Lessons from Poor Behavior

I take the opportunity here periodically to highlight the importance of the judicial role. Those who are entrusted with the critical decisions and outcomes have a serious duty to the system, the public, and themselves. Recently, an anonymous (momentarily) judge was reprimanded by the Eleventh Circuit, and the story is of import to every judge.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was established by separating Alabama, Florida, and Georgia from the Fifth Circuit in 1980, according to the Federal Judicial Center. Justia says that there are 14 Federal District Judges in Alabama, 18 in Georgia, and there are 18 in Florida, according to the District Court page (excluding senior judges). 

Of the three states, only two have "district attorneys," Alabama and Georgia. Florida has "state attorneys" instead. That fact may or may not be important to this story of judicial behavior. 

In February 2026, the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit entered a "CONFIDENTIAL" order regarding Judicial Complaint No. 11-25-90212. In late May 2026, it was widely shared on social media platforms; some comments there have been critical of the judge and the judiciary generally. The order is also available on the Circuit Court's website. After its publication, there was curiosity and perhaps conjecture that may have cast a shadow on all 50 district judges in the Circuit.

As if social media were not pervasive enough, the story caught the attention of Bloomberg, CNBC, HuffPost, Reuters, FoxNews, New York Post, Yahoo, Reason, Above the Law, Associated Press, the Hindustan Times (India), Inkl (Australia), Marca (Spain), and more. Some have even stooped to involving the judge's family (citation omitted). A Wikipedia page regarding the judge has already been updated to include details of the Order and outcome. Some are mentioning potential further proceedings, and others are encouraging House of Representatives action. 

The order imposes a "private reprimand" on a federal district court judge that centers on allegations of behavior both in and out of the office. Some of its factual conclusions and allegations are somewhat salacious and not worthy of repetition here (click links above if interested). 

It is likely, however, that those salacious points are what drove the now-international news coverage, and that they will remain a point of reference for the remainder of a career (and perhaps the careers of others; multiple court employees were pulled into the investigation as innocent victims/witnesses of the poor judicial temperament and decisions). 

It is troubling that someone's grandchildren may one day read the stories, tweets, and other commentary about their behavior. Some of the social media is accompanied by images seemingly created with artificial intelligence, and there are references there that some would find simply vulgar. One wonders if social media posters realize the potential impact on people's families, friends, and associates.

The order is, however, a rare glimpse into the judicial discipline process of the federal courts. There were allegations brought to the attention of the chief judge in one of the districts, which were then relayed to the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit. 

The allegations were communicated, "promptly denied" by the district judge, and then reduced to a formal "complaint of judicial misconduct" and referred to an "appointed ... special committee to investigate the complaint." There were witness interviews, some inspection of premises, and later the "Subject Judge recanted the initial denial and admitted" to some of the alleged behavior.

The allegations involved judicial supervision of clerk's work (remember Just Delete it, October 2025), judicial demeanor in the role of supervisor, attendance at a political event, and involvement in a personal and salacious intimate relationship in the judge's chambers during work hours. 

The political event was for a "District Attorney," immediately suggesting the probability that these allegations were not related to Florida (though it is common for many to refer to prosecutors generically as "district attorney," which is not seemingly as prevalent in Florida, even as a shorthand or convenience). Thus, for many, the initial shadow was cast more over Alabama and Georgia judges. 

The Chief Judge's order provides significant detail regarding the investigation. It carefully does not identify the judge, the complainant, or the witnesses by name. There is sufficient description of one person, a police officer, to perhaps allow people the officer is acquainted with to identify them. The purpose of striving for anonymity is patent, particularly in protecting those who raised concerns and provided testimony (the innocent clerks who are victims in all of this). 

But the news media promptly identified the judge as Eleanor Ross and the police officer as Kelley Collier. Those are their conclusions, and as yet, neither of these has been proven to be involved. Nonetheless, no public denial has been found either. 

Judge Ross was appointed by President Obama in 2013 and has more than a dozen years of experience on the federal bench. She has been a member of the Bar since 1994, thus has more than 30 years of experience with the law and the integrity requirements it espouses. She knows better than to lie to a superior; she knows the implications of workplace misbehavior, and she knows her responsibilities to her employees, the court, and the judicial system.

Though the Eleventh Circuit order was confidential, the judge's identity was discerned by Bloomberg and others using stated facts such as the date of the probable political event mentioned in the Judge's order. It noted that Judge Ross "is the only active district judge within the Eleventh Circuit who previously worked for a district attorney’s office that had a contested primary election" in that time frame. The reporters also tied another allegation to Judge Ross, using "An archived version of Ross’s calendar during that period of time" as confirmation that she is the judge involved.

The identity of the police officer was similarly discerned through information on "Collier’s biography on the police department’s website and his now-deleted LinkedIn profile," according to Bloomberg. It does not appear that the identifications of the judge and police officer required significant effort in the age of electronic data. 

