The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Nuclear waste, river cruises, and an exploding toilet.
When Sylvia Gonzalez was elected to the city council in Castle Hills, Tex., she wanted to see that the city's potholes got filled. But angering the city's leadership led to a months-long investigation that ended with Sylvia arrested, allegedly for stealing a citizen petition that she herself championed. After the charges against her were dropped, Sylvia sued city officials for retaliating against her for her exercise of First Amendment rights, and this week IJ Attorney Anya Bidwell argued her case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn more here, and listen to the argument audio here.
- Been a while since we've had a vocab quiz from the First Circuit's notoriously sesquipedalian Judge Bruce Selya. This week features the Selya classics "immurement" and "encincture."
- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals sues Novartis over antitrust claims related to prescription medications used to treat the overproduction of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Your summarist could not care less about the Second Circuit's ruling allowing those claims to go forward, and includes it only because it brings back fond memories of his science-fair project, which similarly involved a drug that inhibits VEGF.
- We suspect that critics of the Jones Act are overrepresented among Short Circuit readers, so please enjoy this ruling from the Second Circuit, rejecting an attempt by American Cruise Lines to prevent the Swiss company Viking River Cruises from operating Mississippi River cruises.
- New York's 2019 Child Victims Act created a two-year window for victims of childhood sexual abuse to bring claims for which the statute of limitations had run—but that window didn't open until 6 months after the law passed. A plaintiff took advantage of the law, alleging that she was sexually abused by a teacher in high school. But her lawyer misread the statute and filed suit before the window opened. Rather than immediately assert the claims were premature, the school district litigated the case for over two years and then successfully asserted the statute of limitations, but only after the window had closed so that the plaintiff couldn't refile the suit. Second Circuit: Whether this sketchy maneuver works is a state-law question we'd like New York's high court to answer instead of us. Question certified.
- Several CUNY professors quit the union that exclusively bargains for all CUNY faculty and staff because of the union's pro-Palestinian views and prioritization of certain instructors' interests of over others. But they're still subject to employment terms negotiated by the union they disdain. They sue, saying that's a First Amendment violation. Second Circuit: The Supreme Court recently held you can't be forced to pay dues to a union you disagree with, but that doesn't upset older precedent that the state can choose to ignore you in favor of the union when it's setting employment terms.
- "After the toilet in plaintiff Troy Moore, Sr.'s prison cell exploded, covering him and the entire cell in human sewage, defendant Correctional Officer Saajida Walton refused to let Moore out of his cell to clean up for over eight hours." Third Circuit: And we're not going to throw out his case merely because, through no fault of his own, the original complaint misspelled the officer's name as "Walden," which delayed service until after the statute of limitations had expired.
- Is it a particularly serious crime to launder the proceeds of an internet catfishing scheme to a group of Ghanaian militiamen? Fourth Circuit: Not always!
- Prison: If you tested positive for a soy allergy, we'd stop feeding you soy, but we don't think you have a real allergy and we're not buying your "my religion compels me not to eat foods that make my stomach hurt" schtick. Fourth Circuit: That is, like, very precisely the sort of schtick you are required to buy.
- In which the Fourth Circuit confronts an American-funded experiment in which unwitting Guatemalan prisoners were deliberately infected with sexually transmitted disease, which was simultaneously a horrific crime against humanity and also not a thing this particular defendant is responsible for.
- Texas man sues propane company after his attempt to light his gas-grill leaves him engulfed in flames. Following a jury verdict, the man is awarded more than $1.8 mil in damages. Fifth Circuit: There was legally insufficient evidence of a manufacturing defect. Dissent: I'd say the fact that the guy ended up engulfed in flames when he lit his grill the same way he'd done hundreds of times before is at least some evidence.
- Texas company "fluorinates" plastic containers, creating a barrier that keeps dangerous substances from leaching out or other substances from permeating in. The EPA becomes concerned that the chemicals used in the process are harmful and orders the company to stop, citing the agency's authority to regulate on an accelerated basis any "significant new use" of a chemical substance. Fifth Circuit: They've been fluorinating containers this way for 40 years; that's not a new use. The EPA will have regulate the slower, old-fashioned way.
- Since administrative stays are in the news lately, your editors thought you'd want to know that the Fifth Circuit has stayed enforcement of the SEC's climate-related disclosure rules.
