Source: http://trilema.com/2013/so-whos-running-the-courts-circus/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:35:14+00:00

Document:
So who's running the Courts circus ? on Trilema - A blog by Mircea Popescu.
mircea_popescu asciilifeform kinda funny how the original order was issued by the buchanan magistrate at 4pm, and before closing time (so within an hour ?) she was issuing forthwiths with handwritten admonitions.
mircea_popescu basically they have this set of lackeys in the magistrature that do nothing all day except waiting for the phone to ring or what is it ?
mircea_popescu and then ditched any requests to explain whether he had modified his vacation in order to help out teh government.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I believe that to be correct. I mean, this is a criminal investigation. A pen register has been ordered and is here at issue, and any motion to unseal that will be denied.
You said you had another motion, I believe?
MR. LEVISON: Yeah. My issue is only with the SSL keys. So if that is litigated separately and that portion of the proceeding is unsealed, I'm comfortable with that.
THE COURT: I don't understand what you're saying, separate proceedings.
MR. LEVISON: Sorry. I have always agreed to the installation of the pen register device. I have only ever objected to turning over the SSL keys because that would compromise all of the secure communications in and out of my network, including my own administrative traffic.
THE COURT: Well, didn't my order already include that?
MR. LEVISON: I do not believe so, sir.
THE COURT: Did my initial order -- I don't recall at the moment. Did my initial order recall the encrypted devices with the installation of a pen register?
MR. TRUMP: The pen register, as issued, just required all assistance, technical assistance, facilities, and information, to facilitate the pen register.
THE COURT: Yeah, but the search warrant's a different matter now. That's not before me this morning. The only thing that's before me this morning is the pen register.
THE COURT: So as I understand it, my initial order ordered nothing but that the pen register be put in place.
MR. TRUMP: And all technical assistance, information, and facilities necessary to implement the pen register. And it's our position that without the encryption keys, the data from the pen register will be meaningless. So to facilitate the actual monitoring required by the pen register, the FBI also requires the encryption keys.
THE COURT: Well, that could be, but I don't know that I need -- I don't know that I need to reach that because I've issued a search warrant for that.
MR. TRUMP: Correct, Your Honor. That the -- to avoid litigating this issue, we asked the Court to enter the seizure warrant.
MR. LEVISON: I've always maintained that.
THE COURT: -- so we've got no issue here. You're ready to do this?
MR. LEVISON: I've been ready to do that since Agent Howard spoke to me the first time.
MR. TRUMP: Well, then we have to inquire of Mr. Levison whether he will produce the encryption keys pursuant to the search warrant that Your Honor just signed.
THE COURT: But I can't deal with that this morning, can I?
MR. LEVISON: Your Honor, I've also been issued a subpoena demanding those same keys, which I brought with me in the event that we would have to address the subpoena.
THE COURT: I don't know, Mr. Trump. I don't think I want to get involved in asking him. You can talk with him and see whether he's going to produce them or not and let him tell you. But I don't think I ought to go asking what he's going to do and what he's not going to do because I can't take any action about it anyway.
If he does not comply with the subpoena, there are remedies for that one way or another.
MR. TRUMP: Well, the original pen register order was followed by a compulsion order from Judge Buchanan. The compulsion order required the encryption keys to be produced.
So, yes, part of the show cause order is to require compliance both with the pen register order and the compulsion order issued by Judge Buchanan.
And that order, which was attached to the show cause order, states, "To the extent any information, facilities, or technical assistance are under the control of Lavabit are needed to provide the FBI with the encrypted data, Lavabit shall provide such information, facilities, or technical assistance forthwith."
MR. LEVISON: I would object to that statement. I don't know if I'm wording this correctly, but what was in that order to compel was a statement that was incorrect.
Agent Howard seemed to believe that I had the ability to encrypt the e-mail content stored on our servers, which is not the case. I only have the keys that govern communications into and out of the network, and those keys are used to secure the traffic for all users, not just the user in question.
So the statement in that order compelling me to decrypt stuff and Agent Howard stating that I have the ability to do that is technically false or incorrect. There was never an explicit demand that I turn over these keys.
THE COURT: I don't know what bearing that would have, would it? I don't have a problem -- Judge Buchanan issued an order in addition to mine, and I'm not sure I ought to be enforcing Judge Buchanan's order.
