John Eastman attempts to stonewall arguments, righteously annihilated by the Court. UPDATED with Jan28th Filings -2nd Update with JSR & it’s a doozy
Let the commencement of the privilege logs begin. Eastman invoking his fifth amendment rights 146 times. YES 146 times. Also about the CA Bar Ethics complaint. fair warning this is a painfully article
The January 28, 2022 5:05PM DC local time can be found at the bottom of this article…
Point of Personal Privilege: I actually wrestled with should I or shouldn’t I weigh in on all things John C Eastman. Part of my reluctance was I knew Eastman isn’t as well respected as he portrays. When an attorney needs to hire an attorney. Well that’s a bad sign that Eastman’s disclosures are nothing more than a giant iceberg. Which naturally requires someone like me pulling out the big guns and going deep into the research canyons. Frankly Eastman is such an enigma that he might actually test my research skills. Conversely when your industry requires you to quadruple check your research — “you either come correct or don’t come at all” This kind of research results in the unavoidable jumping down rabbit hole(s). It also requires an exhaustive search and then somehow only then can you formulate a coherent article. The end result is a presentment of facts, not innuendo or rumor just cold hard facts. That alone made an an-otherwise simple task a far more arduous and time consuming lift.
In this article I’m going to walk you through the ethics complaint filed with the CA Bar, Eastman’s past actions, his public statements, his lies and most offensively his arrogance to think “he thought he could get away with his falsities and his pedestrian refusal to ameliorate his arguments flaws”…
In short I’m trying to prepare you for crushing amount of original documents, court filings, etc. Also this is what I do to unwind from my otherwise increasingly stressful livelihood. So glasses on, knuckles cracked, keyboard engaged and of course grab a Red Bull and chug it. There’s a lot of information I’m going to provide you. My goal is to provide you with actual documents and occasional spicy snark. And pointing it important facts elucidated in recent Court filings.
Ready. Set. Let’s Go…
14th Amendment aka Disqualification Clause
For you history buffs it’s important to factor in what our Country was facing and the necessaries/catalyst of why the Fourteenth Amendment (Section 3) was needed. After America’s Civil War - lawmakers wanted to ensure that anyone who engaged in a seditious conspiracy, actual sedition and actively inciting other Americans to take up arms against their fellow Americans…would never and I mean never ever hold any kind of position. The Fourteenth Amendment, literally reads in part:
…No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Amdt14.S3.1 Disqualification from Holding Office
Amdt14.S3.1.1 Disqualification Clause
Watch this Madison Cawthorne space👇🏻
Incidentally just ask Madison “you can threaten them lightly” Cawthorne if his sophomoric response to a very solid filing is truly the best way he’s representing North Carolinians. The coordinated and violent January 6 attack on the United States Capitol in an effort to prevent Congress from certifying the presidential vote was an insurrection against the United States. The fourteenth amendment
“disqualifies from public office any elected officials who aided that insurrection.. As set forth in our complaint, the publicly available evidence, including Representative Cawthorn’s own statements and reports that he or his office coordinated with the January 6 organizers, establish reasonable suspicion that Representative Cawthorn aided the insurrection, thereby disqualifying him from federal office. We look forward to asking him about his involvement under oath.”
Pay close attention to the language in the 2nd paragraph which is a thrilling read. As noted under North Carolina law, when a challenger provides “reasonable suspicion or belief” of facts establishing that a candidate “does not meet the constitutional . . . qualifications for the office,” then “[t]he burden of proof shall be upon the candidate” to “show by a preponderance of the evidence . . . that he or she is qualified to be a candidate for the office.” N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 163-127.2(b), 163-127.5(a).
