Federal Court Retains Mark Meadows Georgia Criminal Case Pending Hearing
The Court found no ground for summary remand of the case back to state court, and will make a decision whether to keep the case in federal court permanently after a hearing on August 28. Depending on the outcome of that hearing, Georgia may have to prosecute Meadows in federal court, not Fulton County Superior Court, where Meadows will raise his federal immunity defense.
I wrote yesterday how Mark Meadows Files To Remove Georgia State Prosecution To Federal Court under a statute that allows for removal of state cases involving acts of a federal official. That post has the Notice of Removal that lays out the statutory grounds why the prosecution of Meadows by Fulton County (GA) District Attorney Fani Willis should be removed from state court.
The statute requires a fairly expedited procedure for the federal court to determine whether the case should be summarily remanded (for example if the statute clearly does not apply), and if not, then a prompt hearing should be held to determine whether the case stays in federal court.
The federal judge just issued an Order finding that summary remand was not justified, and setting the following briefing schedule with a hearing on August 28:
ORDER re 1 Notice of Removal filed by Mark Randall Meadows. The Court concludes the face of the Notice of Removal 1 and attached Indictment [1-1] do not clearly indicate that summary remand of this matter is required. No opinion about whether removal will be permitted or on a federal immunity defense is being made at this time. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(5), the Court ORDERS that the Parties participate in an evidentiary hearing concerning the Notice of Removal of the Indictment against Mark R. Meadows on Monday, August 28, 2023, at 10:00 A.M. at the Richard B. Russell Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia, in Courtroom 1907.The Court furthermore ORDERS that Defendant Meadows immediately SERVE the Fulton County District Attorney, Fani Willis, with a copy of the Notice of Removal and a copy of this Order. Once the Fulton County District Attorney has been served, she may submit a written response to Defendant Meadows’s Notice of Removal no later than Wednesday, August 23, 2023. Any response submitted must not exceed 25 pages in length. In the interim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(3), proceedings may continue in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Signed by Judge Steve C. Jones on 8/16/2023. (pdw) (Entered: 08/16/2023)
From the Order:
This matter appears before the Court following Defendant Mark Randall Meadows’s Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 and § 1455.1 Doc. No. [1]. The Court enters the following Order in satisfaction of the statutory requirements for state criminal prosecutions removed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b). For the following reasons, the Court concludes that summary remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4) is not required based on the face of Meadows’s Notice of Removal.
***
Here, the Court determines that the Notice of Removal and attached Indictment are sufficient to show that summary remand is not clearly required. In other words, it is not immediately apparent from the face of the documents that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1442(a)(1) over this removal action.
Meadows asserts federal officer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, which requires showing “the case [is] against any officer, agency, or agent of the United States for any act under color of such office” and that “the federal actor or agency being challenged [raises] a colorable defense arising out of its duty to enforce federal law.” Cohen, 887 F.2d at 1453–54. The Notice of Removal indicates that Meadows held the federal role of White House Chief of Staff from March 31, 2020, until January 20, 2021. Doc. No. [1], 3. Meadows also submits that he was acting in this capacity when all the criminal acts alleged occurred. Id. at 3–7. Meadows finally asserts he has defenses to these criminal charges that “arise under federal law, including a federal immunity defense under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution.”3 Id. at 7; see also id. at 11–12 (specifying the federal immunity defense and arguing its application to Meadows).
Accordingly, the Court determines that Meadows’s Notice of Removal is sufficient to withstand summary remand under Section 1455(b) 4). The Court emphasizes that this Order offers no opinion on the Court’s ultimate determination of its subject matter jurisdiction over this case or Meadows’s federal immunity defense. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(5), the Court will make its final determination on these matters once they have been completely argued and briefed and are ripe for the Court’s full review. To reiterate, this Order’s limited conclusion is that the Court, based solely on the face of the Notice of Removal and the Indictment, does not clearly lack subject matter jurisdiction over Meadows’s Notice of Removal. Thus, the Court will proceed with an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(5).
At this stage, it does not appear that the state court prosecution is halted yet. From the Opinion:
Moreover, the filing of a notice of removal of a criminal prosecution under Section 1455 “shall not prevent the State court in which such prosecution is pending from proceeding further” even though a “judgment of conviction” cannot be entered until the prosecution is remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(3).
If after hearing the District Court finds that removal is proper, then the criminal case would proceed in the federal court.
If the United States district court determines that removal shall be permitted, it shall so notify the State court in which prosecution is pending, which shall proceed no further."
— Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) August 16, 2023
So today’s Order gets Meadows foot in the door of federal court. We’ll find out after the hearing if he gets to enter. And once entered, will the Court accept his planned motion to dismiss the charges as barred by immunity from state prosecution. From the Notice of Removal:
Defendant Meadows has defenses to the charges in this Georgia indictment that arise under federal law, including a federal immunity defense under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution. See U.S. CONST., art. vi, cl. 2; Neagle, 135 U.S. at 57; Kordash v. United States, 51 F.4th 1289, 1293 (11th Cir. 2022); Denson v. United States, 574 F.3d 1318, 1345–46 (11th Cir. 2009).
I have not seen any reports that Trump has filed a Notice of Removal.
—————
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The quote “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” needs to be amended to read “When the prosecutors find that they can jail their party’s political opponents, that will herald the end of the republic.”
https://thefederalist.com/2…
Need someone with some spine to start suing the dems.