- The SEC routinely allows defendants to settle civil-enforcement actions without admitting wrongdoing—but only if the defendants promise to never publicly proclaim their innocence. Which, says the Fifth Circuit, still doesn't give an appellate court jurisdiction to review procedurally improper post-judgment motions.
- Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night will stay postal workers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds, but (if one believes the allegations recounted in this Fifth Circuit opinion) disapproval of your tenants' skin color just might.
- Federal procurement law includes contracting preferences for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs). That creates an incentive for people to game the procurement system by, for example, nominally having service-disabled veterans as the owners of a company, while actually having non-veterans run everything. Who could have predicted such gamesmanship? Your summarist! And who's going to jail for it? Fifth Circuit: This guy!
- The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before they can file a lawsuit in federal court alleging a violation of your civil rights. But what if the violation is that a prison official retaliated against you by tearing up the grievances you filed, preventing you from exhausting administrative remedies? Sixth Circuit: Then exhaustion is intertwined with the merits, and you go straight to a jury.
- Allegation: Cleveland, Ohio hospital refused all religious exemption requests for its COVID-19 vaccination policy (while granting some medical exemption requests), provided no appeal process, and told employees anyone not fully vaccinated within 45 days would be fired. Two employees whose requests were denied quit before the deadline. Sixth Circuit: And they have standing to pursue their religious discrimination claim. But the 43 other plaintiffs, most of whom were still employed by the hospital when the complaint was filed (after the hospital reversed course on its policy), lack standing.
- Catholic school sought to install lights at its athletic field to allow for nighttime games, but Madison, Wis., denied the request under the city's zoning code. Seventh Circuit: Which violates neither RLUIPA nor the Free Exercise Clause. An inability to host nighttime competitions on the school's own field is not a substantial burden on its Catholic mission.
- Chicago Bible college espouses complementarianism, which it defines as a belief in men-only clergy. A non-tenure-track instructor is an ordained minister who believes that qualified people shouldn't be restricted from roles based on their gender. After three years at the school, she's fired, supposedly because her non-alignment with the school's complementarian beliefs make her a poor fit. Sex discrimination? School: Church autonomy guarantees immunity from judicial entanglement in religious matters, and the district court was wrong to deny our motion to dismiss. Seventh Circuit: The general rule about interlocutory appeals—that we cannot hear them—applies. Dissent: Orders denying immunity in other contexts are reviewable before final judgment; this should be, too.
- "'Sunlight' is 'the best of disinfectants,'" recounts a Ninth Circuit majority, in considering a First Amendment challenge to a slate of donor-disclosure and ad-disclaimer laws governing political speech in Alaska. But perhaps a later Brandeis quote would be more apt: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent"? Majority: We're sticking with the "sunlight" one—Alaska's laws are probably fine. Partial dissent: One of the reporting requirements seems pointlessly duplicative of other, existing laws, which suggests it might flunk First Amendment scrutiny.
- Two gentlemen in California are arrested with a bunch of drugs and a bunch of guns, respectively. For each, a condition of pretrial release is that he not possess firearms. Each appeals. Ninth Circuit (January 2023): In the interests of resolving the appeals quickly, here's an order affirming the district court—an opinion will follow. Appellants: Justkiddingwe'dliketodismisstheappealasmootplease. Ninth Circuit (March 2024): No chance. And here's a few dozen pages on why the district court's firearm condition was fully consistent with the Second Amendment.
- "Does the Fourth Amendment permit the government to surveil a home for months on end without a warrant?" asks the Tenth Circuit. "This case requires us to decide." And we decide … yes! It does. The Department of Veterans Affairs did nothing wrong when it installed a motion-activated, remote-controlled pole camera across from a veteran's house to monitor whether he was feigning his permanent-disability status.
- Do Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) raise the same Fourth Amendment concerns as cell-site location data? Eleventh Circuit: Fortuitously, we need not decide. The Supreme Court did not hold that cell-site location data requires a warrant until the day after police searched the ALPR data for the suspect in this attempted murder, so the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement applies.
- This decision of the Eleventh Circuit, involving a $78 mil "Ponzi scheme masquerading as a foreign currency investment fund," features a rarely seen three-judge concurrence, in which the entire panel calls for courts to be less loosey-goosey about words like "standing."
