Federal judge shoots down 'orchestrated campaign' to remove Trump-appointed judge in classified documents case

[onenote]

33. I wonder if anyone actually wants to read the judge's order before commenting.

https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/courtdocs/clk/GeneralOrder2024-J.pdf

As explained in the order, before May 16, the 11th circuit had received several misconduct complaints about Cannon. Apparently some had been disposed of, others are still pending. Starting on May 16, shortly after Kirschner posted his video urging people to file complaints and giving them specific instructions not only how to do so but what to say, the court was flooded with over 1000 substantially similar complaints in less than a week's time.

As I had pointed out in a post immediately after Kirschner circulated his video, those complaints were doomed because the were contrary to the express terms of the court's rules, both substantively and procedurally. Folks complaining about Pryor's ruling clearly are unaware of those rules -- although Kirschner has no excuse for not knowing the rules and, in my opinion, knew that what he was urging was going to fail but was looking for attention.

Here is the court's explanation of the decision.

Many of the complaints against Judge Cannon also question the correctness of her rulings or her delays in issuing rulings in the case. But judicial-Conduct Rule 4(b)(1) provides that "[cjognizable misconduct does not include an allegation that calls into question the correctness of a judge’sruling, including a failure to recuse.” And judicial Conduct Rule 4(b)(2) provides that cognizable misconduct does not include allegation about delay in rendering a decision or ruling, unless the allegation concerns an improper motive in delaying a particular decision or habitual delay in a significant number of unrelated cases.” The “Commentary on Rule 4” states that “a complaint of delay in a single case is excluded as merits-related.” Although many of the complaints allege an improper motive in delaying the case, the allegations are speculative and unsupported by any evidence. The Complaints also do not establish that Judge Cannon was required to recuse herself from the case because she was appointed by then- President Trump. See Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“There is no support whatsoever for the contention that a Judge can be disqualified based simply on the identity of the President who appointed him.”).

That decision, by the way, doesn't dispose of all complaints -- some are still pending. But it dismisses on substantive grounds, the virtually identical complaints spurred on by Kirschner. It also orders that future complaints that are substantially similar to those complaints not be accepted, citing an express rule against "Orchestrated" complaints.