Separation of Powers: The jurist who permitted the shocking abuses of “Arctic frost” is none other than anti-Trump Judge Boasberg, who now faces attempts at his impeachment

 

 

As you no doubt have heard, the Joe Biden / Kamala Harris administration, led by Attorney General Merrick Garland and special prosecutor Jack Smith, abused their power and ignored the separation of powers found in the United States Constitution by instituting the “Arctic frost“ probe.  The gist of this probe is that they posited a criminal, President Trump, and then decided to cast as wide a net as possible to find a crime to match their target.  Special prosecutor Smith’s apparent thinking was that there had to be a crime involved in claims of President Trump and other Republicans that there was fraud and other irregularities in the 2016 election (the only election ever conducted in a largely “remote” fashion), and he therefore issued subpoenas of truly shocking scope.

Included in these were subpoenas for records relating to Turning Point USA and other private organizations, and even worse, phone records of many Republican members of Congress including nine Senators, and, indeed, key senators such as Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.   Even worse, the subpoenas included an order that the subject not be told that the records were being sought, on the pretense that the targets of the subpoenas might destroy records.  Obviously, the Senators involved take great umbrage at the suggestion they should not be told about the subpoena because they would, as United States Senators, actively seek to destroy records.  This part of Judge Boasberg's order is seen below:

 

 

One might ask how any Jurist on the planet would approve such a subpoena

The answer, it turns out, is that the reason the subpoena was approved is that the jurist who did so is United States District Court Judge James Boasberg for the District of Columbia.  Recall that this jurist directed the location and route of United States government planes — as part of his supposed “equitable powers” which he believes extend to oversight as to how a co-equal branch of government operates. (See https://appellatespectator.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-judiciarys-takeover-of-executive.html.)  He also has been accused of making derogatory comments about President Trump at a judicial conference even though Mr. Trump is a litigant before his Court, making it apparent he cannot view any action involving this litigant in an objective fashion, but Judge Boasberg has not recused himself, something not permitted by the Rules of Ethics.  Indeed, historian Victor Davis Hanson has called Judge Boastberg “the most powerful man in America” even though he is a trial judge. (See https://www.foxnews.com/video/6370751312112 .)

And now we have these subpoenas intended as nothing short of a “take down” of persons with opposing political views by conducting a wide-ranging fishing expedition involving several entities and persons and seeking phone private phone records.  

And now we have these subpoenas intended as nothing short of a “take down” of persons with opposing political views by conducting a wide-ranging fishing expedition involving several entities and persons seeking iphone private phone records.  The offensive and extraordinarily broad attempt by the Executive Branch (prosecutor Smith) and the Judicial Branch (Judge Boasberg) to invade the privacy of both private citizens and the realm of the Legislative Branch is illustrated by the text of one such extra-Constitutional subpoena:  

 

 

 

Follow me on LinkedIn   

Case law Update -- Service of Statement of Damages Upon Pro Se Litigant Properly Made at PO Box Listed in Substitution of Attorney Form

 

 

In an opinion written by Justice Lui, the Court of Appeal of the Second District, Division Two, of California, has upheld a default judgment against a party in propria person. (Backlund v. Stone (October 27, 2025).) (https://courts.ca.gov/opinion/published/2025-10-27/b340369 .). The court summarized the extensive factual and procedural background  of the case very succinctly:

 

In 2010, Alyssa Backlund (Backlund) sued Christopher Stone (Stone) for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and related claims. Her complaint did not specify any amounts of damages. Stone hired counsel and defended the lawsuit for some time before his counsel filed a substitution of attorney form, showing that Stone was now self-represented, and listing a P.O. box as Stone’s address. Stone then failed to appear or to defend the action, leading to his answer being stricken. Backlund mailed a statement of damages to the address Stone provided on the substitution of attorney form and then got a default judgment against him for more than $1 million. Backlund renewed the judgment almost a decade later. Stone moved to vacate the renewal on the grounds that the default judgment was void for lack of due process, in that (1) Backlund’s action was not one for personal injury, and thus the damages had to be specified in the complaint; (2) even if a statement of damages was appropriate, Backlund did not use the form the Judicial Council adopted for that purpose; and (3) Backlund failed to properly serve Stone with the statement of damages. We reject Stone’s contentions and affirm. (Id., p. 2.)

 

The court thus expressly rejected the contention the judgment was invalid because the statement of damages was served by plaintiff upon the defendant at the PO Box given in the substitution of attorney form.  As the appellate opinion teaches, in filing this form the defendant "appeared" in the action (even assuming arguendo he had not appeared before this date).  It was therefore proper under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 to serve the statement of damages by mail at this address:

For both a statement of damages and a statement to preserve punitive damages: (1) “If a party has not appeared in the action, the statement shall be served in the same manner as a summons,” or, (2) “If the party has appeared in the action, the statement shall be served upon [their] attorney, or upon the party if [they have] appeared without an attorney, either in the same manner as a summons . . . or in the manner provided by Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14.” [Citation.]