- And in en banc news, the Fifth Circuit will not reconsider its decision that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lacks the authority to license temporary, away-from-reactor storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel. Where to store nuclear waste is the sort of major question that Congress would clearly delegate if it wanted it stored anywhere other than the Yucca Mountain repository.
- And in further en banc news, the Fifth Circuit will not reconsider its decision that a former NFL running back was not entitled to increased disability benefit from the NFL's retirement plan because he failed to timely appeal an adjustment of his benefit.
- And in still more en banc news, the Ninth Circuit will reconsider its decision that Oregon's prohibition on most secret recordings of conversations is a content-based restriction on speech because it exempts, among other things, recordings of police and persons engaged in felonies.
Raise a glass of milk to toast an early victory for small dairies in Oregon! Last year, at the prompting of large dairies, the state announced it would subject dairies with just one or two cows to the same expensive wastewater management rules as dairies with hundreds of cows. Faced with an IJ lawsuit on behalf of small dairy owners Sarah King and Christine Anderson, the state has now decided to hold off on enforcing the policy, but the lawsuit will continue until it is repealed or struck down for good.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Rather than immediately assert the claims were premature"
The school district pleaded the statute of limitations in its answer.
I think the school is clearly in the right based on the plain text of the law. The revival of the cause of action only applies to actions commenced in a two year window. The action was not commenced in the two year window.
What's the temporal opposite of "you snooze, you lose"?
Early bird gets the worm?
The early worm gets the bird.
But the second mouse gets the cheese.
I'd object that it's unfair except reopening the window in the first place is rather unfair.
"I think the school is clearly in the right based on the plain text of the law."
Except the plain text of the law does not frame the waiting period as a statute of limitations. They moved to dismiss based on the SoL. I don't see how that fits the plain text. The school and trial court failed to understand the difference between "before" and "after" and should lose this appeal, unless New York has controlling precedent that waiting periods are statutes of limitations.
The basis of the appeal is that while the end of the window is a kind of statute of limitations, which the law usually regards as designed for the benefit of defendants and hence is generally jurisdictional, the start of the window is not necessarily regarded in the same way. Making plaintiffs wait before filing is not necessarily intended to benefit defendents or serve as a statute of repose. It might for example enable courts to adjust to the new legal schema before getting a wave of lawsuits. For that reason, it might operate as an affirmative defense.
And if that turns out to be the way New York law looks at the situation, the plaintiff wins. Affirmative defenses have to be raised by the defendant in a timely manner. The defendant here, the school district, didn’t do so. Instead of raising its affirmative defense, it chose to snooze on it. You snooze, you lose.
From the STD experiment case: "In these experiments, members of the Guatemalan Army were exposed to gonorrhea through sexual intercourse with commercial sex workers. Similarly, there is no evidence that the soldiers consented or were compensated for their participation."
As a matter of law, sex with a prostitute should count as compensation. At least if prostitution is legal. Otherwise, purchasers of sex acts in Nevada are entitled to refunds because they got nothing of value.
In 2007 a judge in Philadelphia got a lot of bad publicity for describing rape of a prostitute as theft of services. Or alleged rape of an alleged prostitute. I don't know if she really was one or if the rape really happened.
But that happened twice , I remember Hillary apologizing (what a terrible video that is)
U.S. Officials Apologize for 'Appalling' 1940s Syphilis Study
So why would there not be a 3rd and a 3rd apology?
Because that would be redundant.
"members of the Guatemalan Army were exposed to gonorrhea through sexual intercourse with commercial sex workers"
I'm trying to figure out what the crime was here.
Armies have long warned soldiers about the little gifts that prostitutes can give them -- largely to no avail as boys will be boys. And they probably were exposed to a lot more than just gonorrhea.
The case is about a tort rather than a crime. The soldiers thought they were taking the normal, well known risk of catching something nasty. In fact the risk was much greater. In modern parlance there was no informed consent. (The requirement for informed consent in federally funded research is due in part to the Tuskegee syphillis study.)
There have been proposals to require Americans to disclose STDs to sex partners. It used to be that one had to be tested before getting married. Massachusetts repealed that law. Perhaps lawmakers learned that some people have sex outside of marriage.
