U.S. Eleventh Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat gets away with protecting his financial interests, in part, because laws on financial conflicts are a jumbled mess

Gerald Bard Tjoflat

One of the fundamentals of American law is this: A federal judge automatically is disqualified from hearing a case in which he or an immediate family member has a financial interest. So, how does Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) get away with routinely hearing cases that involve JPMorgan Chase (JPMC) and Bank of America (BOA), two financial monoliths in which he has a financial stake, according to public records? One answer might be that Tjoflat, an 89-year-old GOP appointee from the Richard Nixon era, is a poorly policed crook, who just happens to have a robe. Another answer might be that U.S. law on this subject is not nearly as concise and straightforward as it should be -- opening cracks for snakes like Tjoflat to crawl through.

Perhaps most alarming is, according to our research, Tjoflat has a perfect record of favoring his financial interests in court proceedings -- 15-0 in favor of JPMC and 24-0 in favor of BOA. How did this happen? Americans would not tolerate such blatant cheating by sports officials. Well, the relationship between federal judges and their investments, and how that might affect the judges' role as "impartial arbiters," is governed by a jumbled (even contradictory) mish mash of law -- statutory law, case law, U.S. Supreme Court opinions, ethics advisories, and so on.

This should matter to all Americans, and it certainly matters to my wife, Carol, and me. Tjoflat was on a three-judge panel that violated all kinds of precedent to rule against us in an appeal of "The House Case," a lawsuit over the theft of our Birmingham home of almost 25 years via a wrongful foreclosure. Who initiated the foreclosure on our home? Why, that would be Chase Mortgage, a subsidiary of JPMC and part of Tjoflat's financial portfolio. In other words, Tjoflat cheated us by protecting his own pocketbook.

If Tjoflat was disqualified from hearing our appeal -- and there is little doubt he was -- that means the panel's ruling is void and can be attacked as such at any time. It also means we might have a path for getting our house back, and we intend to pursue that with all the gusto we can muster.

That will mean traversing a jumble of laws that should be simple, but is unnecessarily complex. Let's take a brief tour of the relevant law:

I. 28 U.S. Code 455(a)(b)(4)

(A) What it says: "(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) "He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(4) "He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

(B) Is this the last word? It should be, but it isn't.

II. 28 U.S. Code 455(d)(4)(i)

(A) What it says: "(4) 'financial interest' means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i) "Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a 'financial interest' in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund."

(B) What the hell? Doesn't this contradict everything stated in section I. above? Heck, doesn't (i) contradict (4)?

(C) Answer: Yes, it sure does. It also does not square with case law, U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and ethics opinions. I told you this was jumbled.

III. Tatham v. Rogers, 283 P. 3d 583 (Wash: Court of Appeals, 3rd Div., 2012)

(A) What it says: "The due process clause incorporated the common law rule that judges must recuse themselves when they have "a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest" in a case. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927)."

(B) What does this say about Tjoflat's actions? That's not fully clear, but he clearly has a pecuniary interest in JPMC and BOA, and the record shows that he rules in their favor every chance he gets. Are his interests "direct, personal, and substantial." We don't know from the public record, but that is an area for further inquiry.

IV. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 US 813 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986)

(A) What it says: This case originated in Alabama, and SCOTUS found: "The record in this case presents more than mere allegations of bias and prejudice, however. Appellant also presses a claim that Justice Embry had a more direct stake in the outcome of this case. In Tumey, while recognizing that the Constitution does not reach every issue of judicial qualification, the Court concluded that "it certainly violates the Fourteenth Amendment . . . to subject [a person's] liberty or property to the judgment of a court the judge of which has a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case." More than 30 years ago Justice Black, speaking for the Court, reached a similar conclusion and recognized that under the Due Process Clause no judge "can be a judge in his own case [or be] permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome." In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955). He went on to acknowledge that what degree or kind of interest is sufficient to disqualify a judge from sitting "cannot be defined with precision." Ibid. Nonetheless, a reasonable formulation of the issue is whether the "situation is one `which would offer a possible temptation to the average . . . judge to . . . lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.' " Ward v. Village of Monroeville . . . .

We conclude that Justice Embry's participation in this case violated appellant's due process rights as explicated in Tumey, Murchison, and Ward. We make clear that we are not required to decide whether in fact Justice Embry was influenced, but only whether sitting on the case then before the Supreme Court of Alabama " `would offer a possible temptation to the average . . . judge to . . . lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.' " Ward, 409 U. S., at 60 (quoting Tumey v. Ohio, supra, at 532). The Due Process Clause "may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way, `justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.' " Murchison, 349 U. S., at 136

(B) What does this say about Tjoflat's actions? As noted above, Tjoflat has favored JPMC and BOA, combined, in 39 of 39 cases. Can anyone seriously argue that satisfies "the appearance of justice."

V. Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinion: No. 106: Mutual or Common Investment Funds

(A) What it says: "Although the Code does not define “mutual or common investment fund,” determining whether a fund qualifies for the safe harbor contemplated under Canon 3C(3)(c)(i) involves several related considerations, including: (1) the number of participants in the fund; (2) the size and diversity of fund investments; (3) the ability of participants to direct their investments; (4) the ease of access to and frequency of information provided about the fund portfolio; (5) the pace of turnover in fund investments; and (6) any ownership interest investors have in the individual assets of the fund. . . .

Recusal considerations related to mutual or common investment funds

"As discussed above, investment in a mutual fund normally will avoid recusal concerns because the judge is not considered to have a direct financial interest in the securities that the fund holds. However, there is an additional factor for a judge to consider in determining whether owning a particular mutual fund will effectively avoid recusal considerations related to that fund. In unusual circumstances, recusal may be required under Canon 3C(1)(c) because the judge has an “interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.”

(B) What does this tell us? I have three takeaways: (1) The committee cannot define a "mutual or common investment fund," so litigants, such as Carol and me, have little way of knowing the nature of Tjoflat's investments in JPMorgan Chase, whose subsidiary held the mortgage on our home; (2) Even if all of Tjoflat's investments are in mutual funds -- and we don't know that they are -- he should recuse if his interest "could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;" (3) Can Tjoflat direct his investments in any fund that includes Chase? How frequently does Tjoflat receive information about the fund portfolio? What ownership interest does Tjoflat have in individual assets of the fund -- such as those involving Chase? Those three questions should be central to any inquiry about whether Tjoflat was disqualified from hearing our case.