Ultimately, the order concludes that the judge "engaged in three instances of judicial misconduct." These include the salacious behavior, "making false statements to Chief Judge Pryor and to the Chief District Judge that were material to the investigation," and attending the political event. The Chief Judge concluded that some actions "demonstrated a gross lack of judgment."

He noted that the alleged activities were distracting to court personnel and that the judge's role includes providing "the best working environment possible.” Moreover, he noted that the judge's duty in this regard, the work environment, extends to both workers and the court itself. 

The order concludes that the attendance at a political event "appears to be a one-time lapse in judgment and not part of a larger pattern of improper participation in partisan politics." It acknowledged that the attendance "did not garner media attention" but "had the potential to erode public confidence in the independent and non-partisan nature of the judiciary." 

It proceeds to address the "Judge’s making false statements," concluding that this "violated Rule 4(a)(5) of the Judicial-Conduct Rules." And, importantly, the order reminds that "the Judicial-Conduct Rules impose upon the Subject Judge a duty to report the judge’s own misconduct," which did not occur here. Thus, there was concealment, and "the judge’s false statements to Chief Judge Pryor and to the Chief District Judge constituted attempts to prevent the chief judges from learning of the Subject Judge’s misconduct."

Ultimately, however, the order also acknowledges the judge's "otherwise exemplary service to the court." It acknowledges that the investigators were "troubled by the conduct," but that the "Judge has demonstrated a strong propensity for rehabilitation and continued diligent service." No specific details of that service or propensity are stated in support of these conclusions.

This order will likely continue to attract attention on social media and in the news. We will never know whether the news media would have been as interested without the salacious details. But the lessons that can be learned are worthy of acknowledgement by any and all who serve. 

First, the judge has adjudicator duties, but, as importantly, is responsible for cultivating and providing a safe and appropriate work environment for all. This is an imperative on a personal and institutional level. Every public servant should be conscious of that and focused on the environment and the team they supervise. 

Second, there is an imperative for truth in the investigation of such allegations. Misrepresentation simply has no appropriate place or purpose. A judge will regularly see to the administration of oaths. Witnesses in proceedings will be expected to testify truthfully. Those who don't will be held to account, which may include criminal prosecution. Judges who oversee such oaths should be exemplars of truth and respect for process. Judges simply should not lie. That is an easy lesson and admonition.

Third, the judicial role is highly visible. Notably, this judge's attendance at the political event "did not garner media attention," but it "had the potential to erode public confidence" in judges. One might argue that the "private reprimand" has itself has indeed attracted media attention, and many articles have now featured both the salacious and the allegation of being an untruthful judge; some of the social media coverage has been worse. There may be issues of eroded confidence now. 

Does this example and publicity impugn a judge, a court, or a legal system? Does this erode public confidence? Is the erosion only to the judge's reputation or to the courts generally? Now that the judge's identity has been alleged by the news media, what will the impact(s) be on the witnesses who are mentioned but likewise not named in the order (various clerks)? Will their identities become the media's interest? Will their careers suffer by association with this situation or their role in reporting or substantiating it?

One final point is interesting. Some have notably taken issue with what they perceive as a lenient response to the judge's actions. As a sanction, the reprimand ordered the judge to never serve as chief judge (should the opportunity arise), to write apology letters to the clerks who served in the judge's chambers, and to refrain from service on a judicial committee. 

The reprimand notably describes that:

"The Subject Judge asked to be allowed to word the letters of apology vaguely so as to ensure that a letter could not be 'used against [the Subject Judge] in some way.'”

With the broad news coverage and social media discussion of the investigation and reprimand, it seems unlikely that any aspect of public discussion will ever center on the wording of the apology letters. Nonetheless, that such issues of "vague" wording arose is perhaps interesting in itself. Having been clearly wrong, there seems to have been a continuing interest in clouding or obscuring how responsibility was taken and the apology communicated. 

All of that said, if the press has misidentified the Subject Judge, it is hoped that it will be rapidly corrected for the sake of both Judge Ross and Chief Collier. Those who had the fortitude to report and substantiate the poor judicial behavior are to be commended, whoever they may be. 

The public should be encouraged to view this situation not as a reflection of the judicial system or the federal district courts, but as aberrant failures of one public servant and as proof positive that everyone is capable of making mistakes. 

"Explosion is Arriving Faster"

In March 2026 (First quarter), an AI-generated article appeared on Fortune exclaiming that the sky is indeed falling. The Littles have been predicting this since artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLM) burst on the scene in 2022. 

The world was unprepared then, and many of us remain unprepared now. I know people who refuse to use LLM. I myself refuse to risk their use in any production process. Others have already essentially yielded to their new overlords. I know people who cannot decide if they want fries with that without asking ChatGPT.

The recent article was written by journalists using an LLM and verified by an editor. That is clarified in a note at the end of the story. The phrasing of "used" an LLM is interesting, and makes no real commitment regarding how the article was written or by whom. That is for another day.

The revelation of this piece is that four years on, there is "an AI breakthrough ... coming in 2026." Fortune, the author, or the LLM (hereafter "they") contend that this will be "a massive AI breakthrough," and it will arrive before July 1, 2026 ("first half of 2026").

