I also wrote that a federal court in the district of Washington then did impose a TRO nationwide, practically overruling the Massachusetts federal district court, for which the Washington federal district court had no authority - because the Washington federal district court and the Massachusetts district court were within different appellate jurisdictions.
I also wrote that the decision in the 9th Circuit to deny to the President the stay of the TRO imposed by the Washington federal district court, was made by a court, a judge and three law clerks with financial interests in the outcome of the matter, which makes the decision void.
Nevertheless, before I post my back-to-back comparative analysis of both the lawsuits filed in the lower federal courts in Washington and Massachusetts and of the diametrically opposite decisions issued by the Massachusetts district court and the 9th Circuit, I would like to draw public attention to a statement made by one of the attorneys who have lost their application to the Massachusetts federal district Judge Nathaniel Gorton, Susan J. Cohen of a large Boston firm Mints, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Globsky & Popeo, PC commenting the 9th Circuit decision during the pendency of her own litigation in the Massachusetts federal district court.
- the petition attorney Susan Cohen and other attorneys of record have filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of individual plaintiffs;
- the docket report in that case as of today; and
- the court decision in the case denying to attorney Susan Cohen and her clients an application for a temporary restraining order against the President.
Why 14 attorneys out of 4 large law firms:
|Adriana Lafaille||ACLU MA|
|Matthew Segal||ACLU MA|
|Jessie J. Rossman||ACLU MA|
|Sarah R. Wunsch||ACLU MA|
|Derege B. Demissie||Demissie & Church|
|Susan B. Church||Demissie & Church|
|Heather Yountz||Demissie & Church|
|Kerry E. Doyle||Graves & Doyle|
|Elizabeth B. Burnett||Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC|
|Michael S. Gardener||Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC|
|Susan M. Finegan||Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC|
|Andrew Nathanson||Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC|
|Peter A. Biagetti||Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC|
|Susan J. Cohen||Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC|
have to represent one individual plaintiff is anybody's guess, but all of them, in case of a "victory" will charge billable hours of, likely $400 per hour or more, for their "work".
The same - billing hours and throwing around the clout of each individual attorney - would be the reason why Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Globsky and Popeo, PC entrusted to represent each individual plaintiff in this case to its 6 attorneys:
|Elizabeth B. Burnett|
|Susan M. Finegan|
|Peter A. Biagetti|
|Susan J. Cohen|
including one "special counsel" Andrew Nathanson and 5 members of the PC (professional corporation), where only Susan J. Cohen is a specialist in immigration law, and only Susan J. Cohen and Andrew Nathanson had any experience in immigration cases (Andrew Nathanson's area of practice is completely different, according to his webpage, his experience with immigration cases is only through the firm's pro bono project,
and that does not say much, because often attorneys from other areas of specialization come to represent "pro bono" clients only to get free CLE credits, but provide no value to the pro bono client, or harm the client by their lack of expertise).
Why Mintz etc., Demissie & Church and Graves & Doyle attorneys had to jump into the fray at all, when there were already four ACLU attorneys in the case can be explained, likely, by greed (billable hours and recovery of attorney fees from the U.S. taxpayers under 42 U.S.C. 1988 if attorneys' collective political clout would allow to push this meritless case through the courts), since there was obviously no need for 14 attorneys representing one civil rights case.
After their bitter loss in federal court (where proceedings at this time came to a lull, there were not filings after the order of Judge Gorton denying the TRO), here is what attorney Susan J. Cohen has to say about the 9th Circuit decision - which, once again, is diametrically opposite to the decision of the judge against Susan J. Cohen's clients, and which unlawfully overrules Judge Gorton, even though it had no territorial jurisdiction to do so, multiple financial disqualifying conflicts of interest, and extremely problematic legal analysis:
You can view the video statement of attorney Susan J. Cohen here, on the left of the webpage.
It is significant that Susan J. Cohen, an immigration attorney from a large 500-lawyer strong Boston firm representing corporations, including manufacturers, puts a stress in her 1 minute 50 second statement upon the rights of employers for the free flow of immigrant workers in and out of the country, unhindered by the President's immigration policies.
While in the first part of her speech Susan J. Cohen paid lip service to the rights of "foreign nationals, U.S. residents, citizens", that was just one time in her speech that she referred to those rights.
Then - even though she represents in the Massachusetts court 6 individuals and one non-profit corporation that does not employ immigrants - Susan J. Cohen concentrated on the rights of "institutions, states and employers" for the free flow of immigrant workers "and others" "supporting their important work".
In that short speech, while Susan J. Cohen has mentioned individual rights only once, she mentioned the word
- "employers" - 5 times and
- "insitutions" - 3 times.