My order, if he says that he will produce or allow the installation of the pen register, and in addition I have issued a search warrant for the codes that you want, which I did this morning, that's been entered, it seems that this issue is over as far as I'm concerned except I need to see that he allows the pen register and complies with the subpoena.
THE COURT: If he doesn't comply -- if he doesn't comply with the subpoena, then that has -- I have to address that.
THE COURT: But right now there's nothing for me to address here unless he is not telling me correctly about the pen register.
MR. TRUMP: Well, we can -- Your Honor, if we can talk to Mr. Levison for five minutes, we can ask him whether he will honor the warrant that you just issued.
THE COURT: Well, what can I do about it if he doesn't, if he tells you he's not going to? You've got the right to go out and search and get it.
MR. TRUMP: Well, we can't get the information without his assistance. He's the only one who knows and has possession of it. We can't take it from him involuntarily.
THE COURT: Wait just a second.
You're trying to get me ahead. You're trying to get me to deal with a contempt before there's any contempt, and I have a problem with that.
MR. TRUMP: I'm trying to avoid contempt altogether, Your Honor.
So who's running this circus ? Is it the judge or is it the men in black ?
In this particular case the hon Claude M. Hilton resisted, as in a vanishingly few cases judges do resist. This is a man appointed by Reagan, for the record. He was Chief Judge, he served for the better part of a decade on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He's seventy-three years old.
III. And then for each of these individually compiled records score the judge's manifested obsequiousness to the government on a scale from -2 to +2 including 0, wherein 0 reflects the neutral and impartial position an ideal judge might be expected to take on the matter, and 1 reflects the slightly partial position a judge may take in support of a government position or against an individual's position contrary to the government's, when such partiality is merely stylistical or otherwise apparent but not substantially causing a perceptible effect in the ruling, order or decision rendered, and -1 reflects the slightly partial position a judge may take in support of an individual's position contrary the government or against the government's position, when such partiality is merely stylistical or otherwise apparent but not substantially causing a perceptible effect in the ruling, order or decision rendered, and 2 reflects the gross partiality towards the government's position or against an individual's position contrary to the government's position which results in the ruling, order or decision being quashed on appeal, or if not appealed reasonably expectable to have been quashed by an ideal, impartial judge, or if appealed and not quashed egregious enough to warrant inclusion, and -2 reflects the gross partiality for an individual's position against the government's, or against the government's position which results in the ruling, order or decision being quashed on appeal, or if not appealed reasonably expectable to have been quashed by an ideal, impartial judge, or if appealed and not quashed egregious enough to warrant inclusion.
Shall be rewarded under this title with a sum of no less than 25 Bitcoin, and should other participants donate then further rewarded accordingly. The delivered results will uniformly be available for public review for an interval of one month, after which should there be no significant errors discovered the payment will be made, or should errors be discovered the respective parts will be open for correction and the one month term reset.
So here's the beauty of powerful cryptomovement : we've got the means, we've got the cool and there's nobody and nothing that can stand in our way. Period.
If you wish to help, as I think you should wish, especially if your own freedom, your own importance, your own rights and the future of the foregoing mean anything whatsoever to you, and if you can afford to help, of which matter you are the only judge, here's what you can do : You send a donation to 13iGD7nu6kXTtPS9DxKhY4gJdgchvdXJFH.
The donation will be used as follows : if your 8th digit past the decimal point is 0, your donation will go to the general fund rewarding he who completes the task in its entirety.iv If your 8th digit is 1, the donation will go to the fund specifically rewarding he who completes Chapter I of the task, and similarly all the way to 5.
I've seeded it with 25 BTC. You are more than welcome to donate anonymously if you wish, or publicly sign your donation. In either case let me make one point adamantly clear : years from now when we'll be looking to the historical record to establish who's who in Bitcoin, imbecillic jesusing, assorted redditardation, conference circlejerking and whatnot won't count for squat. This is the Mayflower, get on the list or get used to not being on the list.
Time to find out exactly what this Bitcoin thing can do if it comes to it.
Interesting how that works out.
Only 517 full time magistrate judges and 42 part-time magistrate judges plus some weirdo who is both magistrate judge and court clerk, as of 2009. Guess there couldn't have been many more in 1993. So I'll start looking for or making that list. Probably start next week because of the blogging thing.
I doubt I'll be able to tackle the whole thing on my own, at least on a reasonable timeline. Since this thing is kind of important I will make an offer to coordinate with reasonable parties who want to get this thing done faster. If I have to do it myself though and take three, five, or ten years though so be it.