Eastman sues J6HSC Expedited Ruling/Schedule
On January 20, 2022 (seditious conspiracy) John Eastman decided to pull a Donald Trump and litigant the House Select Committee on Jan6th Subpoena. See September 24, 2021 article, also see CDCA-ECF for link to Eastman’s frivolous complaint and let me tell you that Federal District Court Judge, David Carter’s sixteen page Memorandum-Order is just a spectacular jurisprudence smack down and it was a delightful read. Before we get into the righteousness of the Court’s recent ruling -I think it might be helpful for you to connect more dots and tie up threads by taking a quick detour down “background lane”… For Example
John Eastman’s Blueprint on how to destroy our Democracy
On September 21, 2021 John Eastman then provided CNN's Jeremy Herb with a longer, six-page memo, which was dated January 3. This is a far more robust and comprehensive memo than what was originally reported a few days ago. The six page memo details several potential electoral count scenarios. The link to the six page memo is embedded in the following tweet
see Dec 2017 John Eastman Endorses Judge Steven Bailey Press Release
See February 2019 CA Bar Re Steven C Bailey
See May 28, 2018 CA Bar: Inquiry Concerning Judge Steven C. Bailey, No. 202 ...
…Judge Bailey’s misconduct over the entire course of his judicial career, his prior discipline, and his failure to appreciate the impropriety of much of his misconduct, we conclude there is a strong likelihood that Judge Bailey would engage in subsequent misconduct if he were to serve in a judicial capacity in the future. In order to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, the commission has determined to censure and bar former Judge Steven C. Bailey from seeking or holding judicial office, or accepting a position or an assignment as a judicial officer, subordinate judicial officer or judge pro tem with any court in the State of California, or accepting reference of work from any California state court, at any time in the future.
Again I’m not faulting John Eastman’s December 2017 endorsement because I doubt that John Eastman was fully aware of just how Steven Bailey not only lacks the judicial temperament but it’s stunning that his endorsement is still very much “live” (see archive because apparently no one thought to archive Eastman’s endorsement) but if you read the 2018 & 2019 CA Bar order it seems incomprehensible that Eastman wouldn’t request Bailey take down said endorsement…
…because John Eastman’s 2017 endorsement of Steven Bailey is a whole new level of duplicitous bat __ crazy. But if the colloquialism of “you are the company you keep” then John Eastman’s leadership role in Trump’s Seditious Conspiracy isn’t at all surprising.
For the record I tried to watch “the plot against the president” it was an awful and arguably fact free “factionalized & fictionalized narrative of Donald J Trump being the perennial victim” —which is such an odd dichotomy. Given Trump likes to project this false public image that he’s “a stable genius, super strong, powerful, and is the omnipresent Blue Collar Billionaire” —When it’s abundantly clear that Trump is that whiny sniveling man-child. You know the kid that was never picked to play kickball. Trump has the interpersonal skills of a six year old, and the intellect of a Orange Shit Gibbon that’s screaming into the abyss.
By all appearances Trump would do just about anything (like get on your knee’s and beg for donors to continue their donations) —all in a sick and self centered attempt to hold on to power, that he was never really qualified to have. Yes that’s me stating Donald J Trump debased the Office of the President of the United States. And Trump should be forever disqualified from ever holding public office or any position that requires public trust…he took an oath and he violated it when the Domestic Terrorist (of which he largely and single-handedly radicalized) beat the crap out of hundreds of law enforcement officers. These officers put their bodies on the line to protect our Democracy.
John Eastman’s Tweets are a thing of…
Look it’s natural to assume at one point in Eastman’s colorful employment history that he was a “good guy” but a preliminary look at his Twitter account, you’ll note just how unhinged and untethered from reality and facts Eastman’s tweets are… also the ratio on Eastman’s tweets are a thing of comedic gold. For Example:
Yet this January 21, 2021 Tweet -someone should remind him that he made several attempts to be a U.S. House of Representatives and US Senator and each time he lost, like bigly lost. After closely scrutinizing Eastman’s FEC reports —I have a lot more questions…
Incidentally if you take a look at John C Eastman’s disbursements via this FEC query there’s definitely something odd. Specifically if you aggregate the data you’ll note on January 30, 2021 WinRed refunded Eastman some $800.00 it’s not the dollar amount that’s curious it’s the eight separate $100.00 campaign refunds.
States United Democracy Center (SUDC) to CA Bar: investigate John C Eastman’s Professional conduct
On October 4, 2021 States United Democracy Center filed a formal complaint with the State Bar of California —John Charles Eastman CA Bar #193726, CA Bar records reflect John C Eastman was admitted 12/15/1997. Also there are in fact three separate John Eastman hence why you should make sure you’re searching the correct John Charles Eastman.
