There is a bizarre controversy out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where a federal judge has been reprimanded for engaging in repeated, loud sexual encounters during office hours in chambers with a police officer. While the judge lied to investigators and disrupted the work of court staff, the Eleventh Circuit decided to give only a “private reprimand” and to withhold the identity of the district court judge. However, legal sleuths have pieced together clues and identified one judge in Atlanta as the likely culprit.
In February, the Judicial Council issued an order with a “private reprimand.” The order contained an array of details that law professor John Blackman analyzed with impressive research. While he admits that he cannot conclusively prove that she is the referenced judge, he declared that “there is only one judge who checks all of those boxes: District Court Judge Eleanor Ross.”
Ironically, among the clues about the judge’s identity, the order mentions that the judge attended the “victory party for a District Attorney” in 2024, the night before “the judge’s summer interns’ first day.” The Georgia primary was on May 21, 2024, and the date coincides with the victory party for Fani Willis, who won the Democratic primary for Fulton County District Attorney. The irony would be crushing since Willis destroyed her own case against Trump and his associates after appointing an attorney with whom she had a sexual relationship.
Putting the judge’s identity aside, I am more concerned with the Circuit’s conclusion that the judge should be left with a private, anonymous reprimand, given the astonishing scope of the misconduct found by the Judicial Council.
The Court describes repeated sexual encounters during office hours that were so audible that clerks and staff were left in uncomfortable silence. The other individual is described as “a high-ranking PD officer.” The court states that
“It is also worth noting the fact that the Subject Judge created a vulnerability to extortion. For two years, the Subject Judge was a federal district judge who routinely heard criminal cases engaged in a secret extramarital relationship with a prominent officer of a large law enforcement agency in the judge’s district—with the affair consisting of sexual intercourse in the Subject Judge’s chambers during working hours.”
The Court describes the awkward moments as staff were subjected to moans and noises from the judge’s chambers as these trysts took place. The court recounts:
“The Subject Judge characterized the allegations as ‘outrageous’ and ‘baseless’ and specifically denied each one.11 Apparently aware that Law Clerk A was the source of the allegations, the Subject Judge noted that the judge had repeatedly chastised Law Clerk A for performance issues, including ‘being on [the clerk’s] cell phone in court and in the office,’ ‘arriving to the office late,’ and wearing attire that the judge considered ‘too casual.’ The Subject Judge implied that Law Clerk A might have made allegations as a means of retaliating against the Subject Judge.”
So this judge not only lied but attacked the clerk. The court order contained emails and communications in which the judge states that the clerk is disgruntled and unreliable. The result was an investigation as the judge continues to lie about the long-standing affair.
The other individual is described solely as a high-ranking police officer.
This is an extraordinary and serious series of ethical violations. It directly undermined the integrity of the court and created a dysfunctional work environment. The officer and the department are likely parties in cases before the court. The judge must be independent in dealing with officers and the department. The use of the chambers for sexual encounters must have created a hostile work environment for many clerks and staff.
Then there are the repeated lies to fellow judges and investigators. Lying to federal investigators can be a crime under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and such cases can come before this judge.
All of this leaves me baffled about the decision to enter a private reprimand. The judge agrees not to serve as Chief Judge or take positions on judicial committees. Yet the judge is allowed to continue to perform that most important function of being a judge. More importantly, counsel and parties are left without confirmation of the judge’s identity. There are myriad cases in which a judge could have a conflict of interest. Parties should be able to raise such conflicts rather than be left wondering if they have “that judge” in random assignments.
The use of court property for sexual liaisons with a police officer and then lying about it should warrant a bit more than an anonymous order, private reprimand, and a waiving of future positions. This judge, who has shown serious ethical concerns, will continue to render judgments on others.
If an officer had repeatedly lied to the court, would the contempt citation for the individual be anonymous with only voluntary waivers of future positions?
In the end, determining the identity of the judge is less challenging than the reasoning of the Judicial Council.
