This is all about nothing. The first US Inn was started at Brigham Young University (about as conservative as you get). Professionalism and civility are what we talk about. I’m been asked to assist in planning and scheduling meetings (which are held once a month during the school year) for my local Inn.

This year, we’ve had CLE meetings about AI how it is impacting the legal community, what it can and can’t do, and its potential impact on the attorney client privilege. This month we had a presentation on civility with a judge teaching everyone about problems he sees in the courtroom.

Students, law professors, judges, practitioners all attend to learn and get CLE credit. And, of course, for the attorneys’ networking.

Its goal is to promote the profession. Bringing top practitioners in and judges helps with the education.

This really is much ado about nothing.


https://www.innsofcourt.org/AI...0Washington%2C%20D.C.

Something is fishy. I heard all these judges and lawyers hang out together at the Bar almost every day.

Hell, it was worth it to start this thread, just to have a member tell me that not everything is a conspiracy.

^^^^
To be fair, it’s a tad elitist but I’ve enjoyed my Inn.

I think the elites socialize with both sides of the political spectrum all the time. To a lot of them, politics doesn’t matter except to better manage the population. In Robert’s case, at first glance I see nothing. But couple that with the many suspect decisions and you might be inclined to think otherwise.

I will never play in that world and quite frankly I’m not sure I would want to if I could.

quote:

Originally posted by cruiser68:
In Robert’s case, at first glance I see nothing. But couple that with the many suspect decisions and you might be inclined to think otherwise.

Roberts is compromised, and has been for years, at least since his insane ruling on Obamacare. This private club may or may not be the source of that compromise, but some heavy hitters on the Left have something on him.


.

Journey to the Center of The Swamp.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:


Hell, it was worth it to start this thread, just to have a member tell me that not everything is a conspiracy.

Still laughing my ass of at this.

Yeah, what a hoot!

On a serious note:

John Roberts’ Obsession With SCOTUS Legitimacy Has Severely Delegitimized It

The chief irony of Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure at the Supreme Court is that the man so doggedly devoted to defending the judiciary has done so much to undermine it. In so doing, he has threatened not only the court’s legitimacy but the republic itself.

His latest such act wasn’t an abomination of a ruling on the level of Obamacare, the census citizenship question, or DACA; a faulty probe into a devastating leak; or a defense of the indefensible censorship-industrial complex. It was a terse three-line statement that may prove the most consequential — and corrosive — move of them all.

“For more than two centuries,” the chief justice wrote, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

With that statement, the chief justice revealed not only that he suffers from the very self-aggrandizement plaguing the lower court judges but that he is either willfully blind to the brewing fire or lacks the will to put it out. Apparently, he is content to let it spread — digging in, defending courts acting lawlessly, and deferring to the “process.” At the same time, he attacks those who would dare notice the judiciary is self-immolating by subverting representative government and demand that something be done about it.

The chief justice’s statement came in direct response to a Truth Social post President Donald Trump published hours earlier. There, the president called for the impeachment of D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg — an unelected member of the federal judiciary, as Trump emphasized. Boasberg effectively usurped the president’s power and mandate to combat illegal immigration by thwarting his policy and micromanaging his operations to deport the terrorist illegal aliens of Tren de Aragua.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced articles of impeachment against the judge for imperiling the nation, overstepping, and creating a “constitutional crisis” as the Trump-Roberts kerfuffle unfolded.

The self-aggrandizement lies in the chief justice’s apparent belief that he has the right and obligation to opine on the expressly political act of impeachment when that is a question for the legislative branch and ultimately the public it represents. What is absolutely “not an appropriate response” is to issue statements like his from the chambers of the Supreme Court — effectively seeking to interfere in the legislative branch’s deliberations.

Further, if you wanted to politicize the court and undermine the perception of its impartiality, what more could Chief Justice Roberts have done than to rebuke President Trump over his post? Moreover, Roberts did so after having previously attacked Trump for his 2018 comments about biased judges — while remaining silent as former President Biden flouted the court’s rulings; Biden and other Democrat leaders lambasted the Supreme Court and attacked its members; some called for their impeachment; and their followers threatened judges’ lives and courthouses with destruction.

To add insult to injury, Roberts showed animus toward a president who is party to litigation pending in lower courts almost assuredly ticketed for his own, and in fact, to litigation already sitting at the Supreme Court today — concerning the very dangerous judicial overreach to which the president’s post is referring.