10.4.21-FINAL-Eastman-Cover-Letter-Memorandum.pdf
SUDC filed an ethics complaint against California bar member John Eastman. The complaint alleges that Eastman’s conduct, starting in November 2020 and into most of 2021 -whereby his “service” to former president Trump’s (unlawful) attempts to overturn the 2020 general election results… warrant an expedited and thorough review of John C Eastman’s conduct…
California Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 8.4(c), and/or 1.2.1 1 2through his actions on behalf of his client Mr. Trump hijack or postpone the final counting of the electoral votes at the January 6, 2021 in their efforts to Joint Session of Congress…beginning in late 2020 and culminating in their efforts to hijack or postpone the final counting of the electoral votes at the January 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress
The ethics complaint requests that the State Bar of California open an investigation into whether Eastman violated multiple rules of professional responsibility in his actions as a lawyer for former President Trump and is supported by 25 bipartisan signatories, including former federal district court judges and California Supreme court justices, numerous former Republican officials, leading law professors and the Bush and Obama White House ethics advisors.
John Eastman is a former law professor and dean at Chapman University School of Law, and represented former President Trump in late 2020 and early 2021.
Eastman played an important role in making false claims about widespread election fraud at the “Stop the Steal” rally,
was the author of a two-page memo and a six-page memo that were used to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count or indefinitely delay the lawful Electoral College votes from numerous states, and
represented Mr. Trump in the frivolous lawsuit Texas v. Pennsylvania before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The attached Memorandum is one of the most tightly written filings I’ve read in a while. And frankly SUDC made numerous solid arguments -especially the following: CRPC 1.2.1 Advising or Assisting the Violation of Law - again Eastman pulled a Trump by ubiquitous “blanket privilege”, or more laughable “attorney client privilege” —I mean I guess “crime fraud exemption”
…Eastman, representing Mr. Trump, immediately filed a Bill of Complaint in Intervention that expressly adopted Texas’s frivolous and false claims, and explicitly sought the rulings and relief that Mr. Trump had repeatedly been denied in the lower courts. The Supreme Court swiftly dismissed the Texas action for lack of standing. In light of these filings, there is a strong basis to investigate whether Mr. Eastman violated Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions) and Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct (“CRPC”).
…Eastman undertook to provide the legal rationale for this extraordinary attempt to overturn the election in two memoranda, which were intended to influence Mr. Pence. The core claim of those memoranda was that it was a “fact” that the Constitution gave Mr. Pence complete and unfettered authority to prevent the counting of lawful ballots from seven select states or to postpone the count altogether.
Mike Pence’s January 6th Letter
For the record I am not a fan of Mike “Bubbles” Pence —his draconian views of women’s reproductive rights, same sex marriage… coupled with Pence’s on demand obsequious behavior which largely emboldened Trump. But on January 6th and 7th of 2021 I can respect Pence’s actions and it occurred to me that many of you may not have known that (then) VP Mike Pence released a three page statement, found here —it’s the 2nd page that really highlight just how subversive John Eastman’s conduct was…Pence’s letter reads in part:
As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley wrote following the contentious election of 1876, “the powers of the President of the Senate are merely ministerial. . . . He is not invested with any authority for making any investigation outside of the Joint Meeting of the two Houses. . . . [I]f any examination at all is to be gone into, or any judgment exercised in relation to the votes received, it must be performed and exercised by the two Houses.” … More recently, as the former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig observed, “[t]he only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the Electoral College votes as they have been cast,” adding “[t]he Constitution does not empower the Vice President to alter in any way the votes that have been cast, either by rejecting certain votes or otherwise.”
