Law Office of Paul Richmond

04/16/2026

Free Training on Defending the Judiciary, Friday and Saturday:

Title:
*Neither Sword Nor Purse: Defending America's Independent Judiciary and the Rule of Law*
https://www.law.uw.edu/.../rule.../neither-sword-nor-purse
Description:
Attacks on the independent judiciary undermine public confidence in the courts and weaken the foundation of the American legal system.
This two-day national symposium at UW Law, “Neither Sword Nor Purse,” will convene retired federal judges, legal leaders, scholars, and journalists to examine the rule of law, the foundations of judicial independence, and current attacks on courts. Speakers and panels will also focus on public trust, civic education, and strategies for addressing misinformation about our judiciary.
While it took a Broadway musical to put Alexander Hamilton back in the public eye, attacks on the Constitution have kept him here. In his Federalist No. 78 essay defending the necessity of an independent judiciary, Hamilton observes that the judicial branch has neither “the sword” (military authority) nor “the purse” (fiscal authority). Thus, judicial independence and impartiality must be protected from undue interference.
Free and Open to the Public!
Further Materials Here:
https://events.uw.edu/.../fbab8d03-097c-4d22.../documents
Dates:
April 17+18, 2026
Times:
8am-5pm Friday, 7:45am-12:30 pm Saturday (Pacific Time)
Livestreamed through TVW.org or the UW Law website https://www.law.uw.edu/
Panelists and speakers include:
https://www.law.uw.edu/Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal Supreme Court Correspondent
* Thomas B. Griffith, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (ret.)
* Paul W. Grimm, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (ret.), Duke Law School
* Judge Robert Harlan Henry, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (ret.), UW School of Law Jurist-in-Residence
* J. Michael Luttig, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (ret.)
Kimberly J. Mueller, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (ret.), Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law
* Shira Scheindlin, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (ret.)
* Debra L. Stephens, Chief Justice, Washington State Supreme Court
* Seth P. Waxman, U.S. Solicitor General, 1997–2001
* Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (ret.)
* Diane P. Wood, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (ret.)
Note: All federal “Judge” participants are former or retired from their positions.
Convened By:
University of Washington School of Law
Sponsored By:
* American College of Trial Lawyers
* Duke Law Bolch Judicial Institute
In Partnership With:
* Barer Institute for Leadership in Law and Global Development, University of Washington School of Law
* Bolch Judicial Institute, Duke Law
* Keep Our Republic
* Society for the Rule of Law
* Task Force for American Democracy.
Friends:
James & Marlene Fletcher
Barbara A. Lawson
Judge Robert Harlan Henry
Dr. Jan Ralls Henry.
Continuing Legal Education Information:
* Washington State: approved by the WSBA for 10.75 CLE credits (10 Law & Legal, .75 Ethics)
* Other Jurisdictions: You may be able to self-apply for credit depending on local rules.
More Information and Registration:
https://www.law.uw.edu/.../rule.../neither-sword-nor-purse

The University of Washington School of Law is a top-ranked public law school.

03/04/2026

""If we see any ICE officer using excessive force against a Denver resident, we will step in to detain that officer and remove them from the situation," Johnston said in a news conference about the order.
"We hold our own officers to that standard, and we will hold any ICE agent to the same," he added...."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/denver-mayor-orders-protection-protesters-ban-ice-city-property-2026-02-27/

https://denvergov.org/files/assets/public/v/2/executive-orders/documents/xo-152.pdf

01/30/2026

One of my 15 minutes of fame was a case I was involved in in 2008 where Border Patrol were setting up Checkpoints around the Olympic Peninsula and stopping tens of thousands of people.

The law then, as is now, is that any stop by Immigration Agents must have a connection with the border. The 100 mile zone that is being repeated ONLY applies if there is a connection between the border and the activity of the immigration activity. If there is no connection , then there is no legal basis for that activity. The U.S. Attorney under George W. Bush correctly recognized this in 2008.

The law is the same now.

The most fundamental principle any lawyer should know is that it's not about whether you agree with a political position of the person(s) the law is applying to, but whether the law is fair. If an unfair law or policy is applied to people you don't like, it can inevitably be applied to you. This is not cheering for your football team. This is fundamental law and fundamental rights.

As a lawyer of more than 25 years, I'm saddened that our three branches of federal government view the Constitution as something they can pick and choose from, and saddened when any lawyer (such as yourself) treats such violations of our most fundamental laws as normal or positive.

It was objectively not good for any of us when we had full military raids against citizens as took place in Ruby Ridge Idaho or Waco Texas. It was not a good for any of us when drones were used to kill U.S. citizens.

It is not a good thing for any of us in this case, when unidentified members of paramilitary groups, can call themselves law enforcement, roam streets, and kill people, and lie about it.

