker 3: That is not to say that every single judge appointed

336
00:21:36,840 --> 00:21:39,959
Speaker 3: by President Trump is an ideologue, but I think that

337
00:21:40,440 --> 00:21:45,240
Speaker 3: some of the most ideologically motivated judges were indeed placed

338
00:21:45,280 --> 00:21:46,960
Speaker 3: on these courts by President Trump.

339
00:21:47,200 --> 00:21:52,080
Speaker 1: Could Congress solve this by passing legislation to curtailed judge.

340
00:21:51,800 --> 00:21:55,560
Speaker 3: Shopping, absolutely, and that's been part of the debate and

341
00:21:55,600 --> 00:22:00,159
Speaker 3: part of the pushback. After the Judicial Conference announced its policy,

342
00:22:00,560 --> 00:22:04,880
Speaker 3: you had a number of members of Congress saying, this

343
00:22:04,960 --> 00:22:08,080
Speaker 3: is not really the province of the Judicial Conference, This

344
00:22:08,200 --> 00:22:11,159
Speaker 3: is something that Congress should be doing. I agree with

345
00:22:11,200 --> 00:22:14,840
Speaker 3: the second part of that. This is absolutely within Congress's

346
00:22:14,880 --> 00:22:19,399
Speaker 3: power to regulate the federal judiciary, to design the shape

347
00:22:19,400 --> 00:22:22,080
Speaker 3: of the judiciary, the shape of the districts, the circuit,

348
00:22:22,200 --> 00:22:24,879
Speaker 3: so on and so forth. All of that I think

349
00:22:25,080 --> 00:22:30,760
Speaker 3: is unquestionably within Congress's palace. The open question, though, is

350
00:22:31,560 --> 00:22:34,560
Speaker 3: what happens if Congress doesn't act. Is there any other

351
00:22:34,600 --> 00:22:37,520
Speaker 3: body that could act on its own? I think that

352
00:22:37,720 --> 00:22:40,800
Speaker 3: the court system, on its own could act. And then

353
00:22:40,920 --> 00:22:44,200
Speaker 3: the question as well, is the Judicial Conference a step

354
00:22:44,240 --> 00:22:48,520
Speaker 3: too far removed from, say, the office of the Chief Justice.

355
00:22:48,680 --> 00:22:50,720
Speaker 3: I don't think that it is. I think that the Judicial

356
00:22:50,720 --> 00:22:54,040
Speaker 3: Conference is there to provide guidance in exactly these kinds

357
00:22:54,040 --> 00:22:57,160
Speaker 3: of situations. They obviously need to make sure that they're

358
00:22:57,200 --> 00:23:00,120
Speaker 3: not running a foule of statutes that are on the books.

359
00:23:00,359 --> 00:23:05,679
Speaker 3: But there's always been a cooperative interaction between Congress and

360
00:23:05,720 --> 00:23:08,920
Speaker 3: the judiciary itself with respect to managing some of these

361
00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:10,880
Speaker 3: questions of judicial administration.

362
00:23:11,320 --> 00:23:15,080
Speaker 1: Finally, a lot has been said about how an outside

363
00:23:15,200 --> 00:23:19,760
Speaker 1: share of the Supreme Court's biggest cases come from the

364
00:23:19,800 --> 00:23:23,320
Speaker 1: most conservative Court of Appeals in the country, the Fifth

365
00:23:23,359 --> 00:23:28,199
Speaker 1: Circuit because its far reaching rulings are proving difficult for

366
00:23:28,240 --> 00:23:31,879
Speaker 1: the justices to ignore what I'll call judge shopping because

367
00:23:31,920 --> 00:23:34,680
Speaker 1: those cases, a lot of those cases come from Texas.

