Eastman v HSCJ6 case updates…the Court DENIED Eastman’s Motions and additional subpoenas.
This is more of a housekeeping article -a few updates since March 4, 2022 and it’s important to properly explain what has occurred in this case. Not the least of which is slopping lawyering by Eastman
Eastman v. HSCJ6 ongoing case update…
As noted via the previously published article concerning the protracted “privilege” claims of John Eastman —and as further noted via the March 4, 2022 update, where I explained the various motions filed by Eastman. And that Eastman’s Motions seemed improper and certainly not filed in good faith…
There’s a saying in my industry, always and I mean always know your local rules. Failure to follow local rules, just might make your motion improper, untimely, and/or in contravention of aforesaid rules and/or in violation of a previous court order. And to be clear local rules can deviate with other federal districts. Hence; “always know your local rules”…
Central District Local Rule 7-3 provides for…
at least seven days before filing a motion
“counsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution…” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-3. (emphasis added)
Jan 26, 2022 Chamber Notes/Minute Order
It occurred to me that some of you would benefit to have the Court’s January 26, 2022 Minute Order (ECF-50 or via Scribd) the Court’s minute order contained a list of items/tasks…
Given the urgency of the investigation and the volume of documents, the Court finds that a more detailed production schedule is necessary and appropriate. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows;
I’d like to draw you attention to page 3, item number 7, 7a thru 7g —Eastman’s refusal to adhere to the Court’s Order — the House Select Committee on Jan6th (HSCJ6) cited the Court’s previous order which requires Eastman to provide basic contact information and a summary of said document, but also sighting privilege…
As previously noted (see March 4 article found here) Eastman’s sloppy filings (speculation Doc 171 and 172) when you get the following notice by the Court’s Clerk then you know that you are grasping at straws and your previous motions are likely doomed. Because the level of sloppiness here is hilariously astounding.
NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document 172, Miscellaneous Document 171 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Request (for order); Notice of Motion (for order). Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. Other error(s) with document(s): The Notice of Motion is lacking for #172. Proposed order and hearing information is also regarding #172. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so
HSCJ6 response to Eastman’s Motions
March 4, 2022 - Doc 178 (via ECF) OPPOSITION (or via Scribd) to First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation Reply Brief 177 filed by Defendants Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol, Bennie Thompson
You could actually say that the HSCJ6 response/Opposition could be viewed as a master class in “know your local rules” —setting aside the fact that Eastman & his counsel somehow argue that the Congressional Defendants are in violation of local rules governing page limit but then fail to acknowledge that the “indexes” are not counted in the total page count. Yet amazingly Eastman asked the Court, based on that “technicality” to not only grant him (yet another) continuance, but Order Congress to produce “exculpatory” evidence…
Brady and Giglio both involve constitutional due process protections for criminal defendants. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86 (1963)… These procedures exist to safeguard the substantials. But nothing here places Plaintiff’s (or anyone else’s) liberty in jeopardy. If this Court ultimately finds that the crime-fraud, Plaintiff will not be incarcerated, nor will he suffer civil sanctions. Chapman University will produce relevant documents. 1
Fact: the Speech or Debate Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 6, cl. 1, provides absolute immunity for Members of Congress and its Committees for any claims predicated on legislative activities -also all other activities that fall “within the ‘legislative sphere.” 2 …and the fact that Eastman failed to provide any case law that support his assertion that he is somehow entitled to exculpatory evidence that “might be” in the possession of HSCJ6 —Eastman’s arguments are unmoored from facts and commonsense.
The main crux of Eastman’s fatally flawed arguments are; the HSCJ6 reply “was essentially a criminal indictment”, therefore “due process protections” are now afforded to Eastman by way of the Relief sought is the Court orders the HSCJ6 to turn over the substantial evidence the HSCJ6 has collected…and that the due process protections vis-a-vis- Brady and its progeny (Jenks, Giglio) are applicable in the course of the civil he initiated.
The main crux of the HSCJ6 argument is: Eastman is proving to be extraordinarily litigious witness. Eastman’s over all strategy is to “frustrate” the HSCJ6 efforts to follow the facts/evidence. That the records in question are pivotal to the HSCJ6 investigation. There is a direct nexus (covering both state of mind and actions taken) between Eastman and Trump in a coordinated attempt to subvert the will of the American Electorate during the 2020 General Election…
The Court DENIED all of Eastman Motions:
Between Eastman’s flawed “your honor Congress exceeded the maximum page count” argument to his assertion that he’s entitled to evidence the HSCJ6 has collected —one has to wonder how is it the CA Bar hasn’t disbarred him from their rolls years ago
March 4, 2022 -Doc # 182 Chamber minutes and Minute Order on Motion for Exculpatory Evidence (“Brady Motion”) (Dkt. 172) and Motion to Exceed Page Limit -see CDCA-ECF - the Court DENIES Dr. Eastman’s Motions. (So see via Scribd) - in short the Court found Eastman’s arguments unpersuasive;
Having reviewed the moving papers and considered the parties’ arguments, the Court DENIES Dr. Eastman’s Motions.