The broader context here makes Roberts’ statement even more outrageous. Trump’s post alluded to “crooked” judges who have effectively colluded in unprecedented lawfare with the blue states, left-wing NGOs, and administrative state actors that have filed more than 100 lawsuits aimed at paralyzing the president. The plaintiffs have proven partially successful by bringing those cases to courts (like that of Boasberg’s D.C. District) populated with Democrat nominees who have prohibited the administration from implementing its agenda at mass scale and with reckless abandon.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller put it well, noting that district court judges have “assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief,” while dictating “the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration.”

The executive’s effort to reassert control over the executive branch — home of the unelected and unaccountable administrative state saboteurs of the Trump I agenda — and ensure it helps him fulfill the Trump II mandate, has now resulted in the unelected and unaccountable members of the judiciary resisting. There’s your assault on democracy, not to mention the republic.

Collectively in these cases, we have witnessed judges arguably rule on nonjusticiable issues, impose improper remedies, and ignore Supreme Court precedent — at times on behalf of plaintiffs arguably lacking in standing, with the judges themselves sometimes lacking in jurisdiction.

Most egregiously, as I recently reported at RealClearInvestigations, they have done so via universal injunctions issued at historic speed, scale, and of maximum potency.

This is a novel remedy, neither called for in the Constitution nor arguably in federal law, that exploded in usage under the first Trump administration. It faced nearly two-thirds of all injunctions issued this century, 92 percent of which were handed down by Democrat-nominated judges. Then, despite the urgings of Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues refused to rule on their legitimacy.

As a consequence of the court’s lack of urgency, in the single month of February 2025 alone, federal judges issued more universal injunctions against the Trump administration than they did during the first three years of the Biden administration.

The Trump administration noted in a recent court filing that federal judges “have issued not just universal injunctions, but universal TROs,” generally unappealable orders at times granted without even giving the administration a hearing.

“They have run their writ not just nationwide, but worldwide,” the administration added, “And they have awarded not just universal injunctive relief, but de facto universal damages.”

This was a reference in part to the freeze of the administration’s foreign aid pause and the demand that it pay out $2 billion in funds allegedly owed to non-parties to the case all over the world pursuant to a universal TRO issued by D.C. District Judge Amir Ali. The Supreme Court refused to rule on that order, drawing the ire of Justice Alito, who issued a scathing dissent joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — but not Roberts.

As the rulings get more and more absurd in nature and reach, and as the ability of the administration to fulfill its basic constitutional duties becomes ever more imperiled, Roberts’ call for following “the normal appellate review process” — which the administration has done — is beyond alarming.

His unwillingness to rein in the lower courts is precisely why, as I further reported, members of Congress are mobilizing to halt universal injunctions by law and now to a lesser extent calling for impeaching judges. The chief justice’s willingness to let the lower courts that Congress created engage in such injustice has compelled the legislative branch to act.

That his inclination is evidently to defend the judges burning down the judiciary — and, to use another metaphor, to let cases sufficiently ripen while the entire institution rots — is remarkable.

Chief Justice Roberts self-evidently believes that the courts’ critics are a bigger problem than the lawless judges who have garnered such richly deserved criticism.

His statement is also an invitation for lower court judges to act and rule ever more brazenly. After all, the most they have to fear for egregiously political rulings is being smacked down in the “normal appellate review process.”

In near identical cases before the Supreme Court right now, the Trump administration has called for a stay of several universal injunctions upending its executive order curbing birthright citizenship. It has also called for the Supreme Court to “declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched.”

Ruling rightly on this fundamental issue by ending universal injunctions once and for all is the least the chief justice can do to defend not only the judiciary, but our country.

Elites like to daisy chain each other. Makes them feel special.

I asked X's Grok to tell me what it knew about this matter. Here are the concluding comments:

quote:

Report: Detailed Analysis of the Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court and Chief Justice Roberts' Membership
The Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court, named after the renowned lawyer Edward Bennett Williams, is a significant professional organization within the American legal community, particularly in Washington, D.C. This report provides a comprehensive overview of the Inn's purpose, structure, and activities, alongside an in-depth examination of Chief Justice John Roberts' association with it, based on available information as of March 20, 2025.