368
00:23:35,520 --> 00:23:39,119
Speaker 3: I think that that is absolutely right. You have the

369
00:23:39,160 --> 00:23:44,240
Speaker 3: Fifth Circuit, which has become increasingly ideological, you have one

370
00:23:44,280 --> 00:23:49,160
Speaker 3: of these single judge divisions in Texas, namely Judge Casmark,

371
00:23:50,040 --> 00:23:54,719
Speaker 3: and you have a Fifth Circuit that is really pushing

372
00:23:54,720 --> 00:23:58,520
Speaker 3: the boundary. So the Supreme Court, even a very conservative

373
00:23:58,560 --> 00:24:03,480
Speaker 3: Supreme Court with a supermajority of conservative justices, is policing

374
00:24:03,520 --> 00:24:07,159
Speaker 3: some of these more I will say adventurous ruins by

375
00:24:07,200 --> 00:24:09,120
Speaker 3: the Fifth Circuit, and we'll just.

376
00:24:09,160 --> 00:24:12,879
Speaker 1: Have to wait and see whether the Judicial Conference actually

377
00:24:12,960 --> 00:24:16,680
Speaker 1: manages to get anything done with regard to judge shopping.

378
00:24:17,119 --> 00:24:20,880
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Alan. That's Professor Alan Trammel of Washington

379
00:24:20,880 --> 00:24:23,840
Speaker 1: and Lee Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg

380
00:24:23,920 --> 00:24:28,720
Speaker 1: Lawn Show. Why Homeland Security agents raided Shawn didty Combe's

381
00:24:28,760 --> 00:24:32,640
Speaker 1: homes in LA and Miami. I'm June Grosso and.

382
00:24:32,600 --> 00:24:34,000
Speaker 4: You're listening to Bloomberg.

383
00:24:36,520 --> 00:24:41,200
Speaker 1: Heavily armed Homeland Security agents rated Seawan didty Combe's homes

384
00:24:41,200 --> 00:24:44,520
Speaker 1: in La and Miami last week, handcuffing some of the

385
00:24:44,520 --> 00:24:47,320
Speaker 1: people inside the home as they carried out their search

386
00:24:47,440 --> 00:24:51,280
Speaker 1: for hours. The raids are reportedly part of an ongoing

387
00:24:51,359 --> 00:24:56,320
Speaker 1: investigation into sex trafficking. According to the Associated Press, these

388
00:24:56,440 --> 00:25:00,680
Speaker 1: raids follow multiple lawsuits filed against Combs in Reces months

389
00:25:00,920 --> 00:25:05,320
Speaker 1: with allegations of sexual assault and sex trafficking. Joining me

390
00:25:05,400 --> 00:25:10,040
Speaker 1: is Albert Soler, chair of the Entertainment department at Scarncy Hollindbeck.

391
00:25:10,680 --> 00:25:14,200
Speaker 1: These raids were very visible, conducted with search larrants.

392
00:25:14,480 --> 00:25:15,440
Speaker 4: What does that tell you?

393
00:25:16,040 --> 00:25:18,320
Speaker 5: What it tells me is that they have a very

394
00:25:18,359 --> 00:25:21,879
Speaker 5: solid basis for wanting to obtain additional evidence and just

395
00:25:21,880 --> 00:25:24,720
Speaker 5: just a little bit of background this all started, and

396
00:25:24,800 --> 00:25:27,080
Speaker 5: of course their allegations, right, I always like to say

397
00:25:27,119 --> 00:25:30,080
Speaker 5: that because everybody has their day in court. But this

398
00:25:30,240 --> 00:25:35,040
Speaker 5: was prompted by the lawsuit by Cassie Ventura and that

399
00:25:35,160 --> 00:25:39,040
Speaker 5: was a former longtime partner of Ditty's Sean Comb's, and

400
00:25:40,280 --> 00:25:43,520
Speaker 5: there are worthy initial allegations came out about the sexual

401
00:25:43,520 --> 00:25:48,400
Speaker 5: abuse and so that prompted the initial eyeballs on this situation,

402
00:25:48,680 --> 00:25:52,960
Speaker 5: followed by the February lawsuit of Rodney Jones, the producer