Could our alleged wrongful foreclosure hit Tjoflat in the pocketbook? To the extent that I was wrongfully arrested and jailed for five months, blocking us from correcting issues with our mortgage --  and that would point to Chase being involved in a criminal conspiracy to deprive Carol and me of our civil rights -- that seems to be the kind of grotesque misconduct that could indeed cause the value of Chase stock to take a hit.

Of more importance, in my mind, is Tjoflat's 39-0 record of protecting his big-bank investments. Also key in our case is that the Tjoflat panel blatantly butchered circuit precedent, so as to not even address substantive issues in our appeal. A Tjoflat panel took a similar approach in another Alabama case, Jackson v. Bank of America.

The Committee on Judicial Conduct essentially leaves it to judges to make disqualification decisions. But we believe it's past time to pull back the curtain and inform the public of evidence that Gerald Bard Tjoflat, the nation's longest serving federal judge, has made it a habit to cheat everyday Americans by providing cover for banking behemoths -- violating Due Process rights at every turn. 

Would Joe Biden consider Jamie Dimon, of JPMorgan Chase, for his administration? If so, it might energize progressives and resuscitate Sanders campaign

Joe Biden

Today is Super Tuesday II, and according to a report at Axios, the Joe Biden campaign has a big enough lead over Bernie Sanders that insiders have begun considering possible appointees to high-level positions. One of those rumored appointees is a jaw-dropper, who might turn off progressives and help resuscitate the Sanders campaign.

Jamie Dimon

Six states -- Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, and Washington -- will be casting ballots today, just one week after Biden captured 10 of 14 states in the Democratic presidential primary and took a delegate lead over Sanders. Can Biden continue to ride that mometum? Those connected to his campaign apparently think he can. From an Axios report titled "Joe Biden's secret governing plan":

Joe Biden confidants are privately discussing potential leaders and Cabinet members for his White House, including the need to name a woman or African American — perhaps both — as vice president, top sources tell "Axios on HBO."

Why it matters: Biden advisers describe a Return to Normal plan — a reversal of President Trump's unorthodox, improvisational style. Biden wants known, trusted people around him — many from the Obama years.

Several high-profile possibilities:

John Kerry would love to take a new Cabinet position devoted to climate change, or might even accept a curtain call to return as secretary of state.

Susan Rice, formerly President Obama's national security adviser, is another option for State.

Mike Bloomberg, who swiftly endorsed Biden after the former mayor's campaign collapsed, would be a top possibility to head the World Bank.

Sally Yates, the deputy attorney general under Obama who stood up to Trump and was fired, would be a leading contender for attorney general.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren as Treasury secretary could help unite the party.

Anne Finucane, vice chairman of Bank of America, is another possibility for Treasury.

Biden advisers expect Pete Buttigieg to get a prominent slot after his swift endorsement of Biden — perhaps as ambassador to the UN, or as U.S. trade representative.

Both would help credential Buttigieg for a future national campaign.

Biden's associates might be thinking ahead, but they say the candidate remains grounded:

Campaign officials say the name game isn't where Biden's head is — he knows he has major primary and general-election fights ahead.

Officials point out they don't yet have a transition — and haven't run a process that would surface new talent, like Dr. Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize physicist who was Obama's first secretary of energy.

But it's a sign of the sudden optimism around his candidacy that some in his circle of trust are starting to think down the road, starting with the V.P. pick:

Some Biden advisers hope he could overcome hard feelings from the Obama years and pick Warren for V.P. to excite party progressives.

Also high on the list of potential Biden picks for #2 are several African Americans: Sen. Kamala Harris (first on many lists) and Sen. Cory Booker, both of whom ended their nomination fights before the voting began ... former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who ended his presidential campaign after New Hampshire ... and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who electrifies crowds.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar is in the mix, too.

Others who could bring diversity and relative youth to the ticket include Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Rep. Val Demings of Florida, who got high marks as a House impeachment manager.

One adviser told us when we asked who the V.P. pick would be: "Whoever Jim Clyburn wants it to be."

Indeed, Biden feels Clyburn — the South Carolinian who is the highest ranking African American in Congress — helped raise him from the dead with his endorsement. Black voters on Super Tuesday sealed Biden's political salvation.

What about that jaw-dropper of a possible appointee? Here it is, from Axios:

Jamie Dimon — chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, and mentioned over the years as a potential presidential candidate — would also be considered for Treasury.

That's the same Jamie Dimon who is credited with helping set off the Great Recession of 2008. From a 2017 report at Vanity Fair:

Four years ago, JPMorgan Chase reached a then-record settlement with the Department of Justice after, among other things, the bank received a copy of a U.S. attorney’s draft complaint documenting its alleged role in underwriting fraudulent securities in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. Following the bank’s $13 billion financial agreement, the draft complaint was never filed. Then the bank paid another settlement to prevent a separate legal case from potentially unearthing it.

If Biden aligns himself with Jamie Dimon, will that go over well with liberals? Probably not. Will it indicate Biden is not serious about moving forward with at least a slightly progressive agenda? Yes. With that kind of tin-eared thinking, the Bernie Sanders campaign might still have a chance.

U.S. Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, from his base in Jacksonville, FL, appears to be in the pocket of Deutsche Bank, which is awash in probes of money laundering and other possible financial crimes

Deutsche Bank in Jacksonville, FL

A federal judge, who has a financial stake in JPMorgan Chase (JPMC) and Bank of America (BOA) and a perfect record of ruling in their favor in court matters (see here and here), also has a .1000 batting average in favoring Deutsche Bank, the shady German-based outfit that is under investigation for reported money laundering involving Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Russia and the late accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

We have found no public record that indicates U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat holds stock or other financial interests in Deutsche Bank. But he is based in Jacksonville, FL, where the bank has a major operations center. Our research indicates Tjoflat is five-for-five in favoring Deutsche Bank when sitting on a three-judge panel in cases involving the bank.