Dr. Eastman contends that because the Select Committee has raised allegations of criminal activity against Dr. Eastman, President Trump, and others…
Dr. Eastman seeks additional portions of deposition transcripts from interviews with the Select Committee, impeachment evidence, and evidence of dissent within federal agencies about election fraud…argues that the Select Committee’s brief alleging the crime fraud exception is “effectively a draft criminal indictment.” Brady Mot. at 3… Dr. Eastman contends that he merits the protections awarded to criminal defendants by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Id.
Dr. Eastman’s liberty is not at issue—only his emails. The legislature raises allegations of crime in the limited context of privilege… Eastman to risk incarceration, there would have to be entirely separate criminal proceedings, where the Government would face a substantially higher burden of proof and Dr. Eastman would receive the full protections of criminal law.
…Dr. Eastman is the architect of his own pleadings and may present any evidence in his possession to defend his privilege claims….
The fact is Eastman’s ever evolving arguments concerning attorney client privilege and work product doctrine are not only unsupported in case law, the fact is Eastman has repeatedly contradicted himself and the Court’s appropriate upbraiding of Eastman’s arguments is a delightful read. For Example on page 2 -the second to last paragraph which reads in part:
…Eastman has been on notice of the Select Committee’s objections, including crime-fraud, since they submitted their initial privilege log on January 31, 2022. Moreover, Dr. Eastman himself requested the opportunity to file the opening brief over the Select Committee’s objection, and raised no objections to the Court’s proposed briefing schedule
And that my friends is why you should always read the Chamber Minutes, especially if they contain a minute order… Eastman’s Motions (Doc 171, 172, 180) all DENIED by the Court’s Minute Order
And lastly your daily saltwater therapy…
also in about an hour or so I’ll know if I need to report for jury duty tomorrow and if that’s the case (pun not intended) it will be highly unlikely that I will publish a daily newsletter this week.
However I would recommend you take a moment and watch this Washington Post Instagram Reel… Because one thing we’ve learned in this Eastman litigation, he was in fact at the Mayflower and was in numerous meetings with Bannon and Stone —hence an actual nexus and Stone’s decades known MO of doing it in plain sight —but the fact Stone decide to “turn” on Trump when Trump demurred Stone’s request for preemptive pardons for himself and others particularly those at the Mayflower.
As for what’s next, if past is prologue then I’d expect Eastman to really dig his heals in and the secondary purpose is it further frustrate the HSCJ6’s efforts to follow the facts, no matter where they lead. Meaning I would expect Eastman to file an interlocutory appeal but I did find it odd that Eastman failed to do so shortly after the January 2022 Court Order…in the end Eastman’s efforts to delay and distract might have reached the end of the line, as evident by the Court’s recent Minute Order…
ICYMI on March 2, 2022 HSCJ6 Subpoena:
We knew as far back as August 2021 that the HSCJ6 had Kimberly Guilfoyle on their radar and by January 18, 2022 the HSCJ6 had subpoenaed the Mobile Phone records so when the HSCJ6 announced on March 2, 2022 that they had issued a subpoena to Kimberly Guilfoyle -the HSCJ6 letter reads in part:
The Select Committee’s investigation has learned that Ms. Guilfoyle met with Donald Trump and members of his family in the Oval Office the morning of January 6, 2021, which was also when the then-President last spoke with Vice President Pence (by phone) prior to the joint session of Congress to certify the results of the Presidential election. Ms. Guilfoyle later spoke at the rally held on the Ellipse in support of President Trump and his allegations of election fraud.
Based on documents and information provided to the Select Committee, Ms. Guilfoyle also has claimed to have been involved in raising funds to pay for the Ellipse rally. She also apparently communicated with others about the decision by the then-President about who was and was not allowed to speak at the rally, including concerns raised about him sharing the stage with individuals including Ali Alexander, Alex Jones, and Roger Stone.
The HSCJ6 March 3, 2022 Press Release also reads in part:
the Select Committee has issued a subpoena for records and testimony from Kimberly Guilfoyle as part of its investigation into the violence of January 6th and its causes. The Select Committee has evidence that Ms. Guilfoyle was in direct contact with key individuals, raised funds for the rally immediately preceding the violent attack on the United States Capitol, and participated in that event.
And in recent days there’s been plenty of public reporting that Ivanka Trump is “in talks to voluntarily appear before” the House Select Committee (see January 20. 2022 article) —I don’t think Ivanka will offer any earth shattering disclosures. But I still maintain that Trump Sr and his adult children going all “Lord of the Flies” on each other in a political “Game of Thrones” is certainly something to look forward to because Trump will roll his own children under the bus just to protect himself…
See See Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 502 (1975) via Law Library of Congress https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep421/usrep421491/usrep421491.pdf -last accessed March 5, 2022 -also see McCarthy v. Pelosi, 5 F.4th 34 (D.C. Cir. 2021). https://tinyurl.com/yc5edm53 -last accessed March 6, 2022
See Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 312 (1973) - Doe v. McMillan. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 6, 2022, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-6356
"... slopping lawyering by Eastman. ". Everything Trump touches is "slopping" ; some even slobbering! How's the family?
Thanks for keeping us informed.