403
00:25:53,640 --> 00:25:56,200
Speaker 5: Lil rod and so what happens is when you start

404
00:25:56,240 --> 00:25:59,399
Speaker 5: getting lawsuits like that on a civil level, then on

405
00:25:59,480 --> 00:26:03,360
Speaker 5: the criminal side, the attorney generals have to start paying attention,

406
00:26:03,440 --> 00:26:06,840
Speaker 5: the district attorneys start paying attention. And that's what happened

407
00:26:06,880 --> 00:26:10,240
Speaker 5: in this case. So because other women came forward with

408
00:26:10,400 --> 00:26:15,440
Speaker 5: corroborating type of accusations and similar type of accusations, then

409
00:26:15,480 --> 00:26:18,960
Speaker 5: Homeland Security is permitted to obtain the search warrant. And

410
00:26:19,000 --> 00:26:21,600
Speaker 5: they did conduct the raids on Miami and LA homes,

411
00:26:21,600 --> 00:26:25,359
Speaker 5: but it was primarily because you had multiple sources making

412
00:26:25,400 --> 00:26:28,800
Speaker 5: the same accusations, which allowed them to obtain the search warrant.

413
00:26:28,880 --> 00:26:32,280
Speaker 5: So yes, after they started coming forward, it gave them

414
00:26:32,400 --> 00:26:35,320
Speaker 5: enough cause to obtain the search warrant and raid its homes.

415
00:26:35,520 --> 00:26:37,480
Speaker 1: So what does it tell you that it was the

416
00:26:37,600 --> 00:26:42,000
Speaker 1: raid was done by Homeland Security agents not by the FBI.

417
00:26:42,520 --> 00:26:46,119
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, they do share jurisdiction on a lot

418
00:26:46,200 --> 00:26:48,879
Speaker 5: of these type of cases. I have seen other matters

419
00:26:48,880 --> 00:26:52,639
Speaker 5: where Homeland Security actually actually conducts the raids. It's not

420
00:26:52,720 --> 00:26:55,560
Speaker 5: necessarily for one reason or the other, just who happens

421
00:26:55,560 --> 00:26:58,359
Speaker 5: to have the resources at that time, and who's in

422
00:26:58,400 --> 00:27:00,359
Speaker 5: the area at that time, and who they to go.

423
00:27:00,680 --> 00:27:02,760
Speaker 5: I don't know that it was a specific reason why

424
00:27:02,760 --> 00:27:04,800
Speaker 5: that is, but I have seen both. I've seen the

425
00:27:04,840 --> 00:27:07,760
Speaker 5: FBI do it, and I've seen the Department Homeland Security

426
00:27:07,760 --> 00:27:10,480
Speaker 5: do it. But I will say that I think what's

427
00:27:10,520 --> 00:27:13,880
Speaker 5: important here is that those type of raids are serious

428
00:27:14,000 --> 00:27:17,200
Speaker 5: and the way they conducted them were very aggressive, which

429
00:27:17,280 --> 00:27:19,719
Speaker 5: leads me to believe that they had a lot of

430
00:27:19,760 --> 00:27:23,720
Speaker 5: corroborating evidence for what the allegations may be and.

431
00:27:23,640 --> 00:27:24,960
Speaker 3: That support the allegations.

432
00:27:25,160 --> 00:27:29,600
Speaker 5: So just in case, what they're looking for there is substantiating,

433
00:27:29,640 --> 00:27:34,960
Speaker 5: corroborating evidence to support the allegations asserted against him by

434
00:27:35,680 --> 00:27:39,880
Speaker 5: the three women and by Cassie Ventura and by Rodney Jones.