Hope to see some grad student with access to those sweet subscription databases churn this out in under six months though. Maybe work on this with a master's thesis or one of the many CV lines they will need on the academic job market. The 25 BTC is more than academic publication would pay, but people who choose grad school probably aren't into the making decisions for economy thing.
I think a reasonable expectation is something under 500. It was what I had in mind, based on the 600ish they were last year according to informal polling of a coupla people who'd reasonably know.
Also I think people donating a little bit of time to help things along - perhaps just as much as researching their local district, or even just one person would be a splendid way to help the community blossom into utility and also give people an excellent opportunity both to reclaim control of their very own immediate environment and to learn a lot of valuable stuff.
I am willing to purchase subscriptions in advance for this effort, as long as the costs are reasonable. (A few hundred is fine). It would also make excellent master's or undergrad thesis material, absolutely.
I imagine at my pace I plan on working anything I need will be reasonably found without needing any subscriptions.
There are quite a few unemployed Law graduates in the United States though, and one of them might have the foresight to take the lead on this project. I'd also hope with their training they would be able to utilize Westlaw or Lexis Nexis better than I. It probably isn't useful to invent hypothetical grad students or unemployed lawyers though, but I hope some more actual people appear to either help with an effort or do this themselves and surprise everybody.
Accessible alphabetically, or by district.
Certainly a very good step forward. Some problems remain, because there's no real way to know if that list is actually complete, and also it's more likely to be reflective of the situation recently than 1993.
As a side point, maybe the best way to handle the data collection for this task is putting up a dedicated wiki, I'm thinking ?
"As of March 2009 there are 517 full-time and 42 part-time authorized magistrate judgeships, as well as one position combining magistrate judge and clerk of court."
It seems fairly complete at first glance.
Now about the qualifier: "under the supervision of district judges holding office on October 4th, 1993 and aged 40 years or less".
The district judges are also listed.
So, if I write a script that fetches the wiki pages of each magistrate and district judge, then we can easily filter by age and whatnot.
Basically the qualifier wants magistrates that were such in 1993, and younger than 40 at that time (so under 60 today).
Right, I did suspect I hadn't fully understood the qualifier, sorry about that.
If we are excluding retired magistrates, then all the ones we want should be in the list of 563 judges. Figuring out exactly when each of them was appointed might be a little tricky, but at least a few of the judge pages I looked at, did indeed mention an appointment date.
Not sure where to start looking for more historical records of magistrate judgeships. Looking at V again, I see you want people that are still magistrates, as well as people that have moved on to different jobs.
Perhaps someone could ask these guys for a list of (past) members.
No see, the thought process here is : take all the people in group X at time Y, score what those people have been doing with regards to criteria K, see how tall those people are at Y+t. This will allow you to see if there's any correlation between criteria K and height over delta time t.
So it's not a matter of taking the list of magistrates of today, and it's not a matter of improving that list by excluding the ex magistrates or anything of the sort. It's a matter of taking the list of magistratres of 1993. Similarly, if you were trying to calculate the war casualties of WW2, you wouldn't want the list of soldiers active in 1945, nor would you try to exclude from this list people who weren't soldiers in 1935. You'd want the list of soldiers from 1935.
The current magistrature list is a useful thing to have. Nevertheless what needs to be done on that score is, for each of the circuit courts, go through the list of appointments starting 1985 (magistrate judges are appointed for 8 year terms). This is public information, for instance in the case of Arizona you have the most recent this March : Appointment of Full Time United States Magistrate Judge Hector C. Estrada for the District of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona (SUPERSEDES General Orders 12-26 and 05-07). It even includes a link to the order.
One of the reasons the current magistrature list is useful is because many of these are re-appointment orders (for instance in Arizona three people were re-appointed 06/08/2009 - this means they also held their office in 2001). It may be the case 1985 - 2000 documentary evidence is not as well represented on the Internet as 2005 and following, in which case this will take a little work - requesting information from the courts, checking specialised publications on paper format at library etc. Nevertheless, the appointment of magistrate judges is public record and not particularly obscure public record at that.
Africk has at least two relevant cases: 2:13-cv-00013-LMA-DEK and 2:05-cr-00046-LMA-SS.
