This article is a follow up to a prior post entitled “Trump Appointed Judge Demands That Lindsey Halligan Explain Her Lying To The Court.” As discussed in that article the judge ordered Halligan to explain why she was continuing to represent herself as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia even after a ruling that she was unlawfully appointed to that position and that the appoint was a legal nullity. The judge also directed that Halligan “explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement” and was not in violation attorney ethical rules that prohibit knowingly making “a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.”
Halligan responded with a highly insulting brief (signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi) directed at the Trump appointed judge. The shrillness of the response eclipsed any legal reasoning within it. In substance, Halligan argued that court decision finding her appointment illegal did not preclude her from continuing to sign as if legally appointed because that determination was simply the reasoning to grant motions to dismiss the cases against James Comey and Letitia James. Halligan’s brief argued the ruling was limited to those cases and not generally applicable to unrelated cases.
Today, the judge responded with an 18 page decision against Halligan. Judge Novak had his own pithy response to the insulting approach to Halligan’s brief.
“Ms. Halligan’s response, in which she was joined by both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show and falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice.”
Judge Novak found that Halligan’s argument ignored the context of the decision finding her appointment illegal. That context was an order from the 4th Circuit for the judge to determine the question for all the District Court judges in the District and all cases involving Halligan within the District.
“Judge Currie was appointed with the express mandate to speak for all judges in this District on the issue of Ms. Halligan’s appointment and her authority to act pursuant to that appointment.”
Finding that, “this charade of Ms. Halligan masquerading as the United States Attorney for this District in direct defiance of binding court orders must come to an end,” Judge Novak ordered the portions of the indictment describing Halligan as the United States Attorney for the District stricken from the record. The judge then turned to the question of whether Halligan should be referred to her state Bar for disciplinary action. The judge decided to show mercy on grounds that Halligan is incompetent and in over her head.
“The Court recognizes that Ms. Halligan lacks the prosecutorial experience that has long been the norm for those nominated to the position of United States Attorney in this District. Consequently, and in light of her inexperience, the Court grants Ms. Halligan the benefit of the doubt and refrains from referring her for further investigation and disciplinary action regarding her misrepresentations to this Court at this time.”
However, Judge Novak made clear that Halligan was now on notice and that for any future violations, “the Court will initiate disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Halligan.”
