"A Neutral Third Party"

Trump-appointed judge made an 'ironic' admission with demand for a special master: legal expert https://t.co/Nfyqhr1qlX

— Raw Story (@RawStory) September 17, 2022

I had to look this up to see if it was true.  It was:

In isolating the described documents from the larger set of seized materials, the Motion effectively asks the Court to accept the following compound premises, neither of which the Court is prepared to adopt hastily without further review by a Special Master. The first premise underlying the Motion is that all of the approximately 100 documents isolated by the Government (and “papers physically attached to them”) are classified government records, and that Plaintiff therefore could not possibly have a possessory interest in any of them. The second is that Plaintiff has no plausible claim of privilege as to any of these documents [ECF No. 69 p. 7 (categorically asserting that the “classified records at issue in this Motion . . . do not include personal records or potentially privileged communications”)]. The Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion.

Ignore the fact this order simply assumes Trump's assertions, with no evidence at all to support them, are valid and must be upheld; it's that last phrase that stands out.  "A neutral third party" is exactly what a judge is supposed to be.  That's practically the job description!  Is she acknowledging she's not neutral because she assumes the validity of Trump's bald assertions over the sworn affidavits of FBI agents?

I'm going to be very interested to see if Trump's lawyers can even get their filing in the 11th Circuit in order. Appellate courts are seldom as forgiving as trial judges, and this judge accepting a filing that should have been tossed out if it was filed pro se.  I know everyone's wondering if the appeals court will rule against DOJ.  I'm wondering if the appeal court will give Trump's side the time of day.  Which doesn't mean the eventual panel will default to Trump; it means they will default against Trump, since he can't make a counter-argument if he can't get his procedural ducks in a row.

As my procedure professor said on the first day of class:  you take the law and give me the rules, and I'll beat you every time.  We've all been so fixated on this judge's rulings we've forgotten how generous she's been to Trump, not just assuming evidence, but assuming he was actually presenting a cause of action.  If past is prologue, Trump's clown car won't even get in to the appellate courthouse.  And the appellate court will let that fall on him.

I know the Supremes will bounce you for using the wrong size typeface and the wrong format in your pleadings.  Believe me, appellate courts are no less unforgiving. They happily leave that kind of thing to the clerks, and the clerks don't give a wet snap who you are, or what you're last job was. (No, not the law clerks; the clerks who handle the paperwork.  They are the guardians of the court's docket, and you don't even get on there without their permission.)