That's as far as I'm going, partly because a lot of these court filings are behind paywalls, and partly because it's not clear from document titles or summaries whether or not either party is an agent of the USG. Case in point, 1:06-cv-03083-RDB, listed as Rendina v. Leavitt. It is only upon retrieving the full article that you learn defendant Leavitt is in fact Michael Leavitt, appearing in his capacity as Secretary, US Dept of Health & Human Services.
I think the style of summary that you present works just fine for the purpose.
Interesting point re the uselessness of case titles/sumaries for statistical analysis.
A year after the 1994 Digital Telephony bill passed, the FBI disclosed plans to require the phone companies to build into their infrastructure the capacity to simultaneously wiretap one percent of all phone calls in all major US cities. This would represent more than a thousandfold increase over previous levels in the number of phones that could be wiretapped. In previous years, there were only about 1000 court-ordered wiretaps in the US per year, at the federal, state, and local levels combined. It's hard to see how the government could even employ enough judges to sign enough wiretap orders to wiretap 1% of all our phone calls, much less hire enough federal agents to sit and listen to all that traffic in real time.
There were over 500 in 2009, that's a tenfold increase over the decade. Of course magistrate judges aren't really judges at all, more like gov't lackeys injected in the court system. But they do sign those orders, and so it goes.
0	In Chin v. Rogoff & Co., P.C. (No. 05 Civ. 8360(NRB)), Buchwald granted a motion to compel the production of emails withheld from discovery on the basis of the attorney work-product doctrine and attorney-client privilege.
0	In U.S. v. Carrasquillo (03 CR. 952(NRB)), Buchwald denied a motion to suppress letters recovered from the defendant's prison cell pursuant to a search warrant.
1	In U.S. v. Tubbs (No. CR05-5828FDB), Burgess ordered that defendant's discovery motion be found moot as to the materiality of an encrypted email, maps, and information on a hard drive. Additionally, the defendant's motion for the production of emails by an incarcerated person was denied.
0	In Marriott v. County of Montgomery (No. 5:03–CV–531), Hurd overturned an order compelling production of letters from defense counsel to non-party witness.
0	In U.S. v. Friedman (No. 95–CR–192 (S–3)(ARR), 96–CR–182 (ARR)), Ponsor denied a motion to suppress an incriminating piece of paper with phone numbers seized under the plain view doctrine.
0	In U.S. v. Scarfo (Criminal Action No. 00–404 (NHP)), Politan denied a motion to suppress evidence of an illegal gambling and loansharking operation seized from an encrypted file on a computer.
Africk was nominated by President Bush in 2002 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and is still currently serving.
Battaglia was nominated by President Obama in 2011 to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and is still currently serving.
Bennett was nominated by President Clinton in 1994 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa and is still currently serving.
Blake was nominated by President Clinton to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and is still currently serving.
Boyle was nominated by President Bush in 2004 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and is still currently serving.
Breen has served as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee since 2013.
Brinkema was nominated by President Clinton in 1993 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and is still currently serving.
Buchwald assumed senior status in 2012 and was nominated by President Clinton in 1999 to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Bucklo assumed senior status in 2009 and was nominated by President Clinton in 1994 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Burgess passed away in March 2010 from cancer. He was nominated by President Clinton in 1994 to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Carr assumed senior status in 2010 and was nominated by President Clinton in 1994 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Cavanaugh retired in January 2014. Cavanaugh was nominated by President Clinton in 2000 to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Chasanow assumed senior status in 2014 and was nominated by President Clinton in 1993 to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Chesler was nominated by President Bush in 2002 to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and is still currently serving.
Conrad has served as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia since 2010.
Crone was nominated by President Bush in 2003 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and is still currently serving.
Delgado-Colon has served as Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico since 2011.
Gershon assumed senior status in 2008 and was nominated by President Clinton in 2006 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Gottschall assumed senior status in 2012 and was nominated by President Clinton in 1996 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Guirola has served as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi since 2010.
Guzman assumed senior status in 2014 and was nominated by President Clinton in 1999 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Hamilton assumed senior status in 2013 and was nominated by President Bush in 1990 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Haynes assumed senior status in 2014. He was nominated by President Clinton in 1999 to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
Hunt assumed senior status in 2011. He was nominated by President Clinton to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in 2000.
Hurd was nominated by President Clinton in 1999 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and is still currently serving.
Jarvey was nominated by President Bush in 2007 to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa and is still currently serving.