Here is the opinion: Eleventh Circuit Order
It’s called HOTLANTA for a reason Baby!! She fought the LAW but the LAW WON! Bah haha – just goes to show what a bunch of BS hypocrites 99% of the Black Robe Illuminati really are. Justice for THEE but Hot Anything Is Only For ME!!!! Now on your way Peasants!
Impeach the judge. When judicial Councils do not enforce the law or ethics why should anyone else?
When judicial Councils do not enforce the law or ethics why should anyone else?
===
Spot on. Nothing to laugh at. If the one’s enforcing the law are the biggest violators, then there is NO LAW (as Billy Jack so wisely stated https://youtube.com/shorts/RQ9BLfK5y8E?si=1609p0ykvSh8O5lz )
They did enforce the law. They did what the law requires them to do.
The judge in question was punished and agreed to said punishment.
The staff, concerned about the well-being of the judge, should have gotten a bailiff to enter the chambers for wellness check🤣
Professor Turley missed the Achilles heel in this story: the high-ranking police officer. Presumably, the “during office hours” trysts occurred while the officer was “on duty,” and this, in turn, would have to be investigated by the internal affairs (pun intended) division of the department in question. This, then, would become Brady material, and the Police Department and prosecutor would have to disclose this information to a defendant in a criminal case.
Ordinarily, a judge is not subject to the Brady rule, but the prosecutor and the police department, if involved in a criminal case before this judge, are covered by the rule and must affirmatively disclose exculpatory facts that may impeach the credibility of the government’s witnesses. District Court Judge Eleanor Ross needs to take the hint and quit now before she’s impeached and tossed from office. Every case she hears will be fraught with defendants’ motions for recusal, and she will have to answer them truthfully or risk being held in contempt of her own court.
The only happy ending here is for the judge and her paramour to ride off into the sunset before they turn a dumb indiscretion into a felony. Remember, it’s never the initial offense but the cover-up that nails folks who do these things. In the meantime, if I were a convicted defendant in a case heard by this judge, or a prosecutor who handled such a case for the government, I would be expecting motions for new trials. The State Bar of Georgia may also consider looking into an ABA Rule 8.4 Misconduct charge that, if sustained, can result in disbarment. That “private reprimand” by the Judicial Council should be sufficient prima facie cause for the State Bar to open an investigation.
“happy ending”
I assume that, too, was intended.
The only happy ending here is for the judge and her paramour to ride off into the sunset before they turn a dumb indiscretion into a felony.
===
#1. They’ve already engaged in FELONIOUS conduct. Too late to stop that train from leaving the station.
#2. They have already received their “Happy Ending”.
Grounds for impeachment!
Briefs were entered outside the clerk’s purview.
An unusual motion was entertained by the Judge.
I would agree with Anonymous 7:11 AM. It would seem to implicate the entire Court both for the acts and coverup.. Seems that The chief Justice of SCOTUS should ask for an FBI investigation, maybe a raid on the Judge’s chambers and home. Treat him/her like any citizen. Maybe the House and Senate should start impeachment proceedings.
This needs to be resolved quickly or every judgement there is truly going to be suspect .
Hard to believe.
“Treat him/her like any citizen…” that him/her is a her, a black her GEB. And while we’re at it, you are not a constitutional lawyer and have zero insight and experience in such matters, your opinion is racist and vindictive.
ANO
No-one cares what the color of her skin is. She should know better.
YOU are doing all you can to make it race!
They let her off because she’s black. In of story.
Megan Grout has a video on this sordid corruption.
The very reason they are named: black robes (now black disrobed) and not judge….
Banging the gavel, so to speak?
Would a judge who lied to federal investigators be subject to bar discipline in Georgia/anywhere.
As we learned from Comey’s prosecution of Martha Stewart, and the prosecution of General Flynn for speaking to the Russian ambassador as part of Trump’s first transition team, lying to federal investigators is a crime in itself — there need be no underlying crime.