01/17/2026

“We found over 35 cases in which the judges have specifically said what the government is providing…false information. It might be intentionally false information, including false sworn declarations time and again," says Ryan Goodman, law professor at New York University.

Former Justice Department lawyer Erez Reuveni is speaking out about a pattern of troubling behavior he says he witnessed inside the DOJ that undermined the rule of law.

12/02/2025

10/29/2025

https://www.newsweek.com/national-guard-update-as-appeals-court-reconsiders-portland-deployment-10955952

The review highlights ongoing debate regarding the boundaries of presidential authority in deploying military forces domestically.

10/11/2025

As an attorney I have sworn an oath to uphold and protect the United States Constitution and the Rule of Law.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/aba-supports-the-rule-of-law/?fbclid=IwY2xjawNXTtpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHsam1MfKinoDy_4kQt_9mcO7e15be9OG7pY0DPu0_kYRXiZoLOsuZ7q6Xl0r_aem_5oa9ZM4qGOhVKQ-LcGsIFQ

This Oath includes Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, barring a convicted insurrectionist from holding higher elected office.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

We have a convicted insurrectionist, barred from holding office under the U.S. Constitution, holding our nation's highest elected office.

Every law, every appointment, that comes from this administration is illegal under the U.S. Constitution.

This includes the illegal appointment of unqualified partisan Judges, the illegal creation of DOGE and the illegal actions of ICE.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a me...

09/20/2025

"A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Tuesday to swiftly remedy conditions inside migrant holding cells in New York City where detainees have complained of squalid and overcrowded conditions.

The judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, ordered the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold fewer people in the 10th-floor holding cells of its Lower Manhattan offices at 26 Federal Plaza. ICE has been accused of detaining dozens of migrants for days or weeks there in tight quarters meant to hold detainees for just a few hours.

The judge also ordered ICE to allow migrants to place calls to their lawyers and to ensure access to proper medical and hygienic care following allegations that detainees were deprived of showers, given meager meals and forced to sleep on the concrete floor without any bedding.

"...The ruling is a short-term victory for immigration activists who have spent months denouncing the conditions in the holding cells. They have filled up as ICE has increased arrests in New York’s immigration courts, straining the agency’s detention capacity. Many of the more than 3,200 people ICE has arrested in the New York City area since Jan. 20, when President Trump’s second term began, have been detained at 26 Federal Plaza at some point, according to new federal data released this week.

The holding cells emerged as a flashpoint this summer, as migrants shared details of overcrowding so severe that some of them slept sitting upright or on the floor by the toilets, which filled the cells with a “horrific stench,” according to the lawsuit. A cellphone video recorded by a detainee last month offered the first glimpse of the conditions, escalating criticism by congressional Democrats who have been denied access to inspect the cells.

The lawsuit argued that ICE was violating its own policies and the Constitution by holding detainees in the cells for longer than 72 hours and by depriving access to lawyers. The legal groups representing Mr. Barco Mercado are: the American Civil Liberties Union; the New York Civil Liberties Union; Make the Road New York, an immigrant advocacy group; and Wang Hecker, a law firm."

The immigration agency must hold fewer detainees and provide them with medical care and regular access to lawyers, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan said.

09/20/2025

"Merryday cited Rule 8(a) of the federal rules of civil procedure requiring a complaint include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief to disqualify the filing.

“Alleging only two simple counts of defamation, the complaint consumes eighty-five pages,” Merryday wrote. “Count I appears on page eighty, and Count II appears on page eighty-three … Even under the most generous and lenient application of Rule 8, the complaint is decidedly improper and impermissible.”

Merryday noted the “many, often repetitive, and laudatory (toward President Trump) but superfluous allegations,” and “much more, persistently alleged in abundant, florid, and enervating detail”.

Judge gives US president 28 days to refile action after saying original filing is full of ‘vituperation and invective’

09/06/2025

"....Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.

In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges — appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:

Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.

And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.

Emergency rulings used to be rare. But their number has dramatically increased in recent years.

Ten of the 12 judges who spoke to NBC News said the Supreme Court should better explain those rulings, noting that the terse decisions leave lower court judges with little guidance for how to proceed. But they also have a new and concerning effect, the judges said, validating the Trump administration’s criticisms. A short rebuttal from the Supreme Court, they argue, makes it seem like they did shoddy work and are biased against Trump...."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-trump-cases-federal-judges-criticize-rcna221775?fbclid=IwY2xjawMpMvNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHp9mQ-RzC-otqIb0qSxeTg9Mt-ntsusPH85rcSy5_Ysch43FsQL1gxFa0m7l_aem_Mso8Ho7SHTfoq2_rcAAdAA

Ten judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court needs to explain its rulings better, with some urging Chief Justice John Roberts to do more to defend the judiciary against external criticism.