435
00:27:40,359 --> 00:27:43,520
Speaker 5: And they're primarily looking for things like videotapes. They're looking

436
00:27:43,560 --> 00:27:47,840
Speaker 5: for photographs, looking for pictures, records of flight, where were you,

437
00:27:47,960 --> 00:27:50,960
Speaker 5: who was there? And they're trying to find support so

438
00:27:51,000 --> 00:27:53,840
Speaker 5: that they could actually bring charges. If they find the support,

439
00:27:54,280 --> 00:27:56,520
Speaker 5: they can bring charges against mister Comps.

440
00:27:56,800 --> 00:27:57,000
Speaker 4: Yeah.

441
00:27:57,040 --> 00:28:00,760
Speaker 1: So now I understand that they handcuffed three people, including

442
00:28:00,800 --> 00:28:04,240
Speaker 1: two of his sons, during the rate at his La home,

443
00:28:04,320 --> 00:28:08,000
Speaker 1: and handcuff four during the rate at his Miami home.

444
00:28:08,119 --> 00:28:09,120
Speaker 4: Is that unusual.

445
00:28:09,560 --> 00:28:12,040
Speaker 5: No, it's not unusual. Just to be clear, no charges

446
00:28:12,080 --> 00:28:14,119
Speaker 5: have been brought against any of the sons, any of

447
00:28:14,160 --> 00:28:16,920
Speaker 5: his affiliates. What it is is similar to a traffic stuff.

448
00:28:17,000 --> 00:28:20,560
Speaker 5: Sometimes when you are serving kind of a high stake

449
00:28:20,680 --> 00:28:23,720
Speaker 5: warrant like that, or when you are conducting a raid,

450
00:28:24,119 --> 00:28:25,880
Speaker 5: you just want to make sure that the folks inside

451
00:28:25,920 --> 00:28:28,360
Speaker 5: aren't armed. You want to make sure it's not an ambush.

452
00:28:28,520 --> 00:28:31,080
Speaker 5: The officers a home mad security agents don't know what

453
00:28:31,119 --> 00:28:33,600
Speaker 5: they're walking into, right, So when you walk into a

454
00:28:33,600 --> 00:28:36,720
Speaker 5: situation where the principal of the home has been accused

455
00:28:36,760 --> 00:28:40,600
Speaker 5: of sexual crimes and other crimes, it's just for the

456
00:28:40,640 --> 00:28:43,200
Speaker 5: safety of the homeland security agents. But they don't know

457
00:28:43,240 --> 00:28:46,120
Speaker 5: what they're whether they're going to face guns, whether it's

458
00:28:46,120 --> 00:28:48,720
Speaker 5: going to be people that are armed security folks that

459
00:28:48,840 --> 00:28:51,120
Speaker 5: may confuse them for somebody else. So what it really

460
00:28:51,160 --> 00:28:53,760
Speaker 5: is just a protective measure to give them time to

461
00:28:53,880 --> 00:28:55,520
Speaker 5: assess the situation without risk.

462
00:28:56,080 --> 00:28:59,560
Speaker 1: And they did, according to NBC News, they did find guns.

463
00:29:00,280 --> 00:29:02,880
Speaker 1: Do you think that they could have gotten a search

464
00:29:02,960 --> 00:29:08,080
Speaker 1: warrant based on the allegations in the civil cases alone?

465
00:29:08,760 --> 00:29:11,040
Speaker 5: As I said at the start, I think it's really

466
00:29:11,080 --> 00:29:15,320
Speaker 5: important to understand that the basis for the criminal cases

467
00:29:15,360 --> 00:29:18,480
Speaker 5: that may come and for the search warrants were the

468
00:29:18,520 --> 00:29:23,080
Speaker 5: civil cases. Because you have a civil case asserting criminal conduct.

469
00:29:23,560 --> 00:29:26,880
Speaker 5: So the civil cases that assert the criminal conduct are

470
00:29:26,920 --> 00:29:29,840
Speaker 5: also the basis for why it is that the criminal

471
00:29:30,160 --> 00:29:33,480
Speaker 5: cases started to develop and why they had a responsibility

472
00:29:33,520 --> 00:29:38,200
Speaker 5: to investigate. For example, sex trafficking obviously is a criminal matter.

