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
OT
“California Bestowed To Mexican Drug Cartels”
Backaria For Governor – Communist Campaign Slogan
Mexico Grows To 32 States – U.S. Reduced To 49
_____________________________________________________
More California voters are leaning toward backing Democrat Xavier Becerra, the former Health and Human Services secretary, in the state’s gubernatorial race, according to a new survey.
– The Hill
Seems to be multiple issues here:
1. The judge and the police officer exercised poor judgement in carrying on their “activities” in her chambers during working hours.
2. The Judicial Council issued the “private reprimand” to conceal her identify. Was that out of concern for her privacy or a case of judges looking out for one of their own?
3. The judge then used her position of power to attack and punish the clerk.
4. The judge is then left in her position as a judge to pass judgment on others. The irony I am sure is lost on her.
And people wonder why the general public has such a low opinion and trust in our institutions and government. The judge gets a “private reprimand,” without any real consequences and we ask ourselves the kind of character people like her have. Or dont have.
“ The Judicial Council issued the “private reprimand” to conceal her identify. Was that out of concern for her privacy or a case of judges looking out for one of their own?”
No. It’s how the rules are set. Any private reprimand requires the judge’s name be kept out of the record. Because not knowing allows the judge to continue his/her work without the problem of litigants accusing her of bias because of it. It’s a logical conclusion.
“ The judge is then left in her position as a judge to pass judgment on others. The irony I am sure is lost on her.”
Being a judge is not about being perfect. The judge in question absolutely made poor decisions regarding an affair. That does not mean the judge is incapable of being impartial on other matters and that’s the point.
“Because not knowing allows the judge to continue his/her work without the problem of litigants accusing her of bias because of it. It’s a logical conclusion.”
True: a private reprimand is a private reprimand.
False: litigants will not attempt to accuse her of bias.
How did you know it was a “her?” and not a “him?” (Your words, above, “…without the problem of litigants accusing her of bias”)
Would that be Based on media reports in Reason, NYPost, Bloomberg, Reuters, Yahoo News, Fox, Hoodline, LegalNewsFeed, ClickOrlando, Just The News, CNBC, Raw Story, Mediaite, and Daily Mail-ALL OF WHICH covered the story?
Are there any gag orders on the law clerks?
This is nothing new, but look at it like this, as long as they are fking each other that’s less time they have to fk us.
I wonder if this is the federal judge with the recent Red Snapper shutdown?!😳
So, . . . cops protect cops, politicians protect politicians, . . . Ya see where I’m goin’ with this?
“Problem is [Judge Ross] was not interviewed by federal law enforcement. Therefore no crime was committed not [sic] any criminal charges are warranted.”
Some of you might want to read the Statute JT cites (18 U.S.C. 1001) — aka “The False Statements Act.”
There is no requirement in that Act that the false statement be made to law enforcement (federal or state). Nor is there a requirement that the false statement be made under oath.
The Act “makes it a felony to knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or conceal material facts in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or *judicial branches* of the United States government.” (emphasis added)
The penalties for that crime include fines and imprisonment up to 5 years.
Sam,
You should have kept scrolling. If you read down to 18 U.S.C. § 1001(b), the statute clearly notes that the general rule in subsection (a) ‘does not apply’ to statements made to a judge during a judicial proceeding. An internal workplace disciplinary investigation by a Chief Judge falls squarely under this exemption. It is a serious ethical violation that deserved the reprimand, but it is legally not a federal crime. Your ‘gotcha’ moment completely falls apart under basic statutory reading.
Nice deflection.
Adopt a moral compass, and I might interact with you.
Sam, this is not a deflection. I’m literally showing you where in the statute says the lying is NOT a crime.
I’ll put it up again so you can clearly see why you’re wrong,
18 U.S.C. § 1001(b), the statute clearly notes that the general rule in subsection (a) ‘does not apply’ to statements made to a judge during a judicial proceeding.
An internal workplace disciplinary investigation by a Chief Judge falls squarely under this exemption.
“I’ll put it up again so you can clearly see why you’re wrong,”
Yet another copycat tactic learned by X on this blog.
To further reinforce my point,
Under the law, an investigation triggered by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act is considered an official “judicial proceeding.” Because the “Subject Judge” is a party to that internal proceeding, any statements or defensive filings she submits directly to her Chief Judge or the reviewing panel of judges are legally categorized as submissions “to a judge… in that proceeding.