King has served as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California since 2012.
Kugler was nominated by President Bush in 2002 to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and is still currently serving.
Lancaster served as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania from 2009 until 2013, when he passed away.
Lefkow assumed senior status in 2012. She was nominated by President Clinton in 2000 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Lemelle was nominated by President Clinton in 1998 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and is still currently serving.
McKnight was nominated by President Bush in 2003 to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina and served until he passed in 2004.
Moskowitz has served as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California since 2012.
Pallmeyer was nominated by President Clinton in 1998 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and is still currently serving.
Payne has served as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma since 2002.
Perry has served as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri since 2009.
Phillips assumed senior status in 2013. He was nominated by President Bush in 2002 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
Pisano retired from the court in 2015. He was nominated by President Clinton in 2000 to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Ponsor assumed senior status in 2011. He was nominated by President Clinton in 1994 to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Ross assumed senior status in 2011. She was nominated by President Clinton in 1994 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Shepherd was nominated by President Bush in 2006 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and is still currently serving.
Steele was nominated by President Clinton in 2000 to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and is still currently serving.
Steele has served as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama since 2010.
Wilken assumed senior status in 2014. She was nominated by President Clinton in 1993 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Hatchett retired from the court in 1999. He was nominated by President Carter in 1981 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Politan retired from the court in 2002. He was nominated by President Reagon in 1987 to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Good thing you said something, I was contemplating closing this for being idle like a year.
Africk was born in 1951, putting him over the 40 or less age limit in 1993. Moreover, re In U.S. v. DaSilva (2:13-cv-00013-LMA-DEK), it would appear Africk was very confused in re allowing a contractor employed by the USG to redact an email address; the Bates number in question, 5, is marked with "No in camera review is necessary with respect to this document, and USCIS is entitled to summary judgment with respect to Bates number 5." (pg 10), whereas the conclusion (pg 14) marks it together with other Bates numbers which "the Court defers ruling...pending in camera review".
I'm not entirely sure how one would find which decision was followed through. Something is off here, tho' (me? lol).
Re In U.S. v. Gocha (No. CR07-2006-MWB), judge Bennett was born in 1950, pushing him over the age limit. The given link corresponds to a ruling by one Paul A. Zoss, who notes that "...Bennett issued an order adopting the undersigned's recommendation as to the first of the three search warrants challenged by Gocha, but remanding the matter to the undersigned for the filing of a supplemental Report and Recommendation as to Gocha's motion to suppress the second and third search warrants." It seems warrants two and three are those that deal with the palm pilot etc. Is there documentation of Bennett himself denying Gocha's motion regarding these? Should the summary perhaps describe the remanding rather than imply direct denial?
Re In U.S. v DeWoody (No. 02 CR 550), judge Bucklo was born in 1944, making her overage. Also, should the fact that the case in question regards a sting operation be mentioned in summary and/or taken into scoring consideration? The defendant contended that the police "either deliberately chose not to record the beginning of the conversation or later destroyed the recording of that portion of the transcript, which allegedly contained exculpatory evidence essential to an entrapment defense."
Judge Carr was born in 1940, making him overage. Other overagers in the list: Chasanow, Conrad, Gottschall, Haynes, Hurd, Moskowitz, Phillips, Pisano, Ponsor, Steele, Wilken, Hatchett (who was not, so far as I can tell, ever a magistrate judge), and Politan (also never a magistrate judge).
I treated the list nubbins supplied above as canonical.
>should the fact that the case in question regards a sting operation be mentioned in summary and/or taken into scoring consideration? The defendant contended that the police "either deliberately chose not to record the beginning of the conversation or later destroyed the recording of that portion of the transcript, ..."
Maybe. The lack of evidence to support the defendant's claim made me hesitant to bump the score, but I can see why a score of one would be reasonable.
"I. compile a list of all the judges serving on each of the 94 district courts as magistrate judges under the supervision of district judges holding office on October 4th, 1993 and aged 40 years or less"
"II. And then for each of these individually compile a record showing all their rulings, orders and decisions which in any way touched upon individual rights of privacy, broadly construed so as to include anything relating to the production of communications of private persons in any written form, limited to an adversarial proceeding in which the US Government, or any agency or representative thereof was party, with proper case reference by number and where available link to published court proceedings"
In Chin v. Rogoff & Co., P.C. (No. 05 Civ. 8360(NRB)), Buchwald granted a motion to compel the production of emails withheld from discovery on the basis of the attorney work-product doctrine and attorney-client privilege.