The prediction is for a "transformative leap in artificial intelligence," based upon the input of "an unprecedented accumulation of compute." The fundamental is that more and more analysis, training, and processing is being directed at the AI tools and their evolution.

Elon Musk is quoted as believing that this volume of investment "will effectively double a model’s 'intelligence.'" This is expected to drive continued demand for electricity and related resources such as natural gas for turbines, and reallocation of resources from other computing functions (bitcoin mining is a noted example).

The end result is anticipated to be increasingly functional "thinking" machines. They expect these devices to increasingly be capable of multi-step processing and functions, "at or above the level of human experts on economically valuable tasks."

This has significant implications for the integration of these "thinking" machines into workflow and workplaces. They believe that there will be "large-scale workforce reductions because of AI efficiencies," which they believe have already begun in earnest.

The end result will be "a powerful deflationary force." That is an economic pressure that results in a general and sustained decrease in prices. The decreased prices could result in higher demand, or the potential exists for a more systemic economic downturn.

The downturn comes if the demand for AI-produced services or products remains relatively constant, but the related economic activity (spending) is diminished by the new influence, in this case, technology.

There is also the potential effect where economic displacement, like unemployment, either diminishes consumption or prevents any increased demand that might otherwise be encouraged by decreasing prices.

The Fortune predictions are staggering in terms of productivity leverage from LLM. One quoted CEO posits the possibility that significant enterprises may enter the competitive marketplace with a mere handful of human workers using vastly leveraged technology tools.

And, to think, much of this is predicted to happen in the next month or so. To whom will the displaced workers turn? If there are no jobs, will there be any consumption to drive the success of these AI-leveraged producers? If that scares us, we should focus on the article's predictions that even bigger changes in technology and capability may come as early as 2027.

They conclude that "The explosion is arriving faster than almost anyone is prepared for." If you are not seated with your seatbelt fastened, it may be time to do so. It may very soon become a bumpy ride for most of us.

The Johari Window and Negotiation

On April 6, 2026, headlines read "NASA’s Artemis II Crew Eclipses Record for Farthest Human Spaceflight." Admittedly, the world has struggled to be excited about this latest "Moon mission" that did not return to the Moon. 

About the same time, headlines also announced that the government will soon release all of its "UFO data." In my spare time, I momentarily pondered how those two headlines might present differing perspectives and thus require reconciliation. 

There is an old saying, "you don't know what you don't know." Some credit that to Deming, but that, in effect, is Dunning-Krueger. Predispositions influence us in many daily activities and are worth your attention. Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025).

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld voiced a similar sentiment years ago, that many in the press found confounding.

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

Rumsfeld came pretty close there to simply saying we have a "Johari Window." Few who analyze problems focus on organizational tools like the Johari Window.

The Johari Window was developed by psychologists in the 1950s to afford organization to thoughts and analysis. What is "known" to you may or may not be known to others in any situation. And you always have to wonder about what others may similarly know, but you do not.  

The two-axis window model allows you to strive to remember those potentials and to organize. Often putting thoughts in the squares, but also perhaps somewhere in a row or column. The tool is not a be-all, but a help. 

For example, NASA "knows" that its Artemis craft flew farther from Earth than any previous flight. That is "known to (NASA's) self" and communicated as an irrefutable fact. Thus, one might assume it is "known to others." 

Nonetheless, that is not what NASA reported. It says Artemis set the record for "Farthest Human Spaceflight." But what of the "alien abductions?" Literally millions of people claim to have been abducted. Any one of those might have been abducted to some point further from Earth than Artemis traveled, perhaps to Mars.

Even if one discounts the veracity of their abduction allegation, that person's belief that they have been taken to Mars is something they "know" but which the good folks at NASA "don't know." Thus, the Artemis fact might go in the upper left quadrant (what everyone knows) or might not. Nonetheless NASA would almost certainly put it in the left column.

That aliens abducted Horace Middlemier* and took him to Mars may similarly be known to Horace, but not to NASA ("Hidden Area" when viewed from Horace's perspective). Similarly, Horace's record-setting trip to Mars might fit in NASA's "Blind Spot" viewed from its perspective. 

The point is that conclusions ("farthest") can be reached based on current information. The person reaching the conclusion is working primarily from their left-column, the "Open Area" and the "Hidden Area" that comprise what that person "knows." 

In dealing with other people, one must accept that they could "know" things (their left column) that you do not (your right column). The primary thing to remember is that categorizing information into these columns is personal. 

The second critical point is that, regardless of what you "know," that may not be empirically true (or demonstrable). NASA thinks it knows about all human space flight, but perhaps the government files that are to come contain further information, e.g., the Horace trip to Mars. Publication of the government files may move data from our personal right column into the left column somewhere. 

Finally, and critically, what is "known" to anyone in the conversation will be subject to their personal beliefs and predispositions. While Horace "knows" he went to Mars, others might doubt his perspective, credibility, or even sanity. Even if he tells the story, that might not pull his Mars story from "Hidden" to "Open."