Sam for the Slam!
X is not an attorney but stayed in the Holiday Inn Express parking lot…
You don’t have to be an attorney to point out the facts. Sam is clearly confused or unable to understand why there are subsections in the law and what they mean.
Perhaps you could help him with the ‘understanding’ problem he seems to have difficulty overcoming.
So george. Remember when you claimed Trump would keep the new 747-8. Yet “never” offered any proof.
You are not an attorney and know even less about aircraft.
Hello X/George: apologies for interjecting here, but
NO–I submit that you are entirely misdirected and erroneous in your “reading comprehension” and “context” of the subject reference to 18 USC 1001. Moreover, you presented your repeated assertion as dispositive and declarative, -not as your personal opinion.
(1) Your earlier, conclusory statement, “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,” is/was wholly misplaced and represents yet another of your untrue and personal attacks on Turley.
(@2) The truth:
In paragraph #7 and the preceding paragraphs, Professor Turley highlights some infractions and indiscretions attributed to the subject judge, including, “lying” and “attacking the clerk.”
IMPORTANTLY, two paragraphs later, in paragraph #9, Turley expressly notes, “This is an extraordinary and serious series of ethical violations. It directly undermined the integrity of the court and created a dysfunctional work environment.”
Repeat, “…serious series of ETHICAL violations…” He later notes the IRONY of her having cases before her that might implicate instances of lying to authorities. Indeed, Turley “cite[d] 18 U.S.C. 1001 as a hypothetical example.”
That’s all he said, no more, no less.
\\
George/X, as I got around to getting a “feel” for various commenters on this site, I seem to recall numerous others here previously citing your “shifting goalpost” learned tactics? Did they mention these as poor or dishonest debate/polemic tactics, or were they cited as crimes under legal blog rules? AS analogy to Turley’s comments about the subject judge potentially having cases before her that might call into memory her own dishonesty, should you not “recuse” yourself from commentary accusing others of “shifting goalposts?”
Thanks,
Lin,
Let’s stick strictly to the text. Turley wrote: ‘Lying to federal investigators can be a crime under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and such cases can come before this judge.’
He is making two separate claims here. First, he frames her lying to investigators as a potential crime under § 1001. Second, he asserts this creates a future conflict. Both assertions are legally incorrect.
Her actions are statutorily exempt from § 1001 under paragraph (b) because the investigation was an internal judicial branch proceeding.
A judge’s past administrative disciplinary record for dishonesty does not create a legal conflict of interest under federal law (28 U.S.C. § 455) for general categories of crime.
Turley is a law professor who knows these constitutional and statutory boundaries perfectly. Omitting them to craft a sensational narrative about ‘lax punishments’ and ‘crushing irony’ is a deliberate choice to prioritize outrage over accurate legal scholarship. Pointing that out isn’t ‘shifting goalposts’—it’s keeping the focus exactly where it belongs: on the actual law. Thanks
No, George/X —it is you who is guilty of dispositive “assertions.”
Yes, let’s stick to the text, which I had done.
First, you moved the goalposts didn’t you? My comment was about Turley identifying ethical violations, not crimes. You completely ignored and circumvented your errors that I pointed out.
Second, even in your response to me, you start out by declaring, “he [Turley] frames her lying to investigators as a potential crime under § 1001.”
Really? Quite a metaphorical jump there, wouldn’t you say?
Please point to the actual text in Turley’s post that constitutes ‘framing’ her for a crime.
Your very next statement is, “Second, he [Turley] asserts this [lying to federal investigators] creates a future conflict. ”
Really?? I see two references to conflict, neither of which states as you portray.
Again, George/X–let’s stick to the actual text. Here it is:
“This judge, who has shown serious ethical concerns, will continue to render judgments on others…”
Repeat, “ETHICAL concerns, will continue to render judgements on others…”
Then you proceed to tell us that “Both [of Turley’s] legal assertions are incorrect.”
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that the thrust of Turley’s post today was about his reaction to the underwhelming punishment meted out for the judge’s conduct, NOT the legal classification of the judge’s conduct, n’est ce pas?
George, just give it up, you simply dig yourself in deeper and deeper. I have more important things to do today than point out your silliness against Turley. Don’t expect another response from me, so go ahead, hit me with your best shot, but I think you already tried….
Lin,
Let’s lay out the text plain and simple, since you claim to be sticking to it.