473
00:29:38,320 --> 00:29:41,800
Speaker 5: So when it's asserted and a complaint on the civil level,

474
00:29:42,120 --> 00:29:45,080
Speaker 5: and they mentioned it during the complaint and then the paperwork,

475
00:29:45,480 --> 00:29:47,760
Speaker 5: then obviously it raise his eyebrows. And when it happens

476
00:29:47,760 --> 00:29:49,800
Speaker 5: two or three times, as it did in this case,

477
00:29:50,080 --> 00:29:52,200
Speaker 5: because if you recall there were three women that filed

478
00:29:52,240 --> 00:29:56,280
Speaker 5: civil suits subsequent to Cassie van Turro's is when you

479
00:29:56,360 --> 00:29:59,320
Speaker 5: start getting a lot of repeat type of accusations, which

480
00:29:59,360 --> 00:30:02,160
Speaker 5: really can see interest of the criminal focus on that side.

481
00:30:02,200 --> 00:30:06,880
Speaker 5: So it was the civil assertions in the civil lawsuits

482
00:30:07,160 --> 00:30:09,800
Speaker 5: that prompted the criminal investigation, that was the basis for

483
00:30:09,840 --> 00:30:10,880
Speaker 5: the criminal investigation.

484
00:30:11,080 --> 00:30:14,920
Speaker 1: Do you think that these civil lawsuits are giving investigators

485
00:30:14,960 --> 00:30:17,640
Speaker 1: sort of a head start or a roadmap to the

486
00:30:17,680 --> 00:30:18,720
Speaker 1: criminal investigation.

487
00:30:19,720 --> 00:30:22,680
Speaker 5: Yeah, one thousand percent, that's absolutely right. And if you

488
00:30:22,720 --> 00:30:25,040
Speaker 5: remember what the civil complaints are going to have is

489
00:30:25,040 --> 00:30:28,760
Speaker 5: they're going to have a very detailed fact section and

490
00:30:28,760 --> 00:30:31,880
Speaker 5: they're going to pretty much spell out the elements of

491
00:30:31,960 --> 00:30:35,880
Speaker 5: those claims. So whatever was asserted, all the actions, all

492
00:30:35,960 --> 00:30:39,000
Speaker 5: the illegal supposed activity is going to be supported by

493
00:30:39,080 --> 00:30:42,840
Speaker 5: factual assertions in the complaint. So on the criminal side,

494
00:30:42,880 --> 00:30:45,400
Speaker 5: you kind of have a roadmap as to what was

495
00:30:45,440 --> 00:30:51,120
Speaker 5: happening and supporting evidence for the criminal conduct. In fact,

496
00:30:51,160 --> 00:30:53,760
Speaker 5: that's probably what they were looking for whatever was mentioned

497
00:30:53,760 --> 00:30:56,880
Speaker 5: in the complaints as far as this happened at this party,

498
00:30:57,320 --> 00:30:59,440
Speaker 5: this type of activity has happened at parties. You had

499
00:30:59,480 --> 00:31:03,240
Speaker 5: underaged that these events, whatever the allegations were, is what

500
00:31:03,280 --> 00:31:06,840
Speaker 5: they're trying to find evidence for by conducted the race.

501
00:31:07,200 --> 00:31:09,360
Speaker 5: So it does give them a roadmap, and it gives

502
00:31:09,400 --> 00:31:12,440
Speaker 5: them a lot of factual assertions to go by when

503
00:31:12,440 --> 00:31:14,640
Speaker 5: they walk into the home and when they raid the homes,

504
00:31:14,840 --> 00:31:16,800
Speaker 5: they know exactly what they're looking for at that point.