Background on the Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court

The Inn of Court is part of the broader American Inns of Court, an organization founded to promote the highest levels of professionalism in legal practice through education, mentoring, and example. The Edward Bennett Williams Inn specifically focuses on white-collar criminal defense and prosecution, bringing together a diverse membership that includes defense lawyers, prosecutors, and federal trial and appellate judges. Its activities include monthly programs on relevant legal topics, fostering dialogue and collaboration among legal professionals.

Edward Bennett Williams, after whom the Inn is named, was a celebrated trial lawyer and Washington insider, known for representing high-profile clients such as Senator Joseph McCarthy and Jimmy Hoffa. His legacy is also honored through the Edward Bennett Williams Law Library at Georgetown University Law Center, highlighting his influence on the legal community.

The Inn's operations are noted for their exclusivity and secrecy, with some reports suggesting that much of its online presence, including membership lists, has been removed from public view, adding to its enigmatic reputation. This secrecy has raised concerns about transparency, particularly in the context of judicial ethics and democracy, as discussed in recent analyses.

Membership and Activities

Membership in the Inn is by invitation only, comprising distinguished judges, lawyers, law professors, and law students. The organization aims to improve skills, professionalism, and ethics within the legal community, with a particular emphasis on white-collar practice. A recent meeting on February 15, 2024, held in the District of Columbia Court of Judge Amit Mehta, illustrates its activities, with approximately 150 lawyers, including several Federal District Judges, in attendance. Panelists at this event included Joel Sickler, Michael Horowitz (DOJ Inspector General), Seth Eichenholtz (Deputy Assistant Attorney General), and Vanessa Rojas, a returning citizen offering perspectives on Bureau of Prisons reforms. Additional attendees included Seth Rosenthal, Chief Deputy Attorney General for the Office of AG District of Columbia, underscoring the high caliber of participants.

The Inn's events, such as panels on antitrust enforcement and discussions on legal privileges, are hosted in collaboration with law firms and judicial bodies, further emphasizing its role as a hub for legal discourse. However, the lack of publicly available membership lists and the deletion of certain online content suggest a deliberate effort to maintain privacy, which has been a point of contention in recent reports.

Chief Justice John Roberts' Membership

Research suggests that Chief Justice John Roberts is a member of the Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court, based on a recent investigation published by The Gateway Pundit on March 20, 2025. This report describes the Inn as a "secretive, invite-only club of elite judges and lawyers," explicitly including Roberts among its members. It references his involvement in the context of a 2024 meeting, though it does not provide direct evidence of his attendance at specific events. This connection is significant, given Roberts' position as Chief Justice of the United States, and it raises potential ethical questions about judicial impartiality, especially given the Inn's secretive nature.

Supporting this, other high-profile members, such as Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, who serves as President of the Inn, and Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, are also noted in various sources, indicating the organization's elite status. Boasberg's appointment to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Roberts, as mentioned on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia website (Chief Judge James E. Boasberg), further illustrates the interconnectedness of these figures, though it does not directly confirm Roberts' membership.

The report from The Gateway Pundit also references X posts, such as one by user pepesgrandma (X post) and another (X post), which provide additional context on the Inn's activities and membership, reinforcing the claim of Roberts' involvement. However, the lack of corroboration from more neutral sources, such as official Inn records or mainstream legal publications, suggests caution in interpreting this information, given the potential for bias in the source.

Implications and Controversies

The revelation of Chief Justice Roberts' membership in such a secretive organization has sparked discussions about judicial ethics and transparency. The Gateway Pundit article highlights concerns about the impact on democracy, including lawsuits over recusal worries and the dangers of secrecy, particularly in light of recent judicial controversies. This is an unexpected detail, as it connects Roberts to a group whose operations are not fully transparent, potentially affecting public perception of judicial impartiality.

Given the Inn's focus on white-collar crime and its inclusion of both defense and prosecution members, Roberts' involvement could be seen as part of his broader engagement with the legal community. However, the lack of public documentation and the organization's secretive nature make it challenging to assess the extent of his participation or the implications for his judicial role.

Interestingly enough, all that Grok knows comes from that same Gateway Pundit report. Hey, at least Grok keeps up on things.

What he said to Trump is acceptable. But I can’t see Justices being a member of an invite only club.

How much more exclusive can you get than be a member of a nine member club???