If the bank is found to have been involved in international money laundering -- and Tjoflat serves as its protector on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) -- could that mean Tjoflat is involved in a criminal conspiracy, with ties to the Trump-Russia scandal and Epstein's grotesque crimes? Our answer is yes.

Gerald Bard Tjoflat

How ugly could the Deutsche Bank-money laundering story get? Consider this from a June 2019 report by Lisette Voytko at Forbes:

Jeffrey Epstein used Deutsche Bank since 2013 to move millions of dollars through dozens of accounts, according to the Wall Street Journal, and while the embattled German bank is cooperating with federal investigators, it took months for the bank to close Epstein’s accounts and flag suspicious activity. . . .

The Epstein fallout is the latest gut punch for Deutsche Bank. In addition to laying off 18,000 employees by 2022, the bank is cooperating with two federal investigations: one on Trump’s financial ties to Russia and the other for money laundering.

Deutsche Banks headquarters were raided last November as part of a wide-ranging money laundering investigation. From a report at Wall Street Journal:

Around 170 police officers and other officials seized documents during searches through six different properties Thursday, including one employee’s home, according to authorities.

The raid was a visible sign of mounting legal problems for the German lender, which has faced a string of allegations and costly legal settlements tied to failures to prevent money laundering and other banking violations.

Thursday morning, police vehicles lined up outside Deutsche Bank’s central Frankfurt headquarters, and German federal police and other officers crowded into the lobby of the high-rise towers. Officers soon filtered upstairs onto other floors of the bank to search records, a person inside the bank said. . . .

The probe includes two unidentified Deutsche Bank employees aged 50 and 46 and other unidentified employees suspected of helping clients create offshore entities in tax havens, the prosecutor’s office said in a statement. The person who works in the financial crime-fighting division remained an employee Thursday, the people familiar with the matter said.

Deutsche Bank confirmed the investigation. Both the bank and prosecutors said it is related to the Panama Papers, a trove of records revealed by a consortium of journalists in 2016 tied to a Panamanian law firm that specialized in offshore holding companies.

Since early this year, Deutsche Bank has been in the cross hairs of Congressional investigators. From a report at CNN:

House Democrats gearing up for fresh investigations into President Donald Trump's businesses and money laundering involving Russia are setting their sights on the German lender Deutsche Bank.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said his committee would be working alongside House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters to probe the bank, a major lender to the Trump Organization. Both chairs had previously signaled interest in Deutsche Bank while they were still in the House minority. . . .

Deutsche Bank has been of interest to lawmakers because it is one of the few big banks that has been willing to lend to the Trump Organization. Trump businesses have borrowed over $300 million for a Florida golf course and hotels in Chicago and Washington, according to financial disclosures and public filings from 2012 to 2015.

Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner has also disclosed an unsecured line of credit from the bank ranging between $5 million to $25 million that he's shared with his mother since 2015.

As for federal judge Tjoflat, he seems to think Deutsche Bank can do no wrong -- much as he appears to view JPMC and BOA. Here are five cases, all in the past six years, in which Tjoflat has been part of three-judge panels that ruled in favor of Deutsche Bank. We can find no cases where he ruled against the bank:

(1) Zelaya/Capital v. John Zelaya, 769 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir., 2014) Court approves award of $70,644.56 in costs and attorney fees to Deutsche Bank;

(2) Avenue CLO Fund v. Bank of America, 709 F. 3d 1072 (11th Cir., 2013) Court sides with Deutsche and other "revoling lenders in a complex dispute involving the ambitious Fontainebleau development in Las Vegas;

(3) Westley v. Albert (11th Cir., 2017). Court sided with Deutsche and other entities in a case of alleged fraudulent eviction;

(4) Quinn v. Ocwen Loan Serviging (11th Cir., 2017) Court sided with Deutsche in case alleging improper loan servicing and initiation of foreclosure;

(5) Smedley v. Deutsche Bank (11th Cir., 2017). Court sided with Deutsche in a case alleging improper loan servicing and default.

11th Circuit Court of Appeals panels, led by 89-year-old Nixon-era geezer Gerald Bard Tjoflat, favor Bank of America in 24 of 24 cases involving money matters

A Deep South federal judge, who has a perfect batting average of favoring JPMorganChase (JPMC), has an even more astonishing record on cases involving another financial monolith, Bank of America (BOA).

Is that because Gerald Bard Tjoflat, an 89-tear-old geezer from the Richard Nixon era -- holds a  perch on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) -- and has a financial stake in both JPMC and BOA? Does that mean Tjoflat tends to cheat everyday Americans in order to pad his own financial bottom line? Does that mean Tjoflat routinely violates federal law that, in general, prohibits a federal judge from hearing any case in which he or a member of his immediate family has a financial interest?

Public documents indicate the answer to all three questions is yes.The issue hits particularly close to home here at Legal Schnauzer because Tjoflat led a three-judge panel that cheated us in "The House Case," which involved theft of our home of almost 25 years in Birmingham via a wrongful foreclosure.  That ruling came down in December 2017, but we only became aware in recent months of the likely reason the Tjoflat panel screwed us -- and did it in a way, clearly contrary to law, that did not even consider the myriad faulty rulings by trial-court judges R. David Proctor and Virginia Emerson Hopkins in the Northern District of Alabama. (See here and here.) The reason? Chase Mortgage held our mortgage and led the effort to cheat us out of our home, and Tjoflat has a longstanding financial stake in its parent company, JPMC.

Gerald Bard Tjoflat

My wife, Carol, and I are not the only Alabama couple to get the short end of the stick when going before a Tjoflat panel, against one of his banking favorites. Karun and Ursula Jackson, of Daphne, went up against Bank of America in a wrongful-foreclosure case, and like us, they lost, with the pertinent rulings from the trial court barely being considered. Tjoflast has -- surprise, surprise -- financial holdings in BOA. And his record of favoring BOA is even more off the charts than his record on JPMC.