Oh, when I replied to you on another entry I didn't realize you were just here trolling.
On the merits, the claim in the STD case fails because the long-dead Dr. Soper (the villain of our story) was working at an international organization with immunity from suit under the International Organizations Immunities Act. The plaintiff sought to consider him an agent of the Rockefeller Foundation, which is not immune from suit.
If only the victims had been immune to the diseases spread by the international organization.
This 'Selyaism' is the best one ever: Philotheoparoptesism. I cannot wait to use it. Don't ask me to pronounce it. 🙂
Judge Selya is a national treasure; Judge, please don't ever retire. = We need not go any further
“immurement” is one I’m familiar with but now I’m interested in reading the case to find out who or what was trapped in the walls.
Check out this link for the ultimate 'Selyaism Guide' (2008 article). You'll learn a lot of new words.
Link is here
immurement horror of horrors
There’s a Night Gallery quickie where an old man sits in a rocker. An old woman is slowly bricking up a wall in front of him.
“Remember, Dear, we agreed this was for the best," she says, and continues bricking up the wall.
Eventually she pushes in the last brick, and the old man sits there in silence, a lone light bulb hanging over his head. Suddenly he hears the doorbell in the distance. He stands up and whacks his cane against the wall. “Doorbell, Dear.” No sound. “Doorbell, Dear!” Still nothing.
He turns and walks up the stairs to answer the door.
From A Guide to ‘Selyaisms’:
Philotheoparoptesism refers to the practice of disposing of heretics by burning them or boiling them in oil. Another judge challenged Selya to include this word in a decision, which resulted in its sole reported usage (in secular courts, at least). For the record, Selya declined to consign a misguided prosecutor “to the juridical equivalent of philotheoparoptesism.”
LOL
Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night will stay postal workers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds, but (if one believes the allegations recounted in this Fifth Circuit opinion) disapproval of your tenants' skin color just might.
FYI, the snow is a lie now. If you don't shovel your walk, they will put a note in your mailbox no mail for you!
Funny, they don't even use my walk at all. They walk straight across the grass/snow from the neighbors house.
They walk in through a gate at my end of the building, leaving it open, and then they walk out a gate at the other end of the building, closing that one. There must be a rule that says, "When leaving through a gate, close it."
Federal procurement law includes contracting preferences for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs). That creates an incentive for people to game the procurement system by, for example, nominally having service-disabled veterans as the owners of a company, while actually having non-veterans run everything. Who could have predicted such gamesmanship? Your summarist! And who’s going to jail for it? Fifth Circuit: This guy!
2006? Lol, my first job out of college 35 years ago was for a company nominally (51%) owned by an US citizen born in Asia, 49% owned by SSWG (Stock Standard White Guy) which specialized in SBIRs, which had preference for small, minority-owned businesses.
At least for a while, it was very common for those preferred-group companies to be simple front companies that subcontracted the actual work to some more plain-vanilla company.
My favorite is the "female owned business" that is run by her husband. One example is the infamous company that had a Christmas party run amuck a few years back -- https://www.nbcboston.com/investigations/2-more-hi-way-safety-systems-employees-were-arrested-after-dec-party-records-show/2058825/
I can't even count how many senior engineers have their wife as their nominal head of their consulting firm. Sometimes the wife does billing or other secretarial work, but often she's just a figurehead to get the woman-owned-business perks.
Viking River Cruises advertises on PBS, boasting that you get to "explor[e] the world in comfort" in a "Viking longship."
Is that how the original Vikings recruited?
Let me defend the Jones act -- there is a very serious national security issue on us having a functioning merchant marine -- you can't put everything into a C-5 and our military has a very long logistics chain that it isn't able to provide for itself.
This is going to quickly become apparent with Brandon's asinine "Feed Hamas" proposal -- and it also became apparent with hurricane relief efforts to Puerto Rico a few years back.
Hitler would have won WWII if he'd had a couple hundred more submarines -- the Battle of the Atlantic really was that close.
Hurricane Maria showed why the Jones acts failed Puerto Rico as it was much harder to get relief to them.