Problem is she was not interviewed by federal law enforcement. Therefore no crime was committed not any criminal charges are warranted.
“Problem is she was not interviewed by federal law enforcement.”
*Not* a requirement of the Statute.
Know first. Comment second.
(following the link provided)
“…On Thursday, December 19, 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Ross to serve on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, a court on which no African American woman had ever served…”
So, Professor, How could the identity of the offending jurist possibly be Ross, considering her impeccable and unquestionable credentials?
🤔
Well, the judge WAS speaking on “Civility in the Courtroom,” at her alma mater. From there to consensual sex in chambers is but a step.
Police officer boinks married judge in chambers during work hours sounds like a plot from a p0rno.
If Ross is the judge in question and that becomes public knowledge, will litigants who come before her be required to refer to her as “your Honor”?
Professor Turley sure doesn’t seem to proof read his articles. The professor who did some “sleuthing” to find the identity fo the judge is not John Blackman, it’s Josh Blackman. Just like yesterday’s “typo” when Turley ‘confused’ “Brad” with “Bret”.
Of course Professor Turley seems to want to imply this judge’s punishment is not enough in his view despite the fact that legally, ethics and conduct violations are civil and administrative issues. Not criminal ones. So a ‘private reprimand’ seems to be the most appropriate punishment given the fact the judge did conceded and acknowledged the violations. Lying to the ‘investigators’ who were not the FBI or under a formal court proceeding is not a crime under federal statutes.
Amazing catch George, you should be a sentence sleuth. Quoting George “the fact the judge did conceded and …”, “did conceded” you say? You old fool, you make more writing errors than anyone here.
If you were smart, you’d realize a simple verb tense typo is completely different from getting a name entirely wrong
If anyone is really “baffled” at the rap on the knuckles this judge received, they need to follow the link and see who she is. Or should I say *what* she is…
Proofreader nazi uses “fo” when it should be “of,” and writes that the judge “did conceded” to the charges. Good work.
Maybe you should proofread your own writing.
Let’s give x/george/tootsie a break. He’s trying his/it/wut darndest to be a mentally balanced person today.
Noone
Turley never even implicitly suggested a crime was committed. Re-read it slowly again. Consider mouthing each word as you read it. Perhaps that will improve your comprehension.
Turley thinks a private reprimand was too lax. He explains why. In his view a public reprimand is more appropriate because the ethical lapse was serious enough to require one. Why? Because the conduct may create a conflict of interest in future cases that come before the judge. Without knowing the identity of the judge in question, those potential conflicts may go unchallenged.
Your forte is commenting about typos. You should stick to that. Waking up EVERY morning (except some weekends, apparently) to write comments trying to discredit whatever Turley writes seems to be more than a passive-aggressive form of trolling. It strikes me as an obsession. Akin to a stalking behavior. We know from social science that irrational obsessions sometimes escalate to more dangerous behavior.
Turley explicitly cited 18 U.S.C. 1001—a federal criminal statute—and compared the judge’s situation to a criminal contempt citation. He absolutely dangled the implication of criminal conduct. Highlighting that internal judicial investigations are statutorily exempt from § 1001 is a substantive legal counterargument. If pointing out statutory exemptions and correcting basic factual errors (like Turley naming a fictional ‘John’ Blackman) bothers you this much, maybe public comment sections aren’t for you.
X, for the 100th time…you are NOT a lawyer.
And? What’s your point?
What I pointed out is not wrong. You don’t have to be a lawyer to point out the fact that the judge cannot be charged with a crime for what was alleged to have happened.
Perhaps you could point out if anything I pointed out is false. Can you?
More misinterpretation. I assume it is intentional.
The judge lied. Turley brought up the statute in which lying IS a crime to provide an example where the judge may be conflicted. The conflict occurs when a judge who has been reprimanded, in part, for lying hears a case where lying is a crime.