Between 2003 and 2017, Tjoflat sat on three-judge panels 15 times to hear cases involving banking giant (JPMC). Each time, the panel ruled in favor of the banking giant -- and, in most cases, against everyday Americans. If that makes you want to throw up just a little bit in your mouth, you might want to really spew when you see his record of favoring BOA. From 2009 to 2018, Tjoflat panels favored BOA in 24 of 24 cases.

BOA, like JPMC, has a perfect record when coming before panels led by one of its shareholders (Tjoflat). Let's check out the details:


(1) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Jackson v. BOA (2018);

(2) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Thomas v. BOA (2009);

(3) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Avenue CLO Fund v. BOA, (2013;

(4) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Merisier v. BOA (2012);

(5) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Fenello v. BOA ((2014);

(6) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Shine v. BOA (2015);

(7) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Lawrence v. BOA (2012);

(8) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Fabre v. BOA (2013);

(9) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in D. Jones v. BOA (2014);

(10) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Lawrence v. BOA (2017);

(11) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in White v. BOA (2015);

(12) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Sheppard v. BOA (2013);

(13) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Cheshire v. BOA (2009);

(14) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Chipka v. BOA (2009);

(15) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Carroll v. BOA (2013);

(16) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in McCulley v. BOA (2015);

(17) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Hill v. BOA (2013);

(18) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Ambarus v. BOA (2014):

(19) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Coniglio v. BOA (2016);

(20) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Infante v. BOA (2012);

(21) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in K. Jones v. BOA (2014):

(22) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Elliott v. Wells Fargo-BOA (2015);

(23) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Re: Diamond v. BOA (2017);

(24) Tjoflat panel favors BOA in Cooley v. Ocwen Servicing-BOA (2018).


Is it possible some of the above cases were correctly decided in favor of BOA? Of course. Is it possible some of them unlawfully were decided in favor of BOA? Given our experience with a Tjoflat panel in a case involving JPMorgan Chase, there is no doubt in my mind? Does that mean Tjoflat has violated federal law multiple times by hearing cases where he was disqualified because of his financial stake in big banks? The law on this subject is circuitous, but when taken as a whole, the public record suggests the answer is yes.


(To be continued)

Banking behemoth JPMorgan Chase has a perfect batting average when it goes before appellate panels headed by one of its shareholders, Gerald Bard Tjoflat

Between 2003 and 2017, a judge on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sat on three-judge panels 15 times to hear cases involving banking giant JPMorgan Chase (JPMC). Each time, the panel ruled in favor of Chase -- and, in most cases, against everyday Americans.

Does that sound fishy to you? It should, when you consider that the judge in question, Gerald Bard Tjoflat has a financial stake in JPMC. It is particularly smelly to my wife, Carol, and me, given that we lost our home of almost 25 years in Birmingham to a wrongful foreclosure and got cheated at the trial level by judges R. David Proctor and Virginia Emerson Hopkins in the Northern District of Alabama (see here, here, and here), only to see Tjoflat screw us in an even more blatant fashion at the appellate level.

A basic of American law is that no federal judge can hear a case in which he, or a member of his immediate family, has a financial interest in one of the parties. Public records make Tjoflat's financial stake in JPMC abundantly clear -- and by law, he is disqualified from sitting on any panel considering a case where JPMC is involved. But that has not stopped him from hearing appeals involving the bank at least 15 times over a 14-year period. And get this: The bank has prevailed 15 times in 15 cases where one of its shareholders (Tjoflat) serves as a judge. How's that for making American "justice" great again?

Gerald Bard Tjoflat

That's a .1000 batting average for JPMC, and a .000 batting average for its customers who had the temerity to try holding the gigantic bank accountable before a court of law -- one that turned out to be demonstrably crooked, and yes, we are talking about you, Mr. Tjoflat.

Does that stink to our readers? It sure does to us, given that we have been one of Tjoflat's victims. Let's look at the scorecard of cases where Tjoflat-led panels have consistently favored the 89-year-old judge's pocketbook by siding with his financial stake in JPMC. We conducted our research on Google Scholar, and this might not be an exhaustive list of cases involving Tjoflat and JPMC. For one, Tjoflat has been on the appellate bench since 1975, and it's possible some cases have slipped through the cracks over a 44-year period. Also, there might have been cases where JPMC was a secondary or tertiary defendant and did not appear in our search.

But we found enough cases to form a distinct pattern: When JPMC goes before a Tjoflat panel, the big bank pretty much always wins. Here is a list of specific cases:

(1) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC and other defendants in Shuler v. Jessica Garrison (2017)

(2) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Jacqueline Sosa, et al v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage (2003)

(3) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Russell Dusek v. JPMC Bank (2016)

(4) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Chau Kieu Nguyen v. JPMC Bank (2013)

(5) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Angela Sims v. Chase Home Finance (2012)

(6) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Alexander Harvin v. JPMC Bank (2017)

(7) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Michelle Hopkins v. JPMC Bank (2015)

(8) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Sherrance Henderson v. JPMC Bank (2011)

(9) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in John Pinson v. JPMC Bank (2016)

(10) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Jason C. Harris v. Chase Home Finance (2013)

(11) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Steve Muhammad v. JPMC Bank (2014)

(12) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Carolyn Boone v. JPMC Bank (2011)

(13) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Vadis Frone v. JPMC Bank (2017)

(14) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in Anne Marie De Souza v. JPMC Home Lending (2015)

(15) Tjoflat panel favors JPMC in JPMC Bank v. Thomas G. Dean (2010)


Is JPMC the only large financial institution to benefit in the Deep South because Gerald Bard Tjoflat is a shareholder? Nope, another banking behemoth has enjoyed similar benefits for years.


(To be continued)

The finances of federal judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat are all tied up with JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, but that does not keep him from hearing cases involving those parties -- and ruling in their favor

Gerald Bard Tjoflat

How does a federal judge get away with unlawfully ruling on cases where he has a financial stake in one of the parties? Gerald Bard Tjoflat, an 89-year-old geezer from the Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford era, still serves on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta (covering Alabama, Georgia, and Florida), and his hatchet job on "The House Case" -- where we lost of our home of almost 25 years in Birmingham via a wrongful foreclosure -- provides a classic example of how ethically bankrupt our federal courts have become.