Turley explicitly details the judge’s lies to investigators, and immediately follows it with: ‘Lying to federal investigators can be a crime under 18 U.S.C. 1001…’That is not a metaphorical jump. That is a direct juxtaposition meant to imply her conduct was a felony. If a commentator writes ‘John took money from the register, and taking money can be a crime under grand larceny laws,’ they are framing John’s actions as criminal.
The core error remains: Turley cited a criminal statute that explicitly does not apply to this situation because of the judicial branch exemption in § 1001(b). He then complained about the council giving a private reprimand instead of a harsher removal, knowing full well that under Article III, a council of judges has zero constitutional authority to fire a lifetime-appointed judge.
Correcting a legal scholar who misapplies criminal statutes and omits constitutional limitations isn’t ‘silliness’—it is basic fact-checking. I accept your exit from the thread.
but Turley did not say that the judge “lied to federal investigators.’ As you said, Stick to the TEXT, clown.
And lay off of of Turley AND Lin. THey both got you by the tail.
ROFL!!!
It’s obvious you’re not paying attention.
Lin,
Dang!! That was another epic take down of the slow and dumb one!! You would think he would learn to not take on actual, real lawyers.
Imagine calling a desperate retreat a ‘takedown.’ Lin couldn’t find a single way around the statutory exemptions in § 1001(b), so she did what any cornered lawyer does: waved her hands, declared victory, and ran away. Keep shaking those pom-poms on the sidelines, Upstartfarmer—it’s about the only value you’re adding to this thread.
It can be a crime but I don’t know under what circumstances. Do you know X?
Lin,
Once again, another epic take down of the slow and dumb one!! Well done!
“Epic take down”. ROFL!!!!
but Turley did not say that the judge “lied to federal investigators.’ As you said, Stick to the TEXT, clown.
And lay off of of Turley AND Lin. THey both got you by the tail.
Nada, X/George/Gigi, remember, you said it was ROLF!
If ignorance were bliss, you would be the happiest person I know.
Do a little reading. A guy who fell foul of 1001 worked for a government contractor. He put down more hours than he had worked. His employer forwarded all such cards to the contracting agency. The worker had intentionally falsified a material fact, just as the judge here had done.No FBI required.
And the sofa pillow sent to another state for lab testing came back clean!
Could one of the liberal trolls here advise us on if loud sex in the Judge’s chambers is better or worse than masturbation in porta potty.toilets?
The leadership of today’s Democratic party!
Gay sex in the Senate chambers, only fans star, what do you expect from the liberal scum on the bench these days. They should all be disbarred and most probably sent to prison for some felony.
This is not only disgusting, immoral as ND despicable conduct, it’s 100% UNLAWFUL, for the reasons stated supra ⬆️⬆️⬆️.
She LIED, presumably under oath, to federal investors and superior federal judges. If anything warrants removal, it’s this. It is hard to imagine much more egregious, criminal, conduct.
As an FYI, there was a CA state judge a few years back doing the EXACT SAME CONDUCT, with a DDA (I think??), but he came clean. He did NOT LIE after the fact. He was likewise given a slap on the wrist “bad boy!” Reprimand. He too should have been REMOVED/FIRED on the spot. If these immature ass klowns are engaged in this type of conduct they have no business being a judge. Especially an Article III judge. F them.
Actually, no. She was investigated by a judicial council, not law enforcement, and if you have to ‘presume’ she was under oath, you cannot claim with any certainty that she committed a federal offense. That is a simple evidentiary fact. Furthermore, federal judges cannot be ‘fired and removed on the spot.’ Under the Constitution, the only way to remove a federal judge from office is through a formal impeachment proceeding by Congress.”
You’re blowing smoke, again.
To violate the Statute, a false statement does *not* need to be made to law enforcement or under oath.
Sam, pay attention, there are subsections on that statute.
18 U.S.C. § 1001(b), the statute clearly notes that the general rule in subsection (a) ‘does not apply’ to statements made to a judge during a judicial proceeding.
A disciplinary review by a chief judge or judicial council IS a judicial proceeding. The statute explicitly states these kinds of disciplinary reviews do not apply.
Does it really matter what we thank?
We as Citizens are dependent upon an impartial, values based, integrity and honor driven Judicial System.
A senior Cop bonking a Federal Judge in her chambers while both are on duty and being paid by their respective government units….both lying to the Investigators rather than just invoking their Right to Remain Silent and have Legal Counsel present….sure does give this Citizen the warm and fuzzies….NOT!