There are 27 Republican attorneys general in the U.S., compared to 23
celebrity prosecutors are Democrats. The left has an entire caste of
politicians who make their careers by loudly hunting down supposed
“wrongdoers,” using whatever excuses they can manufacture.
This cabal of prosecutors has existed for a while. In New York, for
instance, the attorney general’s office has spent years neutering the
National Rifle Association with a legal offensive meant to shut it down
or at least entirely disable it as a national political force — an
offensive that has mostly succeeded.
But the Democrat effort to criminalize their political enemies has
reached its climax in 2023. Republicans have sat and watched as four
separate indictments have come down from three separate prosecutors, all with the same purpose: imprisoning Donald Trump and as many of his
political allies as they can get away with.
——————————
If Trump can be harassed everywhere from Fulton County to the
Financial District, why can’t any state prosecutors take aim at Hunter
Biden, whose lifetime of sordid criminal behavior has been released for
the entire planet to see?
Biden has written in his memoir about a four-day crack bender he went
on in Nashville in October 2016, part of a “crack-fueled, cross-country
odyssey.” His infamous laptop, meanwhile, has damning proof of Biden
buying tens of thousands of dollars worth of prostitute services
from Florida-based madam Ekaterina Moreva. What can Florida do in
response to that? I don’t know the answer, but I know this: If Democrats
discovered a Trump family member had sent thousands to a madam in one of their states, the answer would not be “nothing.”
All you have to do is name the jurisdiction that
a) is solidly 2 to 1 or better GOP in its local races
b) either has solid GOP majority in state offices or
c) the governor does not have the power, as DeSantis does, to remove/suspend local prosecutors
d) the local federal courts are solidly GOP. Meadows’s notice of removal is being tried by an Obama nominee. You know what that means.
Note that while GA is lightly purplish state. Fulton County is as blue as blueberry pie. The Left has a big structural advanagte in having in having solidly Dem local govt. Alvin Bragg is an example, as is Larry Krausner of Philly. But it isn’t just blue states. Austin is the capital of a solidly red state, yet it is indigo.
Ga is red. I live here.. Except for the deep blue lesion which is Atlanta.
Captain Obvious opines, “So, where’s General Sherman when Atlanta REALLY needs to be burned?”
Y’all have two d/prog US Senators but a GoP Gov. In addition GA has 5/14 Congressional Districts represented by d/prog. That would seem to indicate GA is less than Red, more of a light purple at present.
The Arbery defendants, including the guy who just held a cell phone some distance away, were all convicted of murder in Brunswick, hundreds of miles from Atlanta. Georgia may be red, but there’s something wrong with it.
Small town / rural area then. But the Fed Gov puts their courthouses in big cities, which affects jury selection.
A Republican with a spine? Surely you jest!
Hah, a down vote, care to provide a name of a Repub with that?
It’s like a rewrite of Hunter S. Thompson’s “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” with all the drugs etc., but without the writing skill.
Perhaps Hunter Biden’s “Fear and Looting in the White House?”
We sure need a Reagan and a Rush right now. DeSantis, Clay and Buck ain’t cutting it.
Reagan was a Democrat. He sent our industry to Japan and let our corps be hollowed out by LBO’s. But he wore nice suits and gave nice conservative-sounding speeches. He wasn’t fit to hold Ron DeSantis’ jockstrap.
With 19 defendants, is there any chances some reverse law fare will works against Fanni Willis?
No, the entire legal system is corrupt when it comes to things Trump, from Roberts to Fani, they are all in agreement that Trump will never be president, again
But, removal to a Federal Court means… he could be tried in DC, where the jury will definitely convict him, regardless of the law.
(non-lawyer comment) I doubt it. The supposed offenses happened in Georgia, so the local Federal court would have jurisdiction. The flip side of this would be taking Federal court cases out of the DC district and moving them to Montana, where I suspect Republicans being accused of bogus charges would receive a *much* fairer treatment.
Same jury pool for either federal or state court in Atlanta, I’d suppose. Is Montana better? You don’t get ranchers from the plains on those juries. You get the local artiste population in Billings/Butte/Great Falls/Helena/Missoula.
No, it means if the federal prosecutors decide to take up the case, Trump et al. would be tried in the North District of Georgia.
So if Meadows, rightly, gets federal immunity this then surely shuts down every other abortion of a case brought against Trump??
Not exactly. I read an article saying Trump was more complicated than the co defendants. The judge could rule he was acting as a candidate rather than a federal official and then the federal immunity goes away. Now it does seem obvious Trump the candidate wanted a recount and more votes but on the other hand Trump the president was in charge of enforcing the law and so had every reason to ask for investigations. Will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Be hard to say he was acting as a candidate when he WAS the President and acting as the President. There would have to be some real mental gymnastics to completely ignore the fact he WAS the President at the time.
That kind of thinking would open all sorts of doors to Courts deciding to say a President doesn’t have immunity because “he was campaigning and acting as a candidate” even though a sitting President could be in the first year of their term or hour or second year etc.
Let’s see what happens
Im expecting they will just find him guilty in a different court. This is a process show, the outcome has already been determined by Democrats.
But thats all good because the good professor and his ilk just keep talking about these indictments as if they are the output of a sane, rational, uncorrupted one tier justice system.