One of the basics of American law is this: A federal judge automatically is disqualified from hearing a case in which he or an immediate family member has a financial interest. But our research shows Tjoflat has been hearing such cases for decades -- almost always ruling in favor of his own pocket book.

That was the situation in "The House Case," where one of the defendants was Chase Mortgage, which held the mortgage on our home. We are aware of at least one other such case, involving an alleged wrongful foreclosure, where a three-judge panel led by Tjoflat ruled against a Daphne,, AL couple named Karun and Ursula Jackson -- while ruling in favor of the Jacksons' mortgage company, Bank of America (BOA).

How does this happen? The decision on whether to hear a case often is left to the crooked judge himself -- with little or no oversight waiting in the wings. We invite you to follow us on the money trail for details about how Gerald Bard Tjoflat has made a habit of scamming the American people, especially those who live in the Deep South.

The money trail begins with Tjoflat's financial disclosure forms, One of the most recent disclosure forms we can find on the Web for Tjoflat is from 2012. It shows he has investments in the following entities:

(1) Alliance Bernstein Global Techology (Mutual Fund)

(2) Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund (Mutual Fund)

(3) Manulife Financial (401K)

(4) Quaker Strategic Growth Fund (Mutual Fund)

(5) Merrill Lynch Wealth Management (401K)

(6) Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones and Gay P.A.(401K)

What holdings are included in these financial instruments? Let's take a look:


(1) AllianceBernstein (AB) Global Technology -- This instrument now is called the AB Global Thematic Growth Fund, and a 2014 document from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shows it has a forward currency exchange contract with JPMorgan Chase Bank. In 2017, AB picked long-time JPM Chase executive Seth Bernstein as its CEO

(2) Columbia Marsico Focused Equities Fund -- A report from Kiplinger's says two of this fund's largest positions are in JPMorgan Chase and Vestas Wind Systems of Denmark. This fund also is intimately connected to Bank of America, with founder Thomas Marsico buying the firm back from BOA in 2007, seven years after selling it to the No. 2 U.S. bank.

(3) Manulife Financial (401K) -- Manulife, based in Toronto and operating as John Hancock in the United States, issued a $750-million U.S. public offering in 2017. JPMorgan Securities LLC acted as one of the joint book-running managers for the offering.

(4) Quaker Strategic Growth Fund -- According to MarketWatch, JPMorgan Chase is among this fund's top 10 holdings. According to mutualfunds.com, Bank of America also is among the fund's top holdings.

(5) Merrill Lynch Wealth Management -- According to brightscope.com, Bank of America is the largest fund in this plan.

(6)  Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones and Gay P.A. -- This appears to be a retirement fund for a Florida-based law fim, and information about the fund does not appear to be publicly available.


The public record is clear: Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat's finances are tied up with JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America -- and it's hard to imagine he does not know it. Does that keep him from hearing cases involving those two parties? Nope. Does it keep him from ruling in favor of those two parties? Definitely not -- and we have the evidence to prove it.


(To be continued)

Federal judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat has a financial stake in JPMorgan Chase, whose subsidiary launched the wrongful foreclosure on our house in Birmingham, meaning he was disqualified from hearing our appeal

Gerald Bard Tjoflat

By the time a three-judge panel of the U.S. Eleventh Circuit -- led by 89-year-old Gerald Bard Tjoflat -- denied our appeal in "The House Case," my wife Carol and I had been cheated enough in court to be highly jaded about the whole process. The ruling came in December 2017, and we would have been shocked if any court ruled correctly, according to facts and law, in one of our cases. But the finding in Shuler, et al v. Garrison, et al was so off-the-charts crooked that even we were taken aback.

"How could federal judges -- three of them -- be so brazen about ruling contrary to black-letter law?" we said to ourselves. The answer to that question now is apparent. Tjoflat had a financial stake in the case, and he ruled in favor of his own pocketbook. That, of course, is wildly unlawful; a cornucopia of law holds that a federal judge is not to hear a case in which he or an immediate family member has a financial interest. Tjoflat, however, ignored that rule in "The House Case," and our research indicates he's been ignoring it for years, maybe decades. We are aware of at least one Alabama case from last year -- and it, like "The House Case," involved an alleged wrongful foreclosure -- where Tjoflat heard a case in which he had a financial stake. That case is styled Jackson v. Bank of America, NA, 898 F. 3d 1348 (11th Cir., 2018), which we wrote about back in May.

This is not a "no harm, no foul" situation, where Tjoflat (in at least a few cases) rules against the party where his financial interests lie. Rather, Tjoflat has an astonishing record of ruling in favor of the large financial institutions in which he has invested -- as we will spell out in upcoming posts.

How did "The House Case" intertwine with Tjoflat's financial incentives? Chase Mortgage, a division of JPMorgan Chase, held the mortgage on our home of almost 25 years in Birmingham and launched the wrongful foreclosure -- with assistance from a number of legal/political entities and individuals in Alabama. According to his financial disclosures, which are available online, Tjoflat holds stock (and perhaps other forms of securities) in JPMorgan Chase.

That casts considerable illumination on the Eleventh Circuit's bogus dismissal of our appeal. Tjoflat ruled in a way that would protect his own financial bottom line. Court corruption does not get much uglier than that.

It's not like the governing law on "The House Case" appeal was complicated. I did not help matters by mistakenly indicating on our Notice of Appeal that we intended to appeal only a portion of the district court's ruling. But current statutory and case law is clear that such a mistake is not grounds for dismissing an appeal -- especially if the appellate brief makes clear, as ours did, the intent is to appeal the entire case. Here is how we described it in a previous post:

The Tjoflat panel based its denial of our appeal on a 1980s version of FRAP 3, holding in its 2017 ruling that a mistake in the declared scope of our Notice of Appeal meant the court had no jurisdiction to hear our full appeal:

“The notice of appeal must . . . designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” F. R. App. P. 3(c); Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521, 1528 (11th Cir. 1987). “Where the appellant notices the appeal of a specified judgment only or a part thereof,” moreover, “this court has no jurisdiction to review other judgments or issues which are not expressly referred to and which are not impliedly intended for appeal.” C. A. May Marine Supply Co. v. Brunswick Corp., 649 F.2d 1049, 1056 (5th Cir. 1981). Otherwise, because the intent to appeal is not clear, prejudice would likely fall upon the adverse party. Id.