Hitler would not have won WWII. The battle of the Atlantic wasn't nearly as close as you make seem and we didn't even really have to be involved. The Soviet's had already defeated them in the east and were pushing towards Germany. Us getting involved prevented western Europe from being under Soviet control after the war, it wasn't relevant to defeating Germany (the Soviets were receiving aid from us and that was crucial but that wasn't going through the Atlantic).
If our merchant marine is so crappy and inefficient that it can't survive competition in the US-US port market then it would do absolutely nothing in time of war either. But sure let's think of the children...err I mean scream national security.
The US was spitting out one major surface ship a week in 1943. Smaller popcorn stuff you couldn't even count.
Long before trouble encroached, they'd have ramped up a little bit.
Is this meant to be a response to me or Dr. Ed? My post was basically saying his national security concerns are unfounded. Our merchant marine doesn't need the protectionism to be effective.
You are wrong there. Late 1941 and into 1942 the Soviets were moving their factories East away from the Germans. They had almost no production. They relied heavily on the Lend Lease convoys until late 1942.
I said they relied on our our support of them with money and goods. But the Battle of the Atlantic was "more" a danger to aid to the UK. The Atlantic going north towards the Arctic was fairly clear until getting towards Norway to fund the Soviets that way. We also did quite a bit south through Africa and through the Pacific going westward. It was important but the Germans were not remotely close to really being able to stop it or even slow it down to a degree necessary for it to materially change their odds in the east.
"Is that how the original Vikings recruited?" Obligatory Muppets link: https://youtu.be/jC61zbu0ZLk?feature=shared
I want to know why the toilet "exploded" -- short of Methane (sewer) gas igniting in the right mixture of air/oxygen, which really isn't going to happen in a prison cell, there would have to be a bleepload of hydraulic pressure, probably from above, and for that to only go into one toilet?
I've seen sewerage backups -- lots of them, actually -- and absent something malicious, I can't see it only affecting one toilet nor can I see it going up "four feet" -- unless it flooded and maintained that level (and I have seen that). Toilets tend to be connected together, both vertically and then horizontally and I'm having a really hard time imagining this happening without him being somehow responsible for it.
Yes, older plumbing has problems -- drain pipes literally get stuff building up in them, and bird's nests (or a stray beer can) in the vent stack can cause you untold headaches. And this is assuming that everything was built to code which it often wasn't.
But a toilet "exploding" as described?
No.....
Okay, assume for the sake of argument that the prisoner is responsible for the toilet exploding. Are you really saying that would excuse leaving him in the mess for 8 hours?
The 'explosion' happened at 11:15pm, according to the link, and impacted other cells too. It would seem reasonable to me to delay dealing with the nasty but not dangerous situation until the next morning if there were shortages of staff, space, etc.
But the claim says that she (Walton) allowed other prisoners out and gave them equipment to clean up their cells - but not him. Combined with the years of prison and government dicking around handling his complaint, I think that changes it from "unfortunate" to "deliberate abuse".
"It would seem reasonable to me to delay dealing with the nasty but not dangerous situation until the next morning if there were shortages of staff, space, etc."
Try sitting in raw sewage for 8 hours then see how reasonable you think that is. No, leaving the affected prisoners in their cells until the next morning doesn't come within a million miles of reasonable.
[The guard] "let a neighboring inmate out of his cell to mop the floor outside of Moore’s door and then released additional inmates in neighboring cells—but not Moore—to bathe and clean their unit."
Sounds like the guard was not without some measure of compassion for inmates. I ask myself, in light of that, what might have motivated that guard to ignore the claimant as she did. I can only imagine the inmate's prior behavior that is not in evidence, but strongly indicated.
Shit happens, often for compelling reasons.
" I can only imagine the inmate’s prior behavior that is not in evidence,"
You can imagine anything you want, that doesn't make it a relevant or valid reason for ignoring the claimant under those circumstances.
"that doesn’t make it a relevant or valid reason for ignoring the claimant under those circumstances"
It might. I don't know. I don't know what the prison's rules were, nor the details of circumstances and what happened that night. The case hasn't even moved to the point of hearing a defense of the guard's behavior.
If your point is that nobody should be treated like that, then based on what I've see people do, and my own unpleasant-but-not-dangerous run-ins with raw sewage, I disagree.
You seem to be exaggerating the circumstancing described in the complain and misrepresenting my statement. Do you think the man was tossed into a septic tank or something?
