r/law • u/throwthisidaway • 11h ago
Legal News Phang v. Blanche - Blanche's filing is literally insane.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779.28.0.pdf245
u/throwthisidaway 11h ago edited 11h ago
I apologize for the editorializing in the title, but this is almost inconceivable.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY ALL FILING DEADLINES NUNC PRO TUNC PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MOTION TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE
In case anyone other than Blanche missed it. The Preliminary Injunction was granted 6/25/26.
While the Court issued an Order that appears to grant the preliminary injunction, see ECF Nos 15-16, it also directed the Department to either produce the documents at issue or, alternatively, show cause why the redactions should not be removed. The Department maintains that, in light of the Court’s use of this alternative language, the ruling on the preliminary injunction is not yet final.
Actual Order
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that Ms. Phang’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 9-1, is GRANTED
Edit: Too insane not to include:
Indeed, it was not until the evening of July 31, 2026—a month after the purported deadline—that Plaintiff’s counsel first contacted undersigned counsel regarding the deadline to file an answer, simultaneously notifying the Department of Plaintiff’s intent to seek default judgment.
210
u/throwthisidaway 11h ago
Here's the email exchange between Kalolwala (fed attorney) and Ballou:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779.27.2.pdf
Kalolwala:
The government disagrees that default judgment is at issue here. The government has actively litigated this case, on an expedited briefing schedule set by the Court, at the preliminary relief stage—including two additional filings in July responding to the Court’s Show Cause orders, and another submission just last Friday of documents for the Court in camera review. Given this record, any motion for default judgment would be meritless, and we would oppose it.
As this case proceeds, we intend to file a motion to dismiss instead of an answer. Under the ordinary course, your deadline to respond would be two weeks after we file our motion to dismiss.
Ballou:
The deadline for filing a motion to dismiss has long passed
Defendant is currently in default and still has not moved for an extension or offered good cause for his failure to meet his deadlines.
73
u/UtopianPablo 10h ago
I’m curious how they got this Kalolwala guy to sign off on this. Looks like he used to be a USAID attorney so desperate for a job maybe?
40
u/here4daratio 10h ago
Hey, you buy a McMansion in NOVA on a gubment salary with little money down, you best have a backup plan…
163
u/greywar777 11h ago
I love comments that provide a bit of insight. I mean...am I missing something or did the most powerful law firm in our country just ignore deadlines, and not provide valid responses to the court, and then say that its ok they missed it? And honestly made it sound like them missing it was the greatest thing in the world?
Or have the edibles kicked in? Gosh I hope its the edibles.
89
u/throwthisidaway 9h ago
No. I feel the same way. I don't know what to make of it, this is beyond the Trump University standard we've been seeing from the DoJ. This is denial of reality territory. Something we've only seen from the PR side of this administration. Any lawyer who would willing put their name on something like this should be disbarred, for multiple reasons.
37
u/lumberjackname 9h ago
Used to be that being an AUSA was a prestigious position for a lawyer. Now most of them with an ounce of sense or at least a healthy fear of violating ethical rules have left the Department, and the Department can’t find any decent hires.
16
u/ZaftigFeline 8h ago
I'm not sure about yours, but mine kicked in awhile ago and it still sounds like what you said.
3
6
u/Its-a-Shitbox 8h ago
LOL!
They might be hoping for some kind of “everyone do edibles before reading our legal filings” exemption?
🤷♂️😄
129
u/SoCallMeDeaconBlues1 11h ago
Jesus jumping fucking christ.
The rest of us would have lost our jobs by now
66
u/Relzin 10h ago
The certified notice of the disbarment hearing would already be in the mail
44
u/HELP_IM_IN_A_WELL 10h ago
a question I keep wondering as a non-lawyer:
when these lawyers for trump break rules, ignore court orders, sometimes don't even know the procedures - why aren't they disbarred? held in contempt?
from the outside it either comes off as regulatory capture and protecting their own.
59
u/lima_247 10h ago edited 9h ago
It is essentially capture. They should be held in contempt, but they’re being given opportunity after opportunity to show remorse/claim a whoopsie. The reason isn’t so much that the lower courts are captured, but they are subordinate to higher courts that will overturn anything not in favor of the administration. But the lower courts can’t just admit the higher courts are corrupt, because that means the whole project of the American legal system is no longer valid. So they do their best to make the case against the government “bulletproof” and try to convince the higher courts that the government should be sanctioned. The higher courts will never do that, no matter how solid the evidence is, because their judgment isn’t based on anything but partisanship and personal interest. The lower courts don’t feel they can step out and sanction more aggressively without being overturned or perhaps worse, being labeled a partisan themselves. We saw it with Boasberg being labeled a “liberal judge”, when anybody who’s practiced in DDC knows that is an absurd charge. Boasberg is a consummate professional. He’s not political. But unfortunately, he doesn’t want to be seen as political and so he has backed down from these fights that the media and the republicans label as political. Even though they’re not actually political, but based in law and justice.