Before we make too much fun of Horace, consider that a fair number of people think all the photos of Earth are a big hoax. They contend the earth is flat, and will not listen to contrary evidence. What they "know" will influence their decisions, despite what you might believe is clearly "Open."

The challenge is thus magnified. Knowing you may doubt him, Horace may elect to keep the Mars trip forever in his "Hidden Area." As hard as you work to sell your perspective (Artemis is "furthest"), you may make no progress with Horace (or the "flat earthers"). 

You are fighting against what you do not know (Mars), and due to Horace's perceptions of your likely response, what you will never know. As a side note, even if you could never accept the Mars trip, knowing of his misperception or fantasy may still help you work to resolution through it or around it.

In any dispute, there will be perspective, competing facts, and a multitude of predispositions. See Unseen Influence. Striving to organize your thoughts into what is known and what is not, and the perspectives that drive that, may help to bring your analysis clarity. 

Admitting that others may be actively or subconsciously keeping something hidden may likewise help you to understand resistance or conflict in their presence, despite not having the data to really understand their "why." 

* Horace Middlemier is not a real person. He is a figment and foil. Any resemblance to any real person, living or dead, is merely coincidence. 

Remembering in 2025

The origin of Memorial Day is too often lost in our history. See Memorializing (June 2024); Memorial Day (May 2023); A Day to Reflect (May 2022); Happy Memorial Day (April 2022); Remembrance (September 2021). I have gratefully noted my recognition and appreciation for the many who have served, and more importantly, those who made the ultimate sacrifice. 

Veteran's Day is for all who served, but as we pause each May, there is room for the way-too-many who have passed. 

But, for many, this Monday is merely the start of summer, a barbecue, or perhaps an opportunity to reconnect with friends and family. Too often, the point and purpose are lost on the many and recognized by only the few.

I happened to be traversing France last week and found myself a few miles from one of the important sites where American lives were lost in battle. It is a site I find compelling. 

As noted in the posts above, and as supported by Statista, the greatest loss of Americans in battle occurred in the Civil War (620,000), an odd label incorrectly suggesting some degree of courtesy and civility that is anathema to war. It was a bitter conflict that left many lasting wounds. Much has been done to soil those who served and to minimize the import of their historical contributions to what we are today. 

But my presence in France reminded me of the second-largest loss of American lives in war, World War II. Statista says that 405,399 Americans fell in that conflict, half a world away. Many in Europe (250,000), but a significant number in the Pacific theater (160,000) as well. 

It is worth remembering that the "world" was indeed in conflict in the 1940s and that threats were both significant and diverse. It is also significant to remember that so many who died were not Americans. The National World War II Museum estimates 15,000,000 battle deaths in that conflict and 45,000,000 civilians. The loss was simply indescribable. 

With an unplanned deviation from the itinerary last week, I found myself once again on two hallowed grounds that persistently draw and impact me, Omaha Beach and Pointe du Hoc. They are not the tourist destinations one expects. Certainly, they are featured in Hollywood efforts.

Pointe du Hoc and Omaha Beach are noted in The Longest Day (20th Century-Fox, 1962), Saving Private Ryan (Dreamworks, 1998), and so many more. It was an honor and privilege to find myself in the two spots again in 2026 on the eve of Memorial Day. It caused me to reflect on the character and courage of the many men who landed there 82 years ago. I suspected that there will be some recognition there in a few days; the anniversary is June 6.

Nonetheless, there were few visitors on May 20, 2026. At the main memorial on Omaha Beach at midday, I saw only a couple. They wandered, paused periodically, and a few even climbed the stairs to read the engraved thoughts and remembrances.

Down the beach a mile or so is a sculpture in the sand, more often than not it is in the surf itself. The sculpture is combined with a large stone monument on higher ground. The parking is easy, and the crowds there were somewhat more significant. 

As I observed in that setting, a large tour bus arrived and disgorged about 50 teenagers. I had seen them before, earlier, at Pointe du Hoc. They paused at Omaha for lunch as I moved down the seawall, back towards the memorial pictured above. It is worthwhile that young people are visiting and learning of the sacrifices made on their behalf on this compelling stretch of real estate. 

The same busload of rambunctious and excited adolescents had been storming Pointe Du Hoc an hour earlier as I returned there. Pointe Du Hoc is the most compelling WWII battle site I have ever visited. That is meaningful because I have been to many, including the celebrated and vaunted Bastogne (Battle of the Bulge, see Band of Brothers, Dreamworks, 2001). Yes, there was bravery and daring in many places. Nonetheless, Pointe du Hoc draws and embraces me. 

The German army was perched atop this cliff in reinforced concrete bunkers of amazing size and strength. The defenses exist to this day and are available for tourist visitation. They are surrounded by craters likely made by artillery assaults and perhaps aerial bombardment. The Germans were entrenched here and likely felt impregnable. 

