Eric Dickman, attorney at law

07/28/2026

Are the Courts learning that the DOJ can no longer be trusted to tell the truth?

This story was originally published by ProPublica. Across the country, federal judges...

07/27/2026

https://digbysblog.net/2026/07/26/no-rights-trump-is-bound-to-respect/

Lie to me once, shame on you Law your government ignores does not protect you. Hang onto that thought. Meidas Touch reports the latest move in journalist Katie Phang's case against Donald Trump's Department of Injustice (his schoolyard taunt). Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the Trump DOJ to hand over....

07/27/2026

Law your government ignores does not protect you. Hang onto that thought.

07/27/2026

Will this be Robert's legacy?

07/24/2026

When a safe drug becomes political.

A federal judge in Virginia ruled in favor of an abortion provider...

07/17/2026

In a rare move, the New York City Bar Association says Todd Blanche is unfit to lead the Department of Justice.

"In a July 13, 2026 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley and Ranking Member Dick Durbin, the New York City Bar Association urged the Committee to reject the nomination of Todd Blanche as U.S. Attorney General. The letter, signed by City Bar President Matthew Diller and Rule of Law Task Force Chair Susan J. Kohlmann, concludes that Mr. Blanche’s record as Deputy and Acting Attorney General demonstrates a lack of commitment to the integrity, independence, and impartiality the office requires. The City Bar’s analysis addresses five areas: politically motivated prosecutions, violations of constitutional rights and court orders, misplaced loyalty to the President, the weakening of the Department of Justice, and questions of professional ethics."

The New York City Bar Association urges the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Todd Blanche's nomination for Attorney General, citing his record on prosecutorial independence and the rule of law.

07/14/2026

Occupy Democrats editor Jason Michak:

Disbarment is not a consequence wiped away by a pardon, and it damn sure is a consequence. Some of Trump’s slimiest deals, like this one — but not at all limited to this one: look at the attorneys appearing to sell Trump pardons, look at attorneys going after Trump’s political enemies. If defending bar referrals suddenly became part of the job, fewer would want the job. Indeed, far fewer would push the limits of the job, limits like possibly stretching the truth beyond imagination, limits like working as part of the White House Counsel’s office, and stuff “heard” but doesn’t align with what’s presented to the court. Some might find themselves actually telling a few uncomfortable truths rather than hiding them out of nothing less than fear of losing their career, having entered Trump’s service with dreams of enhancing it.

07/13/2026

Ouch.

"John Adams warned, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Thus, whatever may be the Parties’ wishes, inclinations, or the dictates of their passion, they cannot alter the state of the facts or evade the rule of law. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ concern, the Court did not have to “sally forth” to look for a wrong to right. See DE 89 at 17 (citing Margolin v. Nat’l Ass’n of Immig. Judges, 608 U.S. __ (2026)). The Court need only look to the uncontroverted facts here."

From the conclusion overturning the Trump slush fund and lifetime no-tax-audit agreement.

07/13/2026

The top line is that President Donald Trump and his two eldest sons’ $10-billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was brought for “an improper purpose,” a Florida-based federal judge ruled. The judge also recommended attorney sanctions for the Trumps’ lawyers.

The 56-page opinion is worth at least skimming.

ORDER. See attached document for full details. Signed by Judge Kathleen M. Williams on 7/13/2026. (ah06) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

07/02/2026

The Supreme Court gaslights the US public and gives up any pretense of being independent.

The court has "converted a credibility problem into a legitimacy problem." There's an important difference — and it should scare you.