In U.S. v. Carrasquillo (03 CR. 952(NRB)), Buchwald denied a motion to suppress letters recovered from the defendant's prison cell pursuant to a search warrant.
In U.S. v. Tubbs (No. CR05-5828FDB), Burgess ordered that defendant's discovery motion be found moot as to the materiality of an encrypted email, maps, and information on a hard drive. Additionally, the defendant's motion for the production of emails by an incarcerated person was denied.
"III. And then for each of these individually compiled records score the judge's manifested obsequiousness to the government on a scale from -2 to +2 including 0, wherein 0 reflects the neutral and impartial position an ideal judge might be expected to take on the matter, and 1 reflects the slightly partial position a judge may take in support of a government position or against an individual's position contrary to the government's, when such partiality is merely stylistical or otherwise apparent but not substantially causing a perceptible effect in the ruling, order or decision rendered, and -1 reflects the slightly partial position a judge may take in support of an individual's position contrary the government or against the government's position, when such partiality is merely stylistical or otherwise apparent but not substantially causing a perceptible effect in the ruling, order or decision rendered, and 2 reflects the gross partiality towards the government's position or against an individual's position contrary to the government's position which results in the ruling, order or decision being quashed on appeal, or if not appealed reasonably expectable to have been quashed by an ideal, impartial judge, or if appealed and not quashed egregious enough to warrant inclusion, and -2 reflects the gross partiality for an individual's position against the government's, or against the government's position which results in the ruling, order or decision being quashed on appeal, or if not appealed reasonably expectable to have been quashed by an ideal, impartial judge, or if appealed and not quashed egregious enough to warrant inclusion."
"IV. And then add together for each judge individually these scores creating a record showing the total score, the total items counted and statistical considerations on the quality of the sample"
Due to the small size of the sample, no statistical inferences can be made.
"V. And then for each of the judges research and discover their current position in the legal system, or if not in the legal system in politics, or if neither in politics then simply as private persons without further research"
Cavanaugh retired in January 2014 and has joined the private practice McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney, and Carpenter LLP. Cavanaugh was nominated by President Clinton in 2000 to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
"VI. And then collate and present all this data publicly for review"
I imagine it's likely there's more. Once I can get some time away from this stator build I'll take a closer look, hopefully can get all of them listed.
Hm... The first woman looks like maybe she was too old to qualify, but the other too seem legit.
I guess this project is back to phase 1.
Data for Judges Moreno and Wolfson has been included.
Links to motions pertaining to Chin v. Rogoff & Co, U.S. v. Carrasquillo, and U.S. v. Tubbs have been added.
Blake was nominated by President Clinton in 1995 to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and is still currently serving.
Moreno has served as a part-time Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court of South Dakota since 1993 and is still currently serving.
Wolfson was nominated by President Bush in 2002 to the United States District Court of New Jersey and is still currently serving.
Since this was being discussed in the logs today, I went and checked the address - 13iGD7nu6kXTtPS9DxKhY4gJdgchvdXJFH. There's 26.77796860 BTC in there currently.
The total list of magistrates from the above link’s database export as of 02 July 2016 follows.
Alrighty, nearly three years (!) after original publication, it looks like it's time to wrap this matter up.
To all those that participated : please talk among yourselves, and submit plans to split the 26.77796860 BTC reward (ie, who gets how much). I will pick the one that looks fairest out of the most widely supported two.
Today is 9 July 2016 and I submit that ’hanbot’ should be rewarded with 4 BTC and I, ‘mats’, receive 22.7779686 BTC, for work on the research job described in http://trilema.com/2013/so-whos-running-the-courts-circus. If ‘nubbins`’ reaches out to me on IRC in the next sixty days and identifies himself with the key stored in deedbot, I will award him 0.5 BTC from the pool for his efforts.
Given that 4 BTC would allocate a bit over a sixth of the pool to me, I think mats' proposal is over-generous, my "contribution" consisting merely of some review and fact checking against mats' clear initiative.
I think 2 BTC would be a more reasonable allocation, with mats receiving the remainder.
The reward for my work on the research project can be sent to the address 1JfVmR15gbKBQ3UAeXZyE4NgPKG9jhkZFn.
Enjoy, and thanks for the work!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.