As shown in the green highlighted areas above, the panel relied on case law from 1987 and 1981, respectively, ignoring important changes made to FRAP 3 in 1993. We described those changes in our Motion for Panel Rehearing: (See here and here.)

A 1993 advisory committee amendment to FRAP 3, plus a string of case law, has changed the landscape for notice of appeal requirements and made the panel’s cited law obsolete.

A case styled Bogle v. Orange County, 162 F.3d 653 (11th Cir., 1998) holds: “The test for determining the sufficiency of a notice of appeal is "whether it is objectively clear that a party intended to appeal." Fed. R.App. P. 3(c) advisory committee's note (1993 amendment). Signs that the Shulers’ intended to appeal are all over the documents filed with this court and served on adverse parties.

Our intent to appeal the entire district-court dismissal is objectively clear in our appellate brief -- and the Tjoflat panel admits this. From our Motion for Panel Rehearing:

As the panel notes, the Shulers make it clear in their appellate brief – in two places – that they intended to appeal the dismissal, in its entirety. In their “Statement of Jurisdiction” on page 1, the Shulers’ state regarding the Eleventh Circuit: “. . . this court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the district court’s order dismissing the case. . . .

In the “Statement of the Issues” on page 2 of their appellate brief, the Shulers specifically raise three issues on appeal, including this: Did the district court unlawfully dismiss the Shulers’ case . . . ? It could not be more clear that the Shulers intended to appeal the dismissal, plus all orders leading up to that.

In short, Tjoflat and his crooked crew used outdated law, directly counter to their own precedent in Bogle, to cheat us. To make matters even more seamy, Tjoflat dismissed both "The House Case" and the Jackson case in ways that meant the cases would not even be considered on the merits. What does that tell us? It tells me that Tjoflat knew both Carol and I, and the jacksons, were cheated raw in the district courts, so he concocted ways to dismiss the appeals without calling attention to the butcher jobs we experienced at the trial level.

What about details of Tjoflat's financial holdings -- the ones that, by law, disqualified him from hearing our appeal? Stay tuned. That information will be revealed in upcoming posts.


(To be continued)

JPMorgan Chase and RAGA, who combined to steal our home of 25 years in Alabama, help dish out the cash that threatens democratic norms in Wisconsin

Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Luther Strange

What happens when JPMorgan Chase and the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) join forces? Recent events in Wisconsin indicate it could produce signs that your democracy is on its last gasps.

The issue has particular resonance here at Legal Schnauzer because we were the targets of a wrongful foreclosure -- launched by Chase Mortgage, likely in retaliation for my reporting on GOP corruption -- that cost us our home of 25 years in Birmingham, Alabama, and forced us to live like refugees in Missouri. Jessica Medeiros Garrison, a Republican operative and glorified thief/street tart in Alabama, clearly was involved via a defamation lawsuit where my reporting never was proven to be false, as a matter of law.

We recently presented evidence that Garrison, one-time campaign manager and paramour for former Alabama AG Luther Strange, had financial ties to JPMorgan Chase during her time as executive director at RAGA -- and those ties likely made it easy for her to help launch an attack on our mortgage. Garrison, it turns out, has a habit of bouncing from place to place when the heat starts turning up under her chair, as we reported:

Until January 2016, Garrison was senior advisor to RAGA and the affiliated Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF). Before that, she was executive director of RAGA and president of RLDF. Garrison started shifting away from those positions when The New York Times exposed RAGA as a glorified shakedown outfit.

Garrison also started lowering her profile when her extramarital affair with Strange -- which former Alabama Senate President Lowell Barron, among other sources, has confirmed -- became so widely known that it made her more of a liability than an asset.

As for Wisconsin, residents have seen the democracy-crushing influence of JPMorgan Chase and RAGA, both of which seem to operate without the slightest sign of a moral compass. Lame-duck Republicans have passed a series of measures designed to weaken Wisconsin's incoming Democratic governor (Tony Evers) and attorney general (Josh Kaul).

Vox.com, noting that Wisconsin-like chicanery also is under way in Michigan and North Carolina,  reports that "The Wisconsin power grab is part of a bigger Republican attack on democracy":

Michigan Republicans are currently weighing similar plans, and both are following in the footsteps of North Carolina Republicans, who passed a power-stripping bill after a Democratic victory in the 2016 governor’s race. State Republicans in three of the country’s most vital swing states are displaying open contempt for the most basic principle of democracy: that when you lose an election, you have to hand over power to your opponents. The national party hasn’t condemned these power grabs, giving the state legislatures tacit permission to rewrite the rules.

These power grabs highlight one of the most disturbing facts about American politics today: The Republican Party has become institutionally indifferent to the health of democracy. It prioritizes power over principle to such an extreme degree that it undermines the most basic functioning of democracy.

In the long run, the GOP’s turn against democracy could well be a greater threat to the American experiment than anything President Donald Trump has done.

Who is driving this train of GOP dysfunction? According to a report at The New York Times, that would be JPMorgan Chase and other corporations:

Walgreens portrays itself as the friendly neighborhood drugstore. It gives flu shots to children, helps communities after storms, donates to charity — and makes feel-good advertisements trumpeting its various good deeds. . . .

So you might think that an organization that claims to care about community values would speak up. But Walgreens has not. Neither have other corporate supporters of Wisconsin Republicans, like Microsoft, Dr Pepper Snapple, J.P. Morgan Chase or Humana. It’s yet another example — alongside soaring C.E.O. pay and stagnant worker wages — of corporations abdicating the leadership role they once played in America.

What about RAGA's role in the Wisconsin mess? It's been right there, with wallet wide open, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Train:

This Washington, D.C.-based group, which raises unlimited amounts from special interests to help elect state GOP attorneys general throughout the country, has been the biggest spender in the 2018 Wisconsin attorney general’s race.