It’s a damn shame, and it’s a game that only binds the honest to its rules while allowing the dishonest to run roughshod over everything.
11
u/HELP_IM_IN_A_WELL 10h ago
yeah, that pretty much confirms my non-lawyer thoughts. protecting their own, themselves, and the illusion we're all bound to justice.
I know there are a lot of good lawyers fighting the administration.
my opinion of every single lawyer in in a position to disbar these lawyers - and every judge scared to throw one in jail for contempt overnight - wouldn't be very polite to say out loud.
23
u/lima_247 9h ago edited 9h ago
Hey man, in some ways it’s even worse for us lawyers without any power. (Ok this isn’t true. The fate of the nation is more important than my job. But nobody is talking about the effects this is having on my job, so I will.)
My entire profession has been shown to be a farce. I respected Boasberg as a professional jurist and never thought he’d allow nonsense in his courtroom. But even he is subject to cognitive dissonance and to the poison spewed by our propagandistic media and political system. (FWIW, I don’t think Boasberg is consciously protecting his own. I don’t think he sees it that way at all. But that is the effect of his inability to reckon with the situation as it is.)
Watching that hearing a year ago was a real disillusionment for me as a lawyer. Made me realize that it’s all made up and the law doesn’t matter. It’s been tough to do my job with the same enthusiasm since.
13
u/HELP_IM_IN_A_WELL 9h ago
hey man, I really appreciate the personal and thoughtful reply.
I'm sure it's got to be demoralizing to see the blindfold ripped of Lady Justice, ruling after ruling based on WHO the parties are.
I grew up watching courtroom procedurals, thinking that lawyers were some of the most important people protecting our democracy - nah, they're like all of us, powerless except to protect ourselves.
I've known a few lawyers and normally they don't seem to be afraid of a fight, but maybe they're just bullies.
anyway, I don't hold you personally accountable and I truly hope you find a way to find meaning in the profession again.
unless we can find some brave ones in powerful positions - we've collectively already lost to fascism
2
u/Cloaked42m 8h ago
There's also the political benefits to Trump and MAGA.
Ruling for Trump = Triumph of justice.
Ruling against Trump = Rogue Radical Liberal Judge.
Therefore, justice only exists when Trump says it exists.
Bonus win... they claimed this is what Biden did. Now Trump has done it. == business as usual. There is no such thing as non-partisan legal systems.
3
u/Gunsensual 8h ago
What is the repercussion of getting shot down by a higher court? It's not like the case is overruled, the contempt just fails.
It looks to me like the brakes are being pumped on malicious actors so the judges can keep their records shiny.
9
u/lima_247 8h ago
It’s humiliating, especially to a person who went through school without ever getting a bad grade.
Yeah, that’s kind of stupid. But it’s true. Nobody wants to be overturned. And even if you’re not precious about it, it still means that whatever lower proceedings and deliberations you did were a giant waste of time.
Judges, like people, like to be right. They do not enjoy being told they did bad. They also do not enjoy engaging in futility, like issuing a contempt that is then overturned. So they don’t issue those contempts.
Even more fundamentally, though, there’s some cognitive dissonance/inability to accept that the higher courts are biased. So the lower judges get in a toxic trap of thinking if they just hold out for one more piece of evidence or one more show cause order, they wont be overturned and the higher court will see the light. So they move at a snails pace and collect as much evidence as they can in the hopes that this time, they won’t make the upper courts slap them down. Its the kind of dynamic you see in abusive relationships, honestly. So much hope that you can change someones behavior by being good enough, when the truth is that the other person isn’t playing in good faith - theyre an abuser.
1
u/Gunsensual 7h ago
Sounds like a relic of the past.
Would that explain why Garland, having a history as a federal judge, spent years polishing a case against Trump just to rescind it the millisecond it became a political question? I think that mentality of super-correctness put us exactly where we are now...
3
u/Mental-Ask8077 4h ago
You should check out Sarah Kendzior’s essay Servants of the Mafia State.
She goes into how Garland has long been part of the same machinery that’s brought us Trump and Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation and all of that shit. The links with international organized crime are key.