State Bar of California…Rules upon Rules
One thing that most overlook is an attorney swears an oath as an officer of the Court. Moreover an attorney is colloquially known as “a guardian of the Rule of Law” and yes their oath comes with Rules which regulate their professional conduct. California Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 8.4(c), and/or 1.2.1 sometimes referred to as Canons. And yes I understand that most might see a string of numbers and might not understand the rules, themselves. To help you understand the veritas of the SUDC CA Bar complaint and the “potential” violations of the following rules:
CA Bar Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions
CA Bar Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal -In my non-binding opinion I am fairly certain it’s Rule 3.3 (a)(1), (a)(2) and especially 3.3(a)(3) which reads in part;
A lawyer shall not:
(1) knowingly* make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal* or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal* by the lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal* legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known* to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel, or knowingly* misquote to a tribunal* the language of a book, statute, decision or other authority; or
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows* to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence, and the lawyer comes to know* of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable* remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal,* unless disclosure is prohibited by Business and Professions Code section 6068…
CA Bar Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others
CA Bar Rule 8.4 -Misconduct while this is a highly generalized rule at the core is one immutable tenant, as an Officer of the Court you have an ethical and moral obligation to conduct yourself in accordance with the State Bar you are licensed to practice in.
With the late October 2021 disclosure, John Eastman’s blue print to subvert the will of the American People…I would encourage you to watch the video clips. Because Eastman doesn’t sound the least bit contrite or sane. Spoiler: there’s no “secret/hidden” power in our Constitution that vest any authority the President of the Senate to reject Electoral College Ballots. It’s the same basket of coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs gibberish that Trump attempted to “use” during his Second Impeachment Trial.
John Eastman v House Select Committee on Jan6th (J6HSC) -subpoenas and lawsuits
The case was styled as: John C. Eastman v. Bennie G. Thompson (8:22-cv-00099)
January 20, 2022 John Eastman files a civil complaint in the CDCA - this is a little complicated but allow me to explain what Eastman’s complaint centered around —as there are two issues that one of which was compounded.
Issue # 1 - on November 8, 2021 the J6HSC sent Eastman a subpoena (read more here) and while negotiations might have started out “in good faith” —the J6HSC quickly realized that Eastman would pull a play right out of Trump’s Triple-D playbook. Meaning he was perfectly fine stonewalling and essentially ignoring a lawful subpoena. As negotiations with the J6HSC and Eastman progressed -inevitably negotiations broke down and the J6HSC sent a subpoena to Chapman University.
Issue # 2 - Eastman was technically on leave from Chapman University , the university continued to pay Eastman a “stipend” and the J6HSC then subpoenaed Chapman University. Eastman then added Chapman University as a defendant and the educated guess is - Eastman attempted to misuse attorney client privilege and work doctrine privilege to withhold some 19+K documents
Issue # 3 - Mike Pence’s January 6th Letter For the record I am not a fan of Mike “Bubbles” Pence —his draconian views of women’s reproductive rights, same sex marriage… coupled with Pence’s on demand obsequious behavior which largely emboldened Trump. But on January 6th and 7th of 2021 I can respect Pence’s actions and it occurred to me that many of you may not have known that (then) VP Mike Pence released a three page statement, found here —it’s the 2nd page that really highlight just how subversive John Eastman’s conduct was…Pence’s letter reads in part:
As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley wrote following the contentious election of 1876, “the powers of the President of the Senate are merely ministerial. . . . He is not invested with any authority for making any investigation outside of the Joint Meeting of the two Houses. . . . [I]f any examination at all is to be gone into, or any judgment exercised in relation to the votes received, it must be performed and exercised by the two Houses.” … More recently, as the former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig observed, “[t]he only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the Electoral College votes as they have been cast,” adding “[t]he Constitution does not empower the Vice President to alter in any way the votes that have been cast, either by rejecting certain votes or otherwise.”
It is my considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.
While my role as presiding officer is largely ceremonial, the role of the Congress is much different, and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 establishes a clear procedure to address election controversies when they arise during the count of the vote of the Electoral College.
January 24, 2022 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE: PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG by Judge David O. Carter -see CDCA-ECF or via Scribd
Given the importance of the investigation and the parties' representations, the Court ORDERS the parties to begin work on production and creating a privilege log on Tuesday, January 25, 2022 by 12:00 pm Pacific.
The Court expects that the parties will work together with the urgency that this case requires.
The parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report with the Court on Wednesday, January 26 and Friday, January 28 at 2:00 pm Pacific. The report should summarize the progress made and any disputes that the parties are facing.
The Court sets a Status Conference for next Monday, January 31, at 2:00 pm Pacific.
January 25, 2022 - ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 2 by Judge David O. Carter. See CDCA-ECF or via Scribd
For the reasons given above, the Court DENIES Dr. Eastman's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dr. Eastman may renew his attorney-client privilege and attorney work product claims as to specific documents during production. (see document for further details
…Having reviewed the parties’ papers and arguments, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Application with respect to his First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and congressional authority claims. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s attorney-client privilege and attorney work product claims at this point, but Plaintiff may raise these claims as to specific documents during production.
As noted by the Court John Eastman engaged in the following behaviors —but
January 2, 2021, Dr. Eastman participated in “a briefing for nearly 300 state
legislators from several states regarding purported election fraud, during which [Dr. Eastman] told the group that it was ‘the duty of the legislatures to fix this, this egregious conduct, and make sure that we’re not putting in the White House some guy that didn’t get elected.’” Id. (citing a PR Newswire article)
January 3, Eastman met with President Trump and Vice President Michael Pence to explain his (untested and zero case law to support) his insane legal theory, the “Vice President had the authority to decide the results of the election regardless of the votes in each state. Id.” (citing a New York Times article)
January 5, Dr. Eastman was in “the Willard Hotel ‘war room’ with Steve Bannon and others . . . where the focus was on delaying or blocking the certification of the election.” Id. (citing a Washington Post article)
During Jan. 6 riot, Trump attorney told Pence team the vice president’s inaction caused attack on Capitol, citing the Washington Post Oct. 29, 2021 article
And yes this is why I wanted you to (re)read Mike Pence’s Jan6th letter because I can actually respect our former Vice President, for upholding his “oath of office”… but setting aside the brutal fact that there is literally zero case law to support John C Eastman’s subversive theory that somehow -somewhere hidden in our Constitution, there’s a “super secret”passage that (does not) vest any authority in the VP’s role which Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley opined:
…is as the powers of the President of the Senate are merely ministerial. . . . He is not invested with any authority for making any investigation outside of the Joint Meeting of the two Houses…”
…Eastman asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege 146 times…no really 146 times
…the Select Committee’s subpoena is within its legitimate legislative authority and the Court DENIES Dr. Eastman’s Application as to his ultra vires claim… (ouch)
When I say that the Court completely eviscerated Eastman’s; 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment. Attorney Client Privilege, Work Product Privilege arguments is the Court literally delivered one of the more brutal rulings I’ve read in a while.
The public interest here is weighty and urgent. Congress seeks to understand the causes of a grave attack on our Nation’s Democracy and a near-successful attempt to subvert the will of the voters…
…The Court does not find the subpoena to be overbroad or indefinite given its context. As such, the Court DENIES Dr. Eastman’s claims with respect to the Fourth Amendment.
In short the January 25, 2022 Memorandum-Order - Eastman needs to comply with the J6HSC lawful subpoenas. Also keep in mind that during oral arguments, John Eastman’s attorney Charles Burnham (yes when an attorney needs an attorney things tend to quickly unravel) the Court asked about Eastman’s conduct. During this questioning Burhham actually confirmed that Eastman had in fact corresponded with several state legislators, a mere four days before the deadly Jan6th domestic terror attack, telling various state lawmakers to fix the “egregious conduct” which would result in Joe Biden’s inauguration. Burnham additionally went on to confirm John Eastman was a “guest” in the Willard Hotel’s “war room” —again the J6HSC has zeroed in on the Willard Hotel because it’s become the election deniers Mecca and there is significant crossover between Trump Administration officials, Trump’s re-election campaign staffers had lengthy discussion with the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement coordinators (Ali Alexander, Alex Jones, Mark Finchem, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon)
January 26, 2022 - STATUS REPORT of Plaintiff filed by Plaintiff John C. Eastman - see CDCA-ECF or see Scribd the status report has a few new pieces of data. Specifically the J6HSC voiced concern about the pace in which John Eastman will review the documents already produced by Chapman University. pursuant to the lawful subpoena and the Court’s January 25, 2022 Order. For Example:
Item # 1 Chapman University made a production to Dr. Eastman on the afternoon of January 25. Undersigned counsel received the documents while in flight and could not download them on the available internet. Undersigned counsel immediately contacted counsel for Chapman to raise the issue and requested the documents be shared directly with Dr. Eastman for quicker downloading. Chapman complied. Following further technical difficulties due to the size of the file, plaintiff was not able to download the file until approximately 10pm. Due to the late hour, only a preliminary survey of the materials was possible on January 25.