505
00:31:17,440 --> 00:31:21,840
Speaker 1: So Rodney Jones, as you mentioned, filed that lawsuit and

506
00:31:22,240 --> 00:31:26,560
Speaker 1: in it he also talked about Brendon Paul, who was

507
00:31:26,600 --> 00:31:30,720
Speaker 1: described as a confidante and drug mule. Now he was

508
00:31:30,800 --> 00:31:34,400
Speaker 1: taken into custody on suspicion of cocaine and a control

509
00:31:34,600 --> 00:31:39,000
Speaker 1: substance laced candy. But did he was not taken into custody.

510
00:31:39,320 --> 00:31:41,720
Speaker 5: Oh, because what happened there My understanding was that he

511
00:31:41,760 --> 00:31:44,080
Speaker 5: actually had the candy on him. It's like if I

512
00:31:44,200 --> 00:31:47,800
Speaker 5: had illegal drugs on me, they would arrest me and

513
00:31:47,800 --> 00:31:49,400
Speaker 5: not the person next to me. So it's the one

514
00:31:49,440 --> 00:31:53,000
Speaker 5: carrying it. And so he actually had I believe the

515
00:31:53,080 --> 00:31:55,360
Speaker 5: drugs or the candies that were laced with what they

516
00:31:55,400 --> 00:31:58,520
Speaker 5: believe of drugs, which gave him cause to arrest him.

517
00:31:58,720 --> 00:32:00,840
Speaker 5: Did he wasn't involved in that because he didn't have

518
00:32:00,880 --> 00:32:04,560
Speaker 5: any anything on him. Had he had the same candies

519
00:32:04,920 --> 00:32:07,480
Speaker 5: or products or items, then he would have been arrested

520
00:32:07,520 --> 00:32:10,000
Speaker 5: as well. So it's pretty much because he got caught

521
00:32:10,080 --> 00:32:14,000
Speaker 5: with the illegal substance on him that automatically he was

522
00:32:14,080 --> 00:32:16,480
Speaker 5: arrested for that. But did he didn't have that? And

523
00:32:16,760 --> 00:32:19,080
Speaker 5: real quick, I do want to say something about the labeling.

524
00:32:19,760 --> 00:32:23,160
Speaker 5: That happens a lot, right, and it's very important to

525
00:32:23,160 --> 00:32:26,520
Speaker 5: say that these are allegations because nothing's been proven yet.

526
00:32:26,640 --> 00:32:30,280
Speaker 5: They're looking, they're investigating. So for example, in the celebrity world,

527
00:32:30,280 --> 00:32:32,800
Speaker 5: there's a lot of parties where are there are listed

528
00:32:32,880 --> 00:32:35,600
Speaker 5: drugs all the time, and there are folks that provide

529
00:32:35,600 --> 00:32:38,600
Speaker 5: those drugs. And here I always find it interesting how,

530
00:32:38,720 --> 00:32:41,120
Speaker 5: you know, the media and everyone then labels him a

531
00:32:41,200 --> 00:32:44,280
Speaker 5: drug mule when it was probably just a guy who

532
00:32:44,400 --> 00:32:47,400
Speaker 5: you know, procured these things for these kind of entertainment parties,

533
00:32:47,400 --> 00:32:50,000
Speaker 5: and it happens rather frequently. So I just want to

534
00:32:50,040 --> 00:32:52,440
Speaker 5: point that out too, because it seems like they're kind

535
00:32:52,440 --> 00:32:54,600
Speaker 5: of repeated over and over. Now he's a drug mule,

536
00:32:54,680 --> 00:32:58,040
Speaker 5: now he's a gun runner, when in reality, these things,

537
00:32:58,360 --> 00:33:00,400
Speaker 5: you know, they're pretty common when it comes to in payment,

538
00:33:00,520 --> 00:33:03,280
Speaker 5: but they are illegal and they're not correct obviously, right.

539
00:33:03,360 --> 00:33:06,120
Speaker 1: The sex, drugs and rock and roll, I mean, do

540
00:33:06,240 --> 00:33:08,560
Speaker 1: they get a bit of a pass on things people

541
00:33:08,600 --> 00:33:09,480
Speaker 1: in that industry?