And what about cases that would have gone through a lower level court judge? You’re going to say they’re going to be objective and not lean towards not overturning a fellow member’s ruling? What about members that have to present cases to the court?

You mean to tell me lawyers and judges that are members of the same club are not going to ever talk shop? That they won’t pick their colleagues’ brains on what they think about an issue?

They have rules against jury members talking about the case outside the courthouse and those jurors don’t know each other except for the one particular case they happen to sit together.

It’s like going to a surgeon’s club and not expecting them to talk about patients and operations.

Well, OK. If this just a benign, above board, elite organization whose only purpose is to give their members a place to relax and play Yahtzee, then so be it. I guess there is no problem with an appearance of impropriety

Roberts. I don't trust that SOB,.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...734408&lctg=26773771

Update: Social Media Falsely Claims Chief Justice John Roberts Is In Secret Club of Judges

This article has been updated as more information became available.

According to long-time conservative activists, journalists, and the Associated Press, the “secret” society for judges and lawyers is false. Social media users falsely claimed that Chief Roberts and other high-level legal professionals were part of a “secretive, invite only club.”

"But the group in question — the American Inns of Court — is hardly secretive given its large public presence, and there is no evidence that members are involved in nefarious activities targeting Trump. Roberts is no longer an active member and Boasberg is the president of a chapter that is no longer affiliated with the parent association.

Here's a closer look at the facts.

CLAIM: Roberts, Boasberg and other powerful legal professionals are part of a secret, invite-only club that is working against Trump.

THE FACTS: This is false. Roberts was a member of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court chapter of the organization prior to his confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2005, but he is not currently an active member of the organization, according to Executive Director Malinda Dunn."

The Inns of Court has seen many current and former Supreme Court justices, including Sandra Day O'Connor, Neil Gorsuch, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Clarence Thomas.

The group began in the United Kingdom with the American wing of the group being founded in 1980.
The website states that the goal of the group is to maintain and improve an ethical level of professionalism. According to its website, its mission is to “inspire the legal community to advance the rule of law by achieving the highest level of professionalism through example, education, and mentoring.”

It was previously reported that Chief Justice John Roberts was linked to an elitist circle of judges and lawyers, including figures like James Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Amit Mehta, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. However, this influential group has found themselves at the crosshairs of critical social media users, who argue that these legal elites, many with close ties to powerful political and legal establishments, were part of a secret society.

A now-debunked report conducted by journalist Bad Kitty Unleashed, claimed that Roberts was involved with an invite-only club for elite, Trump-hating judges in Washington, DC.

He explained that there are four historic Inns of Court in the UK, with one—Middle Temple—receiving significant funding from George Soros, where Chief Roberts serves as a master of the bench. The U.S. has modeled a similar institution in recent decades, with many of our judges affiliated with The Edward Bennett Williams (EBW) Inn of Court. He claimed that the group operates with a high level of secrecy, even going so far as to remove most references to it from their website despite continuing their meetings. However, its website often include details about the group’s programs which often focuse on networking, education, and mentorship.

They're paying the price, too, and frankly, they earned it.

Bad Bad Kitty. Bad.

That's the last time I'll listen to you.

https://x.com/pepesgrandma/status/1903558247581151357

When dealing with posts regarding all things legal, I've found checking with Shipwreckedcrew on X is a good place to smoke out some of the chatter on X.

22 years as fed. prosecutor; Rep'd 91 Jan 6 clients
+
https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew

He's worth a follow

The thing is that Bad Kitty has a loyal, almost fanatical following. I don't think they were intending to intentionally mislead anyone, although with someone whose investigative skills are so lauded, it's difficult to understand how they made such a mistake.

Inns of Court is no big deal.

@bdylan, He laid out the correct way that they should have argued against the Affordable Care act - and I think they could have refiled with the correct argument.

The plaintiffs were playing politics, rather than being lawyers and refused to make the correct argument - and a judge in the U.S. cannot make an argument for a party.

All things considered, I prefer the result that this was a nothingburger.

I've long maintained to be skeptical of any information especially if, not just even if, the source is supposedly on your side.

But there really was no direct actionable information in the allegation. About the only danger is that the next time a real news item comes out, it will be poo-pooed.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
All things considered, I prefer the result that this was a nothingburger.

My thoughts as well.