About 200 Germans defended on D-Day. About 225 U.S. Army Rangers made the assault. The event was cataclysmic, as were so many others. But the U.S. forces broke the defenses. It was not Iwo Jima, it was not the liberation of death camps. It was neither the beginning or the end of WWII, but D-Day was undoubtedly the beginning of the end for the German Socialists. 

I was surprised last week to find the German flag flying alongside the various others, American, French, British, and Canadian last week. There is recognition of the fallen. Even the brutal invaders whose lust for power and resources instigated and fed the years-long world conflict. I am not sure I would raise the German flag in such circumstances, but its presence made me think. 

Why Pointe Du Hoc? A valid inquiry. Omaha Beach was an incredibly intense assault. There are doubts about the accuracy of the exact death and destruction there, but hundreds were lost, and thousands were injured. In all, 34,000 came ashore on Omaha Beach. 

I have seen the beach twice. In 2026, the sea lapped the wall and the memorial sculpture. The sand extended only a few feet. Landing would have been near impossible under such conditions. But General Eisenhower and his planners picked a date and time when the tides favored their plan. I have seen the beach at Omaha when the sand extended hundreds of feet from the shore. The difference in my two experiences is significant; each visit brought me perspective and appreciation.

Despite the busload of teenagers, the interest in these sites is not significant. The many who landed here are largely forgotten. Those who died here are ghosts of a past remembered by too few. The history must be remembered, but those who keep it do so second-hand or worse. Those who lived it, saw it, and preserved it have largely passed on. 

I strive to see them, to study their deeds, and to appreciate their contributions. The Greatest Generation saved the world. What we do with the fruits of their sacrifice is on us. If you get to the area, even as close as Paris, the trip to these sights is worth the investment. If you don't, a few minutes of your holiday weekend spent thinking of the many who fought, suffered, and died for your freedoms is as worthy an investment. 

AI to defend AI

In July 2025, the U.S. District Court in Southern Florida issued an intriguing opinion in ByoPlanet Int'l, LLC v. Johansson, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2025)(July 17, 2025).

Judge David S. Leibowitz leads with a critical and imperative quote:

"The integrity of judicial proceedings depends upon the ethical obligations of candor and honesty being strictly observed by all parties.' Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 [114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474] (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring)."

There is a certain imprimatur for many that comes with a reference to Justice Scalia. Judge Leibowitz is quick to correct the record, however, with "the statement is absolutely correct," and it did not come from Justice Scalia. As did Westlaw, I leave the false citation in original form here. 

Nonetheless, he notes that ChatGPT, "with the slick, cool authority of instantly-generated pixels on a screen, declares otherwise." He proceeds to expound on the existential threat that artificial intelligence currently "poses to the practice of law and the integrity of judicial proceedings."

The opinion is tongue-in-cheek, drawing us back to the legal drafting process "when dinosaurs roamed the earth." Judge Liebowitz notes ancient tools like books, "Shepard's Citations," and the ancient advent of "online legal sources, such as Westlaw and LexisNexis."

Judge Liebowitz addresses the progress of technology, and notes "the euphemism-du-jour" of hallucination. He notes that this causes harm to opposing parties and courts through misrepresentations. The corollary point is more compelling—citing trash takes up space in a complaint or memo that could be filled with compelling and real precedent.

The duty of "trust but verify" is stated succinctly and without apology:

"a lawyer who wishes to use AI ethically must ensure that the legal propositions and authority generated are trustworthy. The lawyer has a duty to check all the cases and quotations for accuracy. Anything less is to abdicate one's duty, waste legal resources, and lower the public's respect for the legal profession and judicial proceedings."

Could that be any plainer? I am doubtful it could be said with any more alacrity or clarity.

There is a detailed exposition of the citation of lies and deceit. Judge Liebowitz laid this out carefully and concluded

"From this moment on (a particular date in that litigation), there can be no reasonable doubt that Paul was on notice that his use of AI was leading to hallucinated cases and quotations."

The plaintiff, Paul, sought to nonetheless defend his mistakes, misstatements, and deption on the court. He filed a response to the resulting motion to dismiss, citing (wait for it) hallucinated authority and a real case that nonetheless does not contain the language Paul cited. 

Mr. Paul, responding to allegations of misstatement and misrepresentation, used AI to generate more trash to defend the previous trash. I am drawn inexorably to Shoe, a comic strip popular back in the era of dinosaurs, to which Judge Liebowitz alluded. Shoe once noted the challenge with fixing shortcomings. 

Judge Liebowitz noted that during the same time, Paul cited hallucinations in a Fourth District Court proceeding in a state court appeal, and in a related proceding in Circuit Court. Eventually, Judge Liebowitz "entered an Order to Show Cause requiring Paul to state whether he intentionally made misrepresentations to the Court."

In response, Paul cited "fabricated quotations to two real cases" (trash to defend trash). Called before the bar to answer, Paul essentially blamed his paralegal. Much as federal judges have blamed their staff for similar embarrassment. See Just Delete it (October 2025). Paul insisted he meant no harm and that he did not intend to be so inelegant or incompetent.