542
00:33:10,320 --> 00:33:10,680
Speaker 3: No?

543
00:33:10,680 --> 00:33:13,320
Speaker 5: No, I think that you know, everyone's held to the

544
00:33:13,320 --> 00:33:16,360
Speaker 5: same standard. It's just that, you know, it's very hard

545
00:33:16,360 --> 00:33:19,240
Speaker 5: to police everything, and depending on who you are and

546
00:33:19,560 --> 00:33:22,240
Speaker 5: the artists that you are and the type of events

547
00:33:22,240 --> 00:33:24,400
Speaker 5: and parties you throw, there may be that there may

548
00:33:24,440 --> 00:33:27,840
Speaker 5: not be that, but I think nobody gets a pass

549
00:33:27,920 --> 00:33:31,240
Speaker 5: as is shown here. I mean, these these activities were

550
00:33:31,800 --> 00:33:35,040
Speaker 5: described by first Miss Ventura and then other people that

551
00:33:35,080 --> 00:33:37,080
Speaker 5: corroborated it, and now they went into a full blown

552
00:33:37,120 --> 00:33:40,000
Speaker 5: investigation of it. And the gentleman who had the drugs

553
00:33:40,040 --> 00:33:43,160
Speaker 5: on him, regardless of who he was associated with, was

554
00:33:43,200 --> 00:33:46,360
Speaker 5: also arrested around the spot. So there are no passes.

555
00:33:46,680 --> 00:33:50,360
Speaker 5: But I always want to always want to emphasize the

556
00:33:50,400 --> 00:33:55,480
Speaker 5: presumption of innocence until there's actually a conviction and evidence

557
00:33:55,480 --> 00:33:55,920
Speaker 5: comes out.

558
00:33:56,240 --> 00:34:00,720
Speaker 1: Does this echo or in any way follow the pattern

559
00:34:01,200 --> 00:34:04,960
Speaker 1: that we saw in the cases of R. Kelly and

560
00:34:05,080 --> 00:34:06,120
Speaker 1: Harvey Weinstein.

561
00:34:06,760 --> 00:34:09,840
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean I think it does, because what happens

562
00:34:09,960 --> 00:34:14,520
Speaker 5: is that nothing really happens until you start to get

563
00:34:14,560 --> 00:34:18,560
Speaker 5: that one case, that one accusation. And what happens is

564
00:34:18,560 --> 00:34:20,600
Speaker 5: when somebody is accused of these kind of crimes in

565
00:34:20,600 --> 00:34:22,799
Speaker 5: the case of R. Kelly, very serious, in the case

566
00:34:22,840 --> 00:34:25,840
Speaker 5: of Harvey Weinstein, very serious, in the case of the

567
00:34:26,120 --> 00:34:30,360
Speaker 5: Ditty very serious. It's when you get multiple cases underneath,

568
00:34:30,440 --> 00:34:33,680
Speaker 5: multiple accusations that kind of mirror each other. Right, in

569
00:34:33,719 --> 00:34:36,840
Speaker 5: the case of Harvey Weinstein, you had many women. In

570
00:34:36,880 --> 00:34:39,560
Speaker 5: the case of Bill Cosby, you had many women. So

571
00:34:39,680 --> 00:34:43,400
Speaker 5: when you start getting tons and tons of victims coming

572
00:34:43,440 --> 00:34:47,200
Speaker 5: forward or alleged victims, then it peaud the interest and

573
00:34:47,239 --> 00:34:50,120
Speaker 5: then you start getting the investigations. Wait a minute, if

574
00:34:50,160 --> 00:34:53,279
Speaker 5: fifty people must be saying this must be something to it,

575
00:34:53,920 --> 00:34:57,800
Speaker 5: we have a responsibility to investigate, and the criminal folks

576
00:34:57,840 --> 00:35:00,919
Speaker 5: investigate to make sure there's something there or nothing there.