Please update us on the typo count. We’re all on the edge of our seats.
Nice try shifting the goalposts, but Turley’s text is plain. He didn’t cite 18 U.S.C. 1001 as a hypothetical example; he cited it to imply her specific behavior was a crime, ignoring the explicit statutory exemption for internal judicial proceedings. As for your legal theory: a judge who has lied in their personal life is not legally conflicted from hearing fraud or perjury cases. If that were the standard, the courts would grind to a halt. Since you’re on the edge of your seat, here’s a free update: your understanding of judicial recusal is as flawed as Turley’s proofreading.
The appropriate punishment would have been removal from the bench and disbarment.
Come on, she was having an extramarital affair with a seniuor member of law enforcement in her chambers.
WTF does she have to do to be removed and disbarred?
Every case that court heard or hears will have to be tested by a lens she has put in place.
To answer your question ‘WTF does she have to do to be removed?’: she has to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate. No committee of judges has the legal authority to fire a lifetime-appointed federal judge, no matter how egregious or disgusting their workplace behavior is. The structural penalties they forced her into—like permanently giving up the right to become Chief Judge—represent the absolute ceiling of what a Judicial Council can legally do under the Constitution.
Turley is a legal scholar who knows these constitutional boundaries perfectly. The fact that he chose to omit these structural realities from his article, while dropping irrelevant criminal statutes like 18 U.S.C. 1001, shows he was more interested in fueling outrage than providing accurate legal analysis.
“proof read” is one word
“Professor Turley sure doesn’t seem to . . .”
If you wish to be an etiquette scold at a dinner party, don’t sit at the table dressed like a shabby bum while slurping your soup.
An etiquette scold? Please. Turley is a law professor and constitutional scholar who knows exactly why the Judicial Council’s hands were tied by Article III. He chose to leave out that vital legal reality so his readers could scream about a cover-up and demand criminal charges that don’t apply. It is pure outrage-baiting—the exact ‘age of rage’ nonsense he claims to hate. We are debating in a public square, not sitting at a private table. His sloppy analysis is fair game.
Even if true, who cares about “his sloppy analysis?” There is LOTS of it done by law professors (Chemerensky, Eisen, etc.) so why do you hang out on this blog every morning and focus on what Turley says? Must be some personal beef. Did he give you a failing grade?
Lying to the ‘investigators’ who were not the FBI or under a formal court proceeding is not a crime under federal statutes.
===
Lying UNDER OATH, outside of any judicial action, is still a felony Perry Mason Jr.
It sure is, but you have absolutely zero evidence this judge was under oath. Therefore, her lying to the judicial council is NOT a crime.
“Lying to the ‘investigators’ who were not the FBI or under a formal court proceeding is not a crime under federal statutes.”
Yet again, you’re either ignorant or are lying.
18 USC S. 1001 does *not* require that the false statement be made to law enforcement or during a “formal court proceeding.” And violating it is a felony.
Sam, you need to pay closer attention to the legal definitions. There is a strict difference between a court proceeding and a judicial proceeding. A formal court proceeding is what happens inside a courtroom, typically where witnesses take an oath. An internal disciplinary review by a chief judge isn’t a formal courtroom trial, but it is legally defined as a ‘judicial proceeding.’ Because it is a judicial proceeding, the statutory exception in § 1001(b) applies perfectly, making her statements exempt from criminal charges.
And the question still remains in the heads of the idiots “in charge” of this country’s processes—“Why don’t the people have faith in our judicial/executive/legislative systems?!”
What does having sex to do with three gov. branches?
The judge called her truthful employee a liar, potentially tanking their career. Who’s more likely to be believed, a lying judge or a truthful law clerk?
Briefs were entered?
Briefs were entered?
===
😹😹😹
Never seen so many jokes come out of a single column…..
So, this gives a fresh new meaning to when a judge disrobes back in the office. (Sorry, this one was just sitting there.)