Judge Liebowitz concluded instead that Paul's performance was

"repeated, abusive, bad-faith conduct that cannot be recognized as legitimate legal practice and must be deterred. After a discussion of various sanction alternatives, he concluded "Paul did not act as a reasonable attorney—not even close."

The judge dismissed Paul's four cases without prejudice. He ordered James Martin Paul to pay attorney fees for the time spent responding to the hallucinations. He ordered Paul to attach a copy of that order to any case he filed in the Southern District of Florida for the next two years. And, finally, he referred James Martin Paul to The Florida Bar.

Mr. Paul remains a "member in good standing" of The Florida Bar.

April 5, 2026

Is Age a State of Mind:?

In my book, Floridiana and the Workers' Compensation Adjudicators, I strive to trace the history of this odd peninsula, beginning at the end of the last ice age. With that perspective, one of the foci is when the humans arrived, and there is debate as to "from where?"

There is a great deal of emphasis placed on a Chilean settlement, Monte Verde. Years ago, the scientists' consensus was that there are " echoes of human presence dating back to around 14,500 years ago." The remains of that site have been excavated, and various sediments and artifacts have been used to establish that time frame. Scientists have essentially adopted that 14,500 as the best evidence we have.

The science is extraordinary and impressive. It is reproducible and demonstrable. The 14,500 has been cited for years as the "strongest evidence."

And yet. ,,..

Science is not static.

There are more recent investigations of this site, "suggesting Monte Verde might be much younger." The more recent testing involved sediment tests that suggest the landscape in that area went through many changes. As a result, some portion of the scientific community is "reinterpret(ing) the geology of the site."

The effort is to reconcile inconsistencies. The experts hypothesize that the erosion may have "mixed old layers with new," causing erroneous inclusion of some material in the Monte Verde inventory that was tested. The debate is not about the age of those materials but about the validity of their inclusion in the sample.

This is not exactly "the world is flat" criticism, but is nonetheless significant. The scientists involved in the "original excavations" take issue with this new study and hypothesis. Other critics explain, essentially, that the new interpretation provides "a working hypothesis that is not supported by the data presented."

This has little to do with workers' compensation. And yet, ...

Workers' compensation is about medicine, and that is about science. What we persistently see is that science changes. There are hypotheses, articles, and conclusions. The smart folks reach a consensus. See Relatively Speaking (March 2026). And then we legal types follow along the best we can as opinion and consensus persist.

There are then further opportunities for testing the conclusions. There is evolution in our ability and perspective. Over time, the consensus can change. The new testing, processes, and analysis can suggest new outcomes. Even so, those new perspectives may be as doubtful as the original. Science and opinion are neither perfect or imutable.

The real point of all of this discussion of Monte Verde is that science can go only so far in terms of definitive results. Therefore, we rely on the opinions of experts to interpret both results and causes. We rely on those and their explained processes until someone else provides a better explanation or perspective.

The conversation never necessarily ends. Some hypotheses may be proven beyond doubt (the Earth is, in fact, not flat). Others may linger in the opinion realm for decades.

Socialized Medicine in the News

One of the great hooks of modern music is Comin around again (Carly Simon, Arista, 1986). She celebrates both change and the fact that we seemingly have recurrence in our lives.

"I know nothing stays the same

But if you're willing to play the game

It's coming around again"

That hook, "It's coming around again," is infectious and compelling. The fact is that many life issues simply keep coming up; day after day, week after week, year after year. One of my favorites is the joy of single payer medicine. Oh, if only we could nationalize health care, all of our woes would be forever over.

See, e.g., Single Payer Questions (May 2016), Single-Payer Lessons from Vermont (July 2016); Single Payer, Outliers, and Conclusions (January 2018), Confusion and Disconnects in Medicine (July 2018), Medical Charges and Challenges (June 2019), Single Payer Redux (January 2022); In the end, Someone has to Pay (May 2016). Despite the assurances of Dire Straits, there simply is no "money for nothing" (AIR, 1985).

The idea of socialized medicine and single-payer struck me again with a recent headline from the Independent.

‘My husband spent two days on a trolley in overrun A&E – weeks later he died from a deadly brain infection’

The first thought, that he was on holiday, was erroneous. No, he did not spend two days riding about on a decorated bus.

In the British medical model, a socialistic single-payer model, the "A&E is Accident and Emergency. The "trolley" is more like a gurney, and the two days spent lying on one is unconscionable regardless of what medical payment model your jurisdiction has adopted.

The patient in this instance was "rushed through triage" and parked in a corridor. He was not provided "a vital MRI scan because it was the weekend." He was soon after diagnosed with encephalitis, and "by then, the damage had been done." The poor bloke died from the brain swelling they could not diagnose.

This example led the Independent to look at data from the socialized National Health Service. It concluded that "13% waited 12 hours to be seen, treated, or discharged" when they visited in January 2026.

Is the American waiting room better? More than likely, though, there are those moments when delay rules the day. I sat in an emergency room for four hours one night and eventually elected to defer. I returned the next morning, and the time invested from start to finish was two hours.