 

In this case, Stone had appeared in the action, first represented by counsel, and then self-represented. He thereby triggered the second branch, under which service may be made “upon the party if [they] have appeared without an attorney”. . . .

 

Backlund properly served her statement of damages by mailing it to the P.O. box Stone listed on his substitution of attorney form, which was the only address for Stone on file when Backlund served the statement. Stone argues that his former counsel’s office was his “address of record” when Backlund mailed the statement of damages because no notice of change of address had been filed, “regardless of whatever was written on the Substitution of Attorney form.” He thus argues that, assuming service by mail was permissible, Backlund was required to serve the statement on his former counsel, despite the notice he gave that counsel no longer represented him. This argument defies common sense. Stone’s substitution of counsel form served as a notice of change of address in this case, because it notified the court and the parties that Stone was no longer represented by his former counsel and provided Stone’s current address.

(Id., pp. 11-12; emphasis added.) 

 

Lessons for Practitioners

 

Perhaps the most important part of the decision is the discussion that gives the Court's blessing to reliance by opposing counsel upon a "new" address given by a substitution of attorney form.  As happened here, it is common for attorneys to withdraw from representation and provide little information about the client''s whereabouts, often, as is the case here, only providing a PO Box.  In these situations opposing counsel really has no choice but to rely upon the new address given on this form.  This is especially true where the substitution is signed by the party which is now self-represented, but this self-represented party is otherwise out of communication with opposing counsel.

 

 

 

Follow me on LinkedIn   

 

 

 

Spotlight on Rhetoric - The comments of Secretary Bessent Begs the Question About how to Call Out an Out of Control Opponent

 

Query:  When, if ever, is it appropriate to call out the tactics of an opponent by naming the perpetrator?

 

To many the answer, at least while engaging in oral argument before a court is never.  But the recent rhetoric of perhaps our best-ever Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, raises the issue.

 

As summarized by Google, Secretary Bessent named a particular Chinese Communist Party official,  Li Chenggang, as the gentleman who had been attempting to derail a crucial trade deal with inflammatory language and displays of pure aggression:

 

As of October 2025, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has publicly called out Chinese official Li Chenggang by name

. Bessent's strong criticism of Li's behavior during a visit to Washington in August 2025 led to China dismissing Li from his position as a lead trade negotiator. 

Key details of the incident:

• The officials: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese trade negotiator Li Chenggang.
• The event: Bessent accused Li of arriving in Washington uninvited in August 2025 and acting in an "unhinged," "disrespectful," and "very incendiary" manner during trade discussions.
• The reason for the dispute: Bessent claimed Li threatened that "China will cause global chaos" if the U.S. proceeded with its plan to charge port fees on China-linked vessels.
• The outcome: In October 2025, China removed Li from his post shortly after Bessent's public comments. Li had also previously been serving as China's representative to the World Trade Organization.

 

Assuming Bessent is correct about what Mr. Li said, one many debate whether it was proper to call him out individually, and, assuming doing so was effective rhetoric (it was), what does this tell us about litigation strategy?  Most litigators have encountered opposing counsel who act unprofessionally and, even worse, may hide documents, intimidate third-party witnesses, or ignore court orders.  Though the temptation is to  mention the person by formal name in one's papers and oral argument, the generally-accepted practice is to refer to the conduct as being that of "plaintiff's counsel" or, if one can do this without a trace of irony, "my colleague on the other side."

 

This, of course, is designed to show the court the dispute is over the tactics of opposing counsel and not a personal dispute.  However, there are times it may be wise to let the court know, with grace and subtlety, that there is not a "war" between the firms or ever between the parties, though the latter certainly have issues to resolve.  Rather, the court may need to know that a particular counsel is the problem and that you would like to remain civil and have the behavior improve rather than responding in kind with a personal attack.

 

In this case, one somewhat subtle but still effective line of argument, to the effect the real issue is the conduct of a particular lawyer on that case, is the following:

 

Your honor, we are disappointed we have to bring to your attention our colleague's improper attempts to contact the witness [or whatever].  Our firm has worked well with opposing counsel's firm on prior issues, and we hope to do so in the future, but in this particular case things seem to be different and there seems to be an issue we need to have addressed.

 

Follow me on LinkedIn   

 

 

Today is the Two-Year Anniversary of the Genocidal Attack Against Israel

 

Today marks the two-year anniversary of the genocidal attack by Hamas against Israel and its people, as well as several Americans. 

 

We continue to pray for peace, the success of the new peace plan proposed by our President, and for the return of all hostages. 

Follow me on LinkedIn   

 

 

Spotlight on Excellence in Rhetoric: J.K. Rowling Explains Pointedly Why Emma Watson Is so Ignorant About Women's Rights

 J.K. Rowling:  "Adults can't expect to cosy up to an activist movement that regularly calls for a friend's assassination, then assert their right to the former friend's love, as though the friend was in fact their mother." 