Additionally, there are almost certainly rules and regs about moving prisoners - and under some circumstances, Walton may not have been allowed to do anything. The actual description in the case suggest it wasn't the case which, as I said, points towards abuse.
But as anyone who has had children knows, mere exposure to the various bodily excretions - even for hours - does not move the situation from unpleasant to dangerous.
"this week IJ Attorney Anya Bidwell argued her case before the U.S. Supreme Court"
Why does it have to go to the Supreme Court?
Why aren't there intelligent lawyers somewhere who realize that the city fucked up and quietly settle these sort of things? Is it arrogance? Incompetence?
You could read the case to answer your question. She sued the officers because you can't sue the government under 1983 except for rare circumstances
"Several CUNY professors quit the union that exclusively bargains for all CUNY faculty and staff because of the union's pro-Palestinian views and prioritization of certain instructors' interests of over others."
What I've always wondered about is the union's fiduciary duty to all members of the bargaining unit. Yes, the union gets to negotiate on behalf of all -- but it then incurs a fiduciary duty to do so on behalf of everybody...
IMHO, this is going to be the next field of public labor law...
Per this analysis, "Seven Supreme Court decisions have held that union dues exacted from dissenting non-members may not to be used for political and ideological purposes and must be expeditiously refunded to dissenting non-members according to proper procedural safeguards."
Many years ago, I was doing payroll for a company that had a Teamster bargaining unit in its warehouse. In addition to "dues," there was a monthly "checkoff" deduction to support the union's "political action." Two of the warehouse people came to me and said they didn't want to support the union's political action. I called the union to find out how to withdraw them from the program.
A union official got on the phone with me and said, "Tell them they don't want to do that." I paused, and then quite uncomfortably, I looked at the two employees still standing in front of me and repeated to them what I had just heard, "You don't want to do that."
All three of us looked at each other for about 15 seconds as we considered the advice and what we knew about that union. I then said, "Thanks." to the union representative and hung up the phone. Nobody ever again asked to be exempted from the deduction.
There is already a doctrine in labor law called the duty of fair representation (DFR) which is at least close to a fiduciary duty for unions vis-a-vis the employees they represent.
Does anyone think there’s any possibility that IJ Attorney Anya Bidwell is going to win this case?
Depends what you mean by win. Most of the Court seemed to be leaning towards the 5th Cir. using too strict a test on what evidence can be considered so at the least there will likely be a vacate and remand. But I don't think they allow quite as much evidence as she was hoping for. She almost definitely loses on the other question of whether the relevant precedent only applies to on the spot arrests.
"Dissent: I'd say the fact that the guy ended up engulfed in flames when he lit his grill the same way he'd done hundreds of times before is at least some evidence."
Reading a lot into this, I know, but if I were on the jury I'd be tempted to think maybe the guy is lying or just wrong about doing it the same way he always did it. But on appeal I would agree with the dissent to leave the jury decision alone.
On the 11th Circuit Ponzi Scheme case, Congress should empower a court-appointed Ponzi scheme receiver to sue on behalf of the investors, not just on behalf of the corporate entity constituting the “Ponzi estate.” Respecting fine points of corporate formalities seems absurd in such a situation. Congress should acknowledge that when fraudsters devise a multitude of corporate entities working together to perpetrate a fraud scheme, all the corporate entities involved are complete fictions. There really aren’t any legitimate corporate entities involved at all, just fraudsters, their victims, and scheme structures. The receiver’s job should be to represent the victims to recover money from the fraudsters wherever they’ve stashed it, aand be empowered to slash through and pierce the fictitious structures to do it. Tying the receiver in knots by pretending the receiver merely represents one of the bogus legal entities the fraudsters have set up in a fake intercorporate dispute with other corporate entities, this case’s fundamental holding, strikes me as beyond absurd. Why should law enforcement be hidebound by fraudster fictions set up by fraudsters specifically to cover their tracks and facilitate and hide their fraud?
Why should the courts treat the fraudsters’ 3 Card Monty corporate-entity shell game as real even after the fraudsters have been caught? Why should courts let fraudsters avoid tort liability just by cleverly hiding the money under the right shell, as the 11th Circuit did here?
The case seems a parody of justice.