The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) made reported independent expenditures through the Wisconsin Freedom Political Action Committee (PAC), which doled out more than $2.8 million to support GOP Attorney General Brad Schimel’s reelection bid.

Most of RAGA’s spending was for three television ads which attacked Schimel’s Democratic opponent, Josh Kaul. The ads claimed Kaul had not prosecuted serious crimes in Wisconsin and had plea bargained for light sentences for drug dealers as a federal prosecutor in Maryland.

When RAGA's guy (Schimel) lost, JPMorgan Chase helped fund an effort to undermine democracy in Wisconsin. Can we say "sore losers"?

None of this surprises my wife, Carol, and me -- given our experiences with the same forces in the theft of our home. Is it a big step from stealing a mortgage to cheating he voters of Wisconsin?

For JPMorgan Chase and RAGA (with affiliated scum suckers like Jessica Garrison) the answer apparently is no.

Reporting on Steve Marshall's acceptance of illegal campaign funds in Alabama AG race shines light on the theft of our home via a wrongful foreclosure

Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Luther Strange

Reports on the funneling of illegal campaign cash to Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has unearthed evidence that might shine light on the theft of our house in Birmingham via a wrongful foreclosure.

Marshall, appointed AG in February 2017 before scandal-plagued governor Robert Bentley left office, defeated Democrat Joseph Siegelman in the November midterms despite national reports that he had accepted $735,000 from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which officials from both parties said violated Alabama law.

The Alabama Ethics Commission failed to resolve the issue before the Nov. 6 election, so complaints are pending, both with the ethics commission and the Montgomery County district attorney's office. Before the election, Siegelman noted that Marshall could be forced from office if the ethics commission applied state law properly.

How might this connect to the theft of our home? It comes around to Jessica Medeiros Garrison, an Alabama GOP operative and former executive director of RAGA. Garrison perhaps is best known for serving as campaign manager and mistress for Marshall's AG predecessor (and former U.S. Senator) Luther Strange. She used my accurate reporting on her extramarital affair with Strange to file a baseless lawsuit against me and to write a preposterously defamatory article about me at the women's fashion magazine, Marie Claire.

It all could spell trouble for JPMorgan Chase, which is the largest bank in the United States and the sixth largest in the world.

As for Garrison's lawsuit, it produced a $3.5-million default judgment from Jefferson County Circuit Judge Don Blankenship -- a black man who apparently has  no problem ignoring the rule of law to serve the interests of white elites. Blankeship's ruling has no basis in fact or law, and under the Alabama Constitution and relevant case law, is void because I never received notice of Garrison's application for default judgment or the hearing on said issue. The docket in the Garrison case shows I never was notified of her efforts to get a default judgment, which she applied for three times, and her "gift" from the court is a nullity that can be attacked as void at any time.

Until January 2016, Garrison was senior advisor to RAGA and the affiliated Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF). Before that, she was executive director of RAGA and president of RLDF. Garrison started shifting away from those positions when The New York Times exposed RAGA as a glorified shakedown outfit.

USA Today, in its Nov. 3 article that touched on the illegal contribution to Steve Marshall's campaign, shined light on corporate entities that have succumbed to RAGA shakedowns:

[Marshall's] GOP primary challenger, [Troy] King, raised $2.2 million, while Marshall’s Democratic opponent in the general election, Siegelman, has raised more than $606,000, much of it via small donations. About 83 percent of Siegelman’s campaign funds come from within the state, compared with 74 percent for Marshall’s, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of state campaign finance data. . . .

RAGA’s contribution represents about 20 percent of Marshall’s total fundraising. King sought a temporary restraining order barring the Marshall campaign from spending the RAGA money, arguing Alabama’s Fair Campaign Practices Act of 2010 banned political action committees active in the state’s elections from taking contributions from other PACs. Filings with the IRS show RAGA accepts contributions from super PACs such as the General Electric PAC and JP Morgan PAC.

This is where the mess hits close to (our) home. How? Our mortgage was held by Chase Mortgage, an affiliate of JPMorgan Chase,, which has dumped cash on the RAGA of Jessica Medeiros Garrison (former executive director) and Luther Strange (former member of the executive committee).

How is JP Morgan PAC tied to RAGA in the 2018 election cycle? From Troy King's letter to the Alabama Ethics Commission:

Now, during the 2018 election cycle, according to RAGA’s public filings with the Internal Revenue Service, RAGA’s PAC has again accepted a number of contributions from other PACs, including, earlier this year, nearly $16,000 from the J.P. Morgan PAC plus another $50,000 in PAC contributions in the last quarter of 2017. RAGA’s PAC has now, during this election cycle, made hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions to Steve Marshall for Alabama, Inc.

Public documents show that in March 2014, when both Garrison and Strange were directly involved with RAGA, JP Morgan PAC gave $50,000 to the association. (See page 15 of the document embedded at the end of this post.) That was roughly one month before RAGA made a donation to the Luther Strange campaign, in the amount . . . of $50,000. It also just happened to be the same time frame in which our house went into foreclosure.

Did JP Morgan PAC make a direct contribution to Luther Strange, after it was more or less laundered through RAGA? The public does not know because the whole purpose of PAC-to-PAC transfers is to disguise the original source of funds -- and that's why they are illegal under Alabama law.

The Strange re-election campaign eventually returned the $50,000 to RAGA in 2014, so even "Big Lutha" seemed to acknowledge the donation likely was illegal. Steve Marshall has shown no signs of taking such a step, suggesting he is more corrupt than Luther Strange -- and that is quite an achievement.

Here on (our) home front, the question is this: Was Jessica Garrison in a position with RAGA to pick up the phone, contact someone at Chase Mortgage, and have a wrongful foreclosure launched on our home -- perhaps with Luther Strange's assistance? Did she, in fact, do that, causing us to lose not only our home, but just about all of our possessions due to brazen theft during an unlawful eviction after we were forced to move to Missouri?

If the answer to those questions is yes -- to borrow a phrase from Lindsey Graham -- there will be "holy hell to pay."