Item # 5 -Plaintiff has proposed the committee waive its request for metadata in the subpoena because conducting a separate privilege analysis on the metadate for each document will greatly prolong the review process. Plaintiff awaits the congressional defendants’ position on this request.
January 26, 2022 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER RE: PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG. See CDCA-ECF or Scribd See document for in-depth detailed instructions. The joint status report remains due on Friday, January 28 at 2:00 pm PST, and
Status Conference remains as scheduled on Monday, January 31, 2022, at 2:00 pm PST
Dr. Eastman shall be responsible for Bates-numbering the pages and shall report the total number of pages to the Court by 5:00 pm PST on Friday, January 28, 2022.
Beginning on Friday, January 28, Dr. Eastman shall be responsible for reviewing and processing 1500 pages per business day. Dr. Eastman shall notify the Court of any issues he faces in maintaining that pace.
What to expect and what comes next…
Based on information and belief (this is me triggering a speculation warning and you should be skeptical of what I’m about to say) John Eastman originally refused to create & provide a “privilege log” —in fact Eastman told the J6HSC that he was asserting his fifth amendment right to “not produce a privilege log” well the Court dispatched Eastman’s weak argument and as you’ll note in the January 25th Order & subsequent JSR and Chamber minutes.
Eastman now has an opportunity to “review” Chapman University’s responsive documents. Originally the University informed the J6HSC that responsive documents was over 30,000. However the J6HSC & University agreed to narrowly tailor the various search parameters. Which resulted in 30K documents dwindled to 19K documents. My speculation is Eastman will now slow roll his examination of the documents. See January 27th Minute Order it appears the Court has preemptively set-forth pretty specific guidelines and a tight timetable. Which makes sense given Eastman has engaged in obstructive behavior, likely violated numerous CA Bar Rules, desecrated the solemnity of the Oath an Officer of the Court makes…
Again most of the Court filings have been uploaded to my Scribd account: https://www.scribd.com/user/489178812/File-411 and for now it appears John Eastman is “attempting” to follow the Court’s Order but only time will tell or at least we will know more details by January 28, 2022 via the joint status report. Which is due on Friday, January 28 at 2:00 pm PST, and the next Status Conference scheduled for Monday, January 31, 2022, at 2:00 pm PST.
And lastly if you made it this far in this article here’s your daily saltwater reward. I’m taking most of Friday off because the oral surgeon needs to check that the metal posts have properly fused to my jaw. And then I might finally be put back together again. Humpty Dumpty something-something. As odd as this sounds, I’m genuinely looking forward to eating an apple or a salad. I’ve been living on liquids for about 10 days and it’s getting old. Fingers crossed that my implants can be implanted (see what I did there —snort—) sooner rather than later.
Be Well. -Filey
January 28, 2022 5:05PM (DC local time) Update…
As noted in the original publication, I explained that you should be on the lookout for various court filings, specifically the JSR of Jan 28th.
APPLICATION for Leave to file Docket Entry Under Seal (ECF 27) filed by plaintiff John C. Eastman. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order. Or see Scribd
DECLARATION OF CHARLES BURNHAM -see CDCA-ECF which essentially regurgitates why Document # 27 should remain under seal (permanently) or via Scribd
To be clear the Court Ordered Joint Status Report (JSR) is due on Friday, January 28 at 2:00 pm PST -which means 8PM my time and once the JSR hits the docket I’ll update thus article accordingly… man I really planned on taking the day off but apparently my intention to go back to bed was thwarted by our plumber attempting to install four new shower heads and replacing the pipe that broke a few days ago. Damn adulting is hard but he successfully installed the replacement pipe and one of the four replacement shower heads.