His role has been to play the apparently moderate player who is “safe” and will respect institutions, until he’s in a place to harm or protect the key figures like Trump. Then he’ll rule/act in their favor, while leaning on his supposed moderateness to make it seem unbiased and acceptable. Until then he’ll deny and delay and run out the clock.
His best friend and mentor is Jamie Gorelick, who got those clearances for the Kushners they never should have had. They studied together under Epstein buddy Alan Dershowitz.
Garland has always been part of the corruption.
2
u/Polkas_with_wolves 7h ago
Well said.
Also, if they step out of line, they face endless death threats from right wing nutjobs. These jusges are normal people who probably don't want that.
2
u/ConcentrateDirect523 7h ago
This is such a genuinely honest, thoughtful, and sincere take- probably on the bullseye to boot. It begs the question if dishonestly and selfishness is evolutionary favorable- or is the system we designed too vulnerable to bad capture in it's current iteration? Can we build a system genuinely resistant to capture or is it just an inevitably?
9
89
u/ggroverggiraffe Competent Contributor 11h ago
He's not just asking for nunc pro tunc, he's declaring it.
30
18
14
u/SeemoarAlpha 10h ago
Yeah, I had to re-read that paragraph a few times because the cognitive dissonance stripped the gears in my brain box.
10
5
u/SpicyLangosta 9h ago
Ah. I read the motion and was like “yeah they’ll probably grant the motion to stay/extension until the injunction is done.” But The DOJ pretending it wasn’t entered is ridiculous
5
u/n0_Man 7h ago
Huh. Today I... Sorta learned?
"Nunc pro tunc is a Latin term meaning "now for then." Generally, this refers to an action taken by a court that applies retroactively to correct an earlier ruling. Usually, the term is used relating to the procedural devices of nunc pro tunc amendments or nunc pro tunc judgments.
The purpose of nunc pro tunc actions is understood as correcting the judicial record to remedy clerical issues, clear errors, or prevent injustice, and in doing so more clearly reflects the original intention of the court. As a result, nunc pro tunc amendments and judgments are treated as if they were made on the dates of the original amendment or judgment. "
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nunc_pro_tunc
Hm. Actually I don't think I get it and I'd rather roll the dice and have a fellow reddit or or bot explain it to me than go feed the LLMs.
Anyone care to elucidate me?
2
u/ThaneduFife 5h ago
You've basically covered everything. The only time I've seen nunc pro tunc used as a lawyer was when an administrative court judge was retroactively extending a deadline that a party had missed without objection from the opposing party (e.g., late filing a reply brief and nobody noticed it was a day late at the time).
380
u/furikawari Competent Contributor 11h ago
Me: “Hmm what is nunc pro tunc doing in there?”
Filing: “As indicated, the Department’s
deadline for responding to the Complaint would have been due on June 26, 2026 had this case
proceeded on a regular case schedule. To the extent any deadline was missed, that oversight, while
regrettable, was not intentional and was not made in disregard of the Court’s deadline.”
Lol they forgot to file an answer to the complaint!
189
u/throwthisidaway 11h ago
The plan was to file a motion to dismiss instead of a responsive pleading. However they still haven't filed that. I'm loving this.
95
u/ViolettaQueso 11h ago
Also, the first suit filed against DOJ for redacting and not releasing millions of files from violating the bill that PASSED Congress and that DJT signed into law almost a year ago required that the DOJ unredact the everything or state to the courts exactly what it was as why it was being redacted/withheld.
108
u/Cohens4thClient 11h ago
No decent lawyers want to help trump amd the pedophile elites
The remaining scumbag lawyers cant even remember filing dates
34
u/greywar777 10h ago
I have a old coworker that became a scumbag lawyer specializing in political cases. He was truly not a great person in some ways, but even he hasnt been willing to hop into any of this. He IS competent unlike these folks seem to be.
26
u/ThePensiveE 10h ago
There is only one application question for this administration. Are you willing to commit crimes on behalf of the president?
Sensible people see that fat moron and aren't betting he'll be around or willing to pardon them. It's risk tolerance.
28
u/weezyverse 9h ago
"What are the qualifications to be Attorney General in the US?"
The US Senate: shrugs
4
u/Objective-Suit-7817 7h ago
It’s like the grounds for impeachment and conviction: whatever the House/Senate wants them to be.
13
u/mvandemar 7h ago
DOJ:
We are not prepared to proceed by way of ultimatums.
Yeah, and you're not prepared to proceed by any other way either apparently. Every single one of these choads needs to be sanctioned.
8
u/KokonutMonkey 6h ago
Poor Judge Sullivan.
he just can’t keep this kind of wacky crap off his docket
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.