RAGA 1st Quarter 2014 by on Scribd

Judge Michael Putnam and Jones Walker Law Firm Try To Keep A Conflict Of Interest Under Wraps

Michael D. Waters Sr.

A clerk for the U.S. Magistrate overseeing my wife's employment lawsuit against Infinity Insurance is the son of a partner at a major corporate-defense law firm in downtown Birmingham. In fact, the father's law firm represents one of the primary defendants in the case.

Does that explain why U.S. Magistrate T. Michael Putnam has unlawfully dismissed that defendant from the case--along with three corporate entities who are affiliated with her?

We don't have a solid answer to that question yet. But Putnam and his office clearly have a conflict of interest, one that should have forced his recusal from the outset. Instead, he has presided over the case for almost 20 months--a period marked by curious delays, questionable record keeping, failure to notify the plaintiff (Mrs. Schnauzer) of key hearings, and dismissals of corporate defendants that are not supported by law.

Throughout that time, Putnam never has disclosed that one of his chief clerks, Michael David ("David") Waters Jr., is the son of a partner in a firm that represents a defendant who, according to allegations in my wife's complaint, started the process that led to her unlawful termination at Infinity.

How best to explain the glaring conflict of interest? You need a scorecard to keep up with the players in Carol Shuler v. Infinity Property & Casualty et al (2:11-cv-03443-TMP), so we will offer an explanation in "scorecardy" fashion. Here it is:

* David Waters Jr. is a 2010 graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law. He is a chief clerk for Judge T. Michael Putnam in the Northern District of Alabama;

* David Waters' father is Michael David Waters Sr., a partner in the Birmingham office of the Jones Walker law firm, which has more than 375 attorneys in nine states and the District of Columbia. 

Kary Bryant Wolfe

* Kary Bryant Wolfe, special counsel in Jones Walker's Birmingham office, represents defendant Angie Ingram in my wife's lawsuit. Ingram is the principal at the Ingram & Associates debt-collection law firm, and my wife alleges that Ingram participated in a conspiracy to cause her unlawful termination at Infinity after we took steps to aggressively pursue discovery in a lawsuit against Ingram and other entities under the U.S. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). 

* Is it likely that David Waters' Sr. and Kary Bryant Wolfe are fairly close colleagues? Well, they both work at Jones Walker's Birmingham headquarters at One Federal Place downtown (also the home, by the way, of the august firm Bradley Arant, with its ties to Mexican drug cartels and other unsavory activities). Waters Sr. works in the firm's Banking and Financial Services Practice Group. Wolfe is in the Business and Commercial Litigation Practice Group. Is their quite a bit of overlap in those two groups, with lawyers from one often working with lawyers from the other? Certainly sounds like it.

Why does it matter that David Waters Sr.'s son works as a clerk for the judge who is overseeing a case in which the Jones Walker firm has a decided interest? Law clerks are glorified "gofers" aren't they, making sure primarily that the coffee pots are filled and the trash cans are emptied?

Well, it turns out that the term "law clerk" often is misunderstood by the public. That sounds like someone whose work duties don't go much beyond filing and such. But as we reported in a post last September, many orders and opinions in federal courts are written not by judges, but by their clerks. California lawyer William Domnarski shined light on the issue in an op-ed piece last year for The New York Times, calling the situation "embarrassing" for the legal profession. From our post on the subject:

Law clerks write the opinions for almost all federal appellate judges, Domnarski writes, and it stands to reason that the practice also is common in federal trial courts. Domnarski says members of the legal tribe rarely discuss the issue because it "raises too many embarrassing questions." Domnarski goes on to write: "We have become too comfortable with the troubling idea that judging does not require that judges do their own work."

Is David Waters Jr. writing the orders and opinions for Judge Putnam in my wife's employment case? You pretty much can count on it? Is that why the documents have tended to favor the Jones Walker law firm and various corporate-connected defendants? You probably can count on that. Is that why Angie Ingram, represented by David Waters Sr.'s colleague Kary Bryant Wolfe, has been dismissed from the case, even though black-letter law says that can't happen? You probably can count on that, too.

What is the black-letter law that governs Ingram's attempt to be dismissed? Details are available in a document that can be viewed at the end of this post. But here is the crux of the matter:

The simple issue is this: Ingram cannot be dismissed from this case because she submitted evidentiary matters requiring that her Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss be treated as a Motion for Summary Judgment—and Shuler is entitled under the law to conduct discovery in order to counter that evidentiary material. 

The Court cites some half dozen cases on this simple issue, but the controlling Eleventh Circuit case is Snook v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank, 859 F. 2d 865 (11th Cir., 1988).

What about the dismissal of corporate entities such as American Express, NCO, and JPMorgan Chase? Mrs. Schnauzer's complaint alleges--and the record will show--that they had an agency relationship with Ms. Ingram and her law firm. That means those companies, under the law, have vicarious liability for damages that Angie Ingram caused. 

The law on vicarious liability, at this stage of the case, could not be more simple. One court document sums it up this way:

The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found: “Although the complaint need not expressly state that [Defendant] was vicariously liable to the Sprinkles, it must at least give notice of vicarious liability.” Category 5 Management Group v. National Casualty Insurance Company, (Eleventh Circuit, 2012). At this stage in the proceedings, Shuler is required only to give notice regarding vicarious liability, and she has met that standard.

If David Waters Jr.'s duty is to research and write Judge Putnam's orders and opinions so that they accurately reflect the law, he is doing a wretched job. If, on the other hand, his assignment is to ensure that his father's law firm and various corporate entities receive one unlawful favor after another . . . well, he's getting the job done.

This much is certain: Judge Putnam and his office have handled the case in such an inept fashion that my wife actually was forced recently to submit a document styled "Motion for Court Action." In it, she essentially begs the court to take action on matters that have been pending for several months and need resolution so that the parties can move forward with discovery. You can read the document below.

Have certain documents been gathering dust because David Waters Jr. has not been able to figure out a way to mold them so that they favor the Jones Walker law firm? I'm starting to think the answer is yes.

Infinity Objection Re Ingram by Roger Shuler

Infinity Court Action by Roger Shuler