Also it’s freaking snowing, again but oddly this Nor’Easter appears to be less of an impact on our DC area home but more of an impact on our beach house. The management company is kind of freaking out because the coastal flooding this Nor’Easter is bringing, welp it’s bad.
January 28, 2022 Joint Status Report…
Oh I see we’ve now entered the “your honor I’m not technically versed and I can’t seem to download any of the responsive documents” portion of this long running clown-car show. Let me tell you I do not believe the assertions made by Eastman or his counsel. As someone who literally has a weekly delivery from Iron Mountain and nearly every day reviews hundreds of pages of legal documents. There’s no logical argument that the download of “Chapman PST file contains 21,396 documents and a total of 94,153 pages” would take nearly FIVE hours to download. See CDCA-ECF for Jan28th JSR or you can access via Scribd
The only way I can see a tiny data file taking more than four hours to download is if said files are massive, like in the neighborhood of of “terabyte size” but less than 100K in pages of text? Nope. That’s not even in the neighborhood of realistic. For Example -early this week I had to review over 325K in pages and then match those files to answer various rogs. Again this is me speaking from actual and real time experience dealing with eDiscovery. What Eastman states in the JSR isn’t remotely believable.
Dr. Eastman received a link at 12:44 pm PST while he was at a lunch meeting, but immediately attempted to register with the platform provided by the link upon his return at 2:48 pm PST. Dr. Eastman tried several times to download the file using the Wi-Fi in his hotel room, but after a lengthy processing of the download, each time the download failed…
..Eastman’s local counsel, Anthony Caso, then contacted Chapman at 4:10 pm PST to request that he be sent a link that would work from his email. Mr. Caso was able to retrieve the file and transfer it to Dr. Eastman at 5:20 pm PST. Dr. Eastman immediately began downloading the file using Wi-Fi the at his hotel. The download was not completed until after 10:00 pm PST… Eastman thereafter began reviewing the documents contained in the file until after midnight that evening, and continued the next morning (January 26) until he departed for the airport, and then also from the plane while en route
And when Eastman attempted to access the Chapman University link apparent once again Eastman ran into technical difficulties and then unilaterally decided to “start a trial account” with Logikcull platform ←from personal experience this isn’t the best eDiscovery platform and it’s an odd choice by Eastman. But meh-whadda I know. Setting a side the fact that Eastman admits he used a hotel WiFi to access the Chapman University link. For arguments sake, let’s assume the Chapman University link was encrypted. (Which is pretty much SOP when eDiscovery is involved) the FBI has repeatedly sounded the alarm about Hotel WiFi it seems absolutely reckless that Eastman admits that’s how he connected to the internet. But was unable to download the files. Is anyone else slightly concerned that Eastman’s OpSec is sloppy AF?
Assuming arguendo - Eastman connected via a VPN — I still can’t wrap my head around using a Hotel WiFi. Without going into my employers cyber security policy & protocols —we are instructed to never and I mean never use a public WiFi access point. Instead I use a mash up of devices & software to connect to the internet when staying at a hotel. I’m not kidding my employer has fired employees for using a public WiFi. To say my employer takes cyber security super seriously, that might be an understatement. So for now I believe you are fully debrief and up to speed.
Also in case you were wondering the Court issued this Order concerning document No 27…
And for now this will be your last update. However I am researching in preparation of a follow up John Eastman article because man Meta Data & Advanced Meta data doesn’t lie and let me tell you I’m sitting on a ton of new files… ←see what I did there <snort>
See State Bar of California Rules of Professional Conduct - https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct.pdf -last accessed on January 25, 2022
Also see State Bar of California RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Chapter 3 - https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/New-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct-3.pdf -last accessed on January 25, 2022
M y
A ttorney
G ot
A n attorney
Thank you for this one. Chapman U is my neck of the woods and they have harbored some truly awful individuals, Eastman being one of the worst.