Part of that problem is demand. There is little service in the space between real emergency and routine care. See Shifting Medical Preferences (May 2019), Transparency for Efficacy (June 2019).

Part of the problem may be supply. See Physician Shortage July 2025), Simple Math is The Point (April 2025), Bid Day 2025 (April 2025).

Nonetheless, the simple point is that socialized medicine does not appear any more capable of dealing with the delays and denials. In fact, the much touted Canadian social medicine system has been shown to result in medication introduction "waits significantly longer than Americans and Europeans."

Worse, a Canadian seeking treatment wait following a general practitioner referral was 28.6 weeks in 2025. That is "a 195% increase" over the last 33 years. There are "bottlenecks for specialists, diagnostics, and surgeries."

Fox recently reported on a woman in Canada whose visit to an emergency room resulted in a two-hour wait in triage, followed by "another 10 to 12 hours before she was seen." That woman reportedly witnessed another "with a head wound, bleeding profusely ... (who) had to wait two hours before she was seen." 

None of this means that either system is necessarily superior per se. Nonetheless, it suggests that all systems might improve. But as you lay on the "trolley" in the hallway waiting for a diagnostic test, there is merit in being able to obtain care and treatment. 

The Canadian woman bemoaned the universal Canadian healthcare saying, "I would rather pay for my healthcare at this point and get treated fairly.  

"It's coming around again."

Tech Frustration and Outburst

Harris County, Texas, surrounds Houston. It is one of the largest cities in the United States, usually about fourth on the list after New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. I have been to each, and the eating in Houston is superior by at least an order of magnitude. But I digress.

A judge in Harris County drew some attention in April 2025 when confronted by technology. Who has not had such a tech challenge? Years ago, comedian W.C. Fields warned that you should "never work with children or animals." It is good advice; they can be unpredictable and unmanageable. Tech is frustrating, and more so for us older Americans. 

I have taken to likening the same to technology, by addition, "Never work with children, animals, or technology." If given the choice, pick the animals or children over the tech. I cannot count the times PowerPoint, Windows, projectors, and more have left me in a panic on stage.

But the fact is that "all mechanical things eventually fail." Who knows who said that, but I can testify to its accuracy.

The judge in Harris County, Nathan Milliron, was caught on video in April. It is not flattering. I have repeatedly cautioned that cameras are everywhere. Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015). Cameras are ubiquitous, generally. Everyone knows they are in courtrooms. Even Judges know that.

This video went viral, or approached it. KPRC Houston says it depicts a "tense exchange" between the judge and a young "IT worker helping with courtroom ... technical issues." 

The tech specialist is "guiding the judge through adjustments" and "makes a light remark." Perhaps trying to lighten the mood, or to ease his own discomfort at the situation.

The judge "responds sharply, telling him not to joke and ultimately ordering him to leave the courtroom." The judge then proceeds to call "for the worker’s supervisor and express() anger over the situation."

The story reflects that there has been "concern within the legal community," but does not cite particular sources or other incidents. One local attorney felt compelled to contact the judge about the depiction. The attorney suggested:

“I hope you issued him an apology for the way you treated him. I hope you were just having a bad day and this is not your typical judicial temperament.”

That is excellent advice. Find me a judge who has never lost their temper, spoken intemperately, or lost their cool. If there are any, I do not believe they are common. Judges are not perfect; they are human. Expectations can be high, pressures mount, and lapses will happen. When they do, acknowledgement and apology can go a long way to recover the appropriate judicial demeanor and environment.

The judge's response in this setting was to summon the attorney to chambers. The judge apparently accused the communication above of being "ex parte," meaning it was made without the inclusion of other parties or attorneys. But the attorney who sent the message says he has no cases before Judge Milliron, and "does not plan to comply with (the) order" to appear before the judge.

Perhaps the order to appear, the "summons," was appropriate? Or, perhaps some will see that reaction as a continuation of the ill temper that began the situation on video? The summons date and time came and went without further mention or judicial action, as the media watched. The coverage was not overtly flattering. Social media response has been similar. 

The controversy has led to further inquiries from the media. There is mention of prior interactions between the judge and staff and a discussion of the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct. It is unfortunate that the interactions occurred. We must strive to control our temper. 

More importantly, when one loses their temper, the best course forward is admission, contrition, and apology. Everyone has bad days. Know that. Know you will not always meet the stress and pressure with aplomb; apologize and move on. See Don't Double Down (June 2017). 

Oradour-sur-Glane

This is a name I had never heard. A small town in the south of France. It is not easily accessible, a bit off the beaten path. I am a long-time student of history, and yet I persistently find myself learning new things. Studying history is frankly similar to studying the law. 

Years ago, I saw a poignant story of an 80th anniversary. No, not of the vaunted and celebrated landings at Normandy. Those were June 6, 1944. I previously worked through some news from the D-Day celebration. See Memorializing (June 2024). Sure, such historical discussions are a departure from the core of workers' compensation. And yet, it is about law and order and our basic humanity. 