Yeah, should have left it there.
gdonaldallen,
Good one!
“Then there are the repeated lies to fellow judges and investigators. Lying to federal investigators can be a crime under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and such cases can come before this judge.”
Absolutely true, BUT…. This isn’t a criminal investigation conducted by law enforcement.
The judge made false statements to leadership, criminal “false statements” charges (18 U.S. Code § 1001) require lying to federal law enforcement agents (like the FBI) or under oath in a court proceeding, rather than lying during an internal employment disciplinary review. That’s why any charges are unlikely.
Adultery, workplace distractions, and attending partisan political events violate ethical duties and damage the integrity of the judiciary, but they are civil and administrative infractions, not federal crimes.
“isn’t a criminal investigation conducted by law enforcement.”… Seriously? Define law enforcement George?
A swing and a miss, again.
Yes, seriously. You are not paying attention. None of what transpired with this Judge is a crime. It’s an ethics violation. Lying to an administrator is not a crime.
No criminal statutes were broken. Perhaps you could define what law enforcement means? What law did this judge allegedly break?
What part of “any matter” does x fail to understand? He reads limitations into 8 USC 1001 that are plainly not there.
Those ‘limitations’ are there for a reason. Because in order to be prosecuted for lying the crime as stated by criminal codes involves lying to federal law enforcement like the FBI. This judge was NOT interviewed by the FBI. The next ‘limitation’ is this investigation being conducted under oath. This judge was not being interviewed under oath. So therefore no crime was committed.
While § 1001 uses the phrase ‘any matter,’ paragraph (b) of that exact same statute explicitly limits its reach within the judicial branch. Internal disciplinary reviews by a Judicial Council are an administrative judicial function, not a criminal law enforcement investigation. Unethical workplace lies absolutely warrant a private or public reprimand, but they do not automatically fulfill the statutory elements required for a federal criminal indictment.
Kindly cite the words in.$ 1001 that you believe make the judge’s lies not a crime.
Gladly. Read 18 U.S.C. § 1001(b). The text states: ‘Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.’ Internal disciplinary investigations by a Chief Judge or Judicial Council are an administrative judicial function. The statute itself explicitly carves out this exception. It is not a crime under § 1001 to lie during internal judicial branch employment reviews, which is why Turley’s citation of it was legally irrelevant.
“. . . criminal “false statements” charges (18 U.S. Code § 1001) require lying to federal law enforcement agents (like the FBI) or under oath in a court proceeding . . .”
Good lord, you have a fantastic ability to just make stuff up.
There is no such requirement in that Statute.
Sam, you’re not understanding what you’re reading.
Read subsection (b). It says things in subsection (a) DO NOT APPLY. That includes JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS which include disciplinary reviews by the chief judge or judicial council.
You’re only reading the first part of the statute. Read the rest of it. It tells you exactly what I have been telling you. Nothing has been made up. You just cannot accept the fact that you’re clearly wrong.
The 11th Circus isn’t named that for no reason! No doubt, this is a case of DEI to begin with. However, it’s even more likely, the judge in “question” is a partisan hack on top of all the other garbage, and should lose their job at the very least, if not be outright disbarred for criminal behavior! SMDH
Given how Democrats operate, we’re lucky she’s not on the Supreme Court right now.
She may be in the future.
If I’m a lawyer who ever lost a case before the 11th circuit, assuming that it’s legally possible to do so, I would be pursuing this all out. That is, if I lost a case before a court that engages in what seems to be an ugly disgusting cover up, I’m going to try to impeach the 11th circuit itself for judicial misconduct throughout that organization. Like RICO, enterprise corruption, even if the judge in question was not involved in the case I lost, the organization has clearly proved itself to be corrupt and my case could not possibly have been given a fair hearing by such a court. I might get a bad rep with the 11th circuit but what the hell, somebody has to clean up this mess.
I always post under my own name, Doug Mayfield, but somehow, perhaps my error, the software wrote anonymous.