577
00:35:00,960 --> 00:35:02,960
Speaker 5: So I think it is a pattern. I think the

578
00:35:03,040 --> 00:35:07,200
Speaker 5: key here is that you do have multiple accusers, and

579
00:35:07,239 --> 00:35:11,200
Speaker 5: when you have multiple accusers for legal activity, you typically

580
00:35:11,239 --> 00:35:14,680
Speaker 5: do have an investigation that's serious, it's aggressive, and they

581
00:35:14,719 --> 00:35:16,840
Speaker 5: want to make sure that the conduct, if it's occurring,

582
00:35:17,280 --> 00:35:19,600
Speaker 5: stops immediately. So I do think it's similar.

583
00:35:19,800 --> 00:35:24,040
Speaker 1: They're talking about the trial almost twenty five years ago

584
00:35:24,160 --> 00:35:29,080
Speaker 1: where Shahn Colms, then known as Puffy, and his bodyguard

585
00:35:30,080 --> 00:35:33,560
Speaker 1: were arrested following a shooting inside a Times Square club

586
00:35:33,600 --> 00:35:37,040
Speaker 1: and he was represented by Johnny cochrane and he got off.

587
00:35:37,440 --> 00:35:42,000
Speaker 1: And now they're saying that he has bragged about bribing

588
00:35:42,080 --> 00:35:44,320
Speaker 1: witnesses and jurors in that case.

589
00:35:45,000 --> 00:35:47,880
Speaker 5: Right, And so what's interesting there is that obviously you

590
00:35:47,920 --> 00:35:51,160
Speaker 5: have a statute limitation usually on these kind of of

591
00:35:51,520 --> 00:35:54,560
Speaker 5: allegations and on the type of claim. However, there's an

592
00:35:54,560 --> 00:35:58,239
Speaker 5: exception when there's new evidence that was previously unknown, right,

593
00:35:58,239 --> 00:36:00,520
Speaker 5: you do have the ability to bring that before the

594
00:36:00,560 --> 00:36:04,600
Speaker 5: court the judge, and usually you are afforded the opportunity

595
00:36:04,680 --> 00:36:07,680
Speaker 5: to revisit those based on brand new evidence that did

596
00:36:07,719 --> 00:36:11,840
Speaker 5: not or could not exist back then. So if Diddy

597
00:36:11,960 --> 00:36:14,520
Speaker 5: is going around saying that and admitting that he did

598
00:36:14,560 --> 00:36:18,200
Speaker 5: that into this, obviously tampering with witness is a serious,

599
00:36:18,320 --> 00:36:22,040
Speaker 5: serious accusation. It's not to be taken lightly, and so

600
00:36:22,160 --> 00:36:26,640
Speaker 5: that would definitely be grounds for possible revisiting of that claim.

601
00:36:27,239 --> 00:36:30,200
Speaker 5: So yeah, that's interesting and I could see them revisiting

602
00:36:30,239 --> 00:36:34,320
Speaker 5: that again. And he's just in a very difficult situation

603
00:36:34,480 --> 00:36:37,439
Speaker 5: right now, facing legal challenges at multiple fronts, and it'll

604
00:36:37,440 --> 00:36:39,359
Speaker 5: be interesting to see how that plays out.

605
00:36:39,440 --> 00:36:43,239
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the show. That's Albert Solar, Obscurency

606
00:36:43,280 --> 00:36:45,400
Speaker 1: Holland Beck and that's it for this edition of the

607
00:36:45,440 --> 00:36:46,799
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast.

608
00:36:47,160 --> 00:36:49,600
Speaker 4: Remember you can always get the latest legal news.

609
00:36:49,360 --> 00:36:53,360
Speaker 1: By subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

610
00:36:53,680 --> 00:36:57,520
Speaker 1: and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm

611
00:36:57,600 --> 00:37:01,399
Speaker 1: June Grosso and this is Bloomberg four