D-Day was a shock to the National Socialists and their global plans. As unfortunate as it is, such world domination efforts have persisted throughout history. There have been imperialists, monarchists, communists, and even democracies that have perpetrated conquest and delivered human suffering. The world will always face the potential of the next violent threat. There are limited resources, and man will persistently fight to control them. 

The shock at Normandy caused the National Socialists to draw troops toward the Allied forces. On June 10, 1944, the "2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich" rolled into Oradour-sur-Glane, a small rural village north of Bordeaux. The National World War II Museum does a fine job of telling its story. The Division was battle-hardened in the east, against the Communists. It was ordered to "support German forces fighting in northern France." Its secondary mission was to "intimidate" the French and "reassert German control."

On June 10, the Division surrounded this little village with "somewhere between 120 and 200 soldiers." They strove to gather the inhabitants to the town center, even from farm fields in the area. The people were segregated, and "197 men were ... forced into six separate barns" and then machine-gunned down. "240 women and 205 children... were forced into the village church," into which grenades were thrown before the building was set afire. 

Essentially, the town was massacred. "Only seven people survived." A senseless and brutal massacre. Efforts to explain the actions of the German Division and its leaders have frustrated historians. Some conclude that there was no reason, but simply, Oradour was just "an unfortunate stop the Division made on the way to Normandy." 

Is Oradour special? Unique? Some would say no. There were a great many villages and municipalities destroyed by the National Socialists and the Allied response. But Oradour remains today to be viewed. Purportedly on the orders of Charles de Gaulle, the site has been "preserved, and the remains were to become a national memorial." A new village was built nearby, but the original Oradour remains today in much the same condition that it was left by the Socialists in June 1944. It is said to be "a village frozen in time." 

On May 12, 2026, I stood in that town. I experienced their memory. I reflected on the violence of the Socialists. We pause periodically in remembrance. We are reminded of the adages like "war is hell," Sherman, 1879, and "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," George Santayana. 

Drive Carefully

There is an element of society that engages in not-so-appropriate activity. In that, there is too often some human tendency to believe "it cannot happen to me" or "cannot happen here." This is an optimism bias or predisposition. See Langham, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025). We all suffer from predispositions. 

That said, it can happen to any of us. That "it" is almost anything. There is deception, aggression, and worse in this world. These thoughts returned when the Associated Press (AP) ran a story some years ago about a "federal judge robbed at gunpoint at home." The idea of violence in the world is a bit easier to disregard than such a threat at home.

The experience could not have been anything but terrifying. Late one Friday night, three miscreants are alleged to have "kicked in the basement door" and started "removing items from the house." At that point, it was a simple burglary. The judge's husband then confronted the alleged miscreants, and the situation deteriorated.

They were both "held at gunpoint while they were robbed" of valuables. One was "pushed down" some stairs, resulting in injury. There was then an attempt to steal their automobile, but that ended with the miscreants spooked and fleeing the scene. The burgled/robbed couple called the police.

The AP noted somewhat stoically that "the couple is uneasy about what happened." Police noted that such an experience is "a little unnerving." And they say the art of understatement is a lost skill.

Coincidentally, on this occasion, "police in (a) neighboring" town happened to make a traffic stop when a car failed to stop at a stop sign. The officer(s) there suspected the vehicle occupants of being involved in the robbery, and a search revealed some of the stolen items in the car.

Soon thereafter, two of the three pled guilty to a string of charges, related by WLWT5. That coverage provides more detail of the miscreants following the two victims' home based on their "luxury car," and witnessing them entering their "27,000-square-foot home."

The two were sentenced to minimums of 18 and 20 years in prison. Mr. Kinney was 21 at the time and will therefore be 39 when released in 2033. Mr. Jackson, who did the pushing down the stairs, was also 21 and will be 42 when he is released in 2036. A third also pled guilty and was similarly sentenced according to WLWT5.

One wonders, perhaps, whether the three would ever have been caught if their driver had not run the stop sign.

The folks at Pew note that many crimes are never reported:

"Only about half of the violent crimes and a third of the property crimes that occur in the United States each year are reported to police."

Only a fraction of the reported crimes are "cleared":

"46% of the violent crimes and 19% of the property crimes reported to police in the U.S. were cleared."

These statistics are independently concerning. But consider that if only half the violent crimes are reported, and less than half of those are "cleared," that means about 25% of all violent crimes are "cleared."

If only a third of property crime is reported, and 19% of those are cleared, that means that 6% of all property crimes are "cleared."

Additionally, our police make about 13 million traffic stops annually, "5.2% of the driving population" (not counting accidents). There is always the chance that such a stop has broader implications, but most are primarily revenue-generating driver fines. There is, seemingly, more interest in traffic enforcement than in property crime. 

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, we have "nearly two million people behind bars" in the U.S. We spend $445 billion annually to house them. While those are significant figures, worthy of thought, the vast majority of the actual crime is apparently never cleared. 

The contradiction is curious. To quote the eloquent police officer above, it is all "a little unnerving."