 

As an appellate advocate, I like to highlight good rhetoric, whether in writing or spoken in public.  So today we highlight the recent comments from our hero and a true treasure in terms of Western Civilization, the brave and fearless J. K. Rowling.  She points out the silly and immature ignorance of those who criticize her for standing up for women's only spaces:

I'm seeing quite a bit of comment about this, so I want to make a couple of points. I'm not owed eternal agreement from any actor who once played a character I created. The idea is as ludicrous as me checking with the boss I had when I was twenty-one for what opinions I should hold these days.

 

Emma Watson and her co-stars have every right to embrace gender identity ideology. Such beliefs are legally protected, and I wouldn't want to see any of them threatened with loss of work, or violence, or death, because of them.

 

However, Emma and Dan in particular have both made it clear over the last few years that they think our former professional association gives them a particular right - nay, obligation - to critique me and my views in public. Years after they finished acting in Potter, they continue to assume the role of de facto spokespeople for the world I created. When you've known people since they were ten years old it's hard to shake a certain protectiveness. Until quite recently, I hadn't managed to throw off the memory of children who needed to be gently coaxed through their dialogue in a big scary film studio. For the past few years, I've repeatedly declined invitations from journalists to comment on Emma specifically, most notably on the Witch Trials of JK Rowling. Ironically, I told the producers that I didn't want her to be hounded as the result of anything I said.

 

The television presenter in the attached clip highlights Emma's 'all witches' speech, and in truth, that was a turning point for me, but it had a postscript that hurt far more than the speech itself. Emma asked someone to pass on a handwritten note from her to me, which contained the single sentence 'I'm so sorry for what you're going through' (she has my phone number). This was back when the death, rape and torture threats against me were at their peak, at a time when my personal security measures had had to be tightened considerably and I was constantly worried for my family's safety. Emma had just publicly poured more petrol on the flames, yet thought a one line expression of concern from her would reassure me of her fundamental sympathy and kindness.

 

Like other people who've never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she's ignorant of how ignorant she is. She'll never need a homeless shelter. She's never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward. I'd be astounded if she's been in a high street changing room since childhood. Her 'public bathroom' is single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard outside the door. Has she had to strip off in a newly mixed-sex changing room at a council-run swimming pool? Is she ever likely to need a state-run rape crisis centre that refuses to guarantee an all-female service? To find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who's identified into the women's prison?

 

I wasn't a multimillionaire at fourteen. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made Emma famous. I therefore understand from my own life experience what the trashing of women's rights in which Emma has so enthusiastically participated means to women and girls without her privileges. The greatest irony here is that, had Emma not decided in her most recent interview to declare that she loves and treasures me - a change of tack I suspect she's adopted because she's noticed full-throated condemnation of me is no longer quite as fashionable as it was - I might never have been this honest.

 

Adults can't expect to cosy up to an activist movement that regularly calls for a friend's assassination, then assert their right to the former friend's love, as though the friend was in fact their mother. Emma is rightly free to disagree with me and indeed to discuss her feelings about me in public - but I have the same right, and I've finally decided to exercise it.

 

Brilliant words which you may find at:

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1972600904185483427  

Follow me on LinkedIn   

 

Happy Rosh Hashanah - the Jewish New Year and commentary on its roots and meaning

 

Today is the second full day of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, or as the Bible says, the "Festival of the Trumphets." This Holy Day is denoted twice in the Torah:

Numbers 29:1-6

On the first day of the seventh month hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. It is a day for you to sound the trumpets. As an aroma pleasing to the Lord, offer a burnt offering of one young bull, one ram and seven male lambs a year old, all without defect.  With the bull offer a grain offering of three-tenths of an ephah of the finest flour mixed with olive oil; with the ram, two-tenths; and with each of the seven lambs, one-tenth. Include one male goat as a sin offering to make atonement for you. These are in addition to the monthly and daily burnt offerings with their grain offerings and drink offerings as specified. They are food offerings presented to the Lord, a pleasing aroma.

 

Leviticus 23:24-25

Say to the Israelites: ‘On the first day of the seventh month you are to have a day of sabbath rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts.  Do no regular work, but present a food offering to the Lord.

 

The Jewish New Year and the Day of Atonement involve the crucial aspect of forgiveness

 

The Jewish New Year, based on the Lunar calendar, is of course a run-up to the Day of Atonement, or Yom Kippur, 10 days later.  The latter is these days is where where a Priest would assist in atonement for our collective sin.  Just as importantly, this forgiveness for us was coupled with forgiveness by us, in that all debts were to be forgiven every seventh year.

Something to think about considering (and I say so as a Christian) that modern Christianity seems to completely gloss over the financial aspect of "forgiveness"  and many "Christians" work for financial institutions that are loathe to forgive debt even when it is the right thing to do.

  

Follow me on LinkedIn