Skip over all of the camouflage and look at the facts…..both of them should have been fired (the Cop) and the Judge removed from the Bench. Both should have been prosecuted for their lying to Investigators and every case they participated in should be reconsidered in light of their gross misconduct. (Yes….I used the word “gross” due to its multiple meanings that apply!)
What is with it in Georgia I wonder?
During my time as a Federal Agent working from an Office in Georgia….I was. quite aware of the sorry state of affairs when it came to their standards but of late I really have to wonder why they can not and will not clean house when clear cut cases present them the direct opportunity to do so.
The probable judge was named, but not the probable LEO (his name is out there, btw)? Kind of like the Epstein files. The women are front and center, but the men are not held accountable. I’m not saying she is a victim. I’m not saying he is a trafficker. But I am saying they both need to be held accountable for their poor judgment, lack of discretion, and dishonesty. Accountability to the public at large and to their respective spouses.
The women are front and center, but the men are not held accountable. I’m not saying she is a victim. I’m not saying he is a trafficker.
====
Get f’ing serious.
This is an Article III judge, her status and authority makes her 1000 times more culpable. Stop playing the bias card based on gender/race/ethnicity/whatever….
Did the cop lie about his activities? Did he call the clerk a liar?
Cimparing apples and apples, the cop does not seem dishonest.
Its time to shake your booty
Killing me Smalls ⬆️⬆️⬆️
😺😺😺
Dear Jonathan,
Congratulations, you have reduced the Blog to a Gossip Column. As we all know this kind of sexual encounters begins in the lowest of Courts (City, County, Night Courts, …) wherein Eager Beavers with budding aspirations of becoming future Higher Court Jurist spawn and aspire to rise (no pun intended).
Given the price increase of Motel-Hotels these days for an on-the-spot-quickee, it comes as no surprise the heated activity has moved from the penthouse suits of the local Motel 6 (the 2nd Floor) to under the rotunda of the bedding chambers of the Court House Cambers. The proverbial “Get-Out-Of-Jail-For-Free” Card is still in play but under more covert conditions. Surveillance systems are everywhere, even inside your Car (The Parking Lot Quickee is now history).
OH! My-O-My what are Lovers of Justice to do? There’s no more room to play under the Bench (no pun intended).
Good point on the video camera surveillance. I personally think the judge should be removed. If not for the sexual conduct, certainly for the unlawful cover up.
In this case- much better a private reprimand then a public display!!!!
It must be mistaken identity. I mean, black women are infallible……right?
If, as appears highly likely, Ross is the “bonobo in a black robe,” the title “Honorable” should be stripped from every document and opinion bearing her name. Democrat Ross, of course, was appointed to the bench by the Republic’s likely Second Usurper in Chief, Barack Obama.
The Eleventh Circuit’s “private reprimand” constitutes yet another instance of the judiciary trying (unsuccessfully) to protect its own.
The DEI appointments to the bench are working out about as well as expected.
Oh, for Pete’s sake. I am at a loss for words. You KNOW this was someone on the left, very possibly an Obama or Biden appointee. What in the actual eff is wrong with these people?
I’ve decided that from 2020-2024 we just finally saw the veil fully lifted on the dems. What a bunch of psychos and reprobates. How can anyone not certifiably mentally ill support it? The levels of disassociation, denial, or self-gaslighting required must be astronomical.
In addition to everything else, I bet they violated the Court’s No Smoking policy afterwards.
I bet they violated the Court’s No Smoking policy afterwards.
====
LOL…. ⬆️⬆️⬆️
These jokes almost write themselves…. if the conduct were not such serious actions it would be so much easier to laugh at…
The fact pallet the 11th Circuit has given us does not have something, and I wouldn’t expect it to. But I raise it as a question to you all. This judge has a batting average on her cases on appeal. What weight, if any, should have been given to heavy affirmances or reversals, or just average, to mete out discipline here? This question runs to Johnathan’s concern that she remains a sitting judge looking ahead.
The comments and the column by Prof. Turley overlook the health issue. Judicial Chambers are visited by attorneys, and probably by others, for conferences with the judge. How many of those people were exposed to germs and fluids left by these Democrats?
Only those who lick the furniture are at risk, but if they have that propensity, perhaps they are like RFK Jr who snorted cocaine from a toilet seat or some similar action that he bragged about.