On April 16, 2025, the defendants filed a Request for Judicial Settlement of the Record on Appeal under Rule 11(c), but their request went far beyond what the rule permits. Rule 11(c) allows the trial court to resolve disputes over the narrative of the record—factual disagreements or clarifications about what happened procedurally—not to decide what is legally appropriate to include or to strike from the record.
However, opposing counsel improperly asked the judge to strike entire filings, including my Rule 9(d) supplement, which is governed exclusively by the Court of Appeals and not subject to trial court review. This alone made the request procedurally improper. Their request appeared as an attempt to rewrite the record—not settle it—and infringed on the appellate court’s jurisdiction to determine what it will consider on appeal.
I responded on April 17 with a formal Objection to Judicial Settlement, explaining that Rule 11(c) doesn’t authorize a judge to remove filings from the record based on disagreement with their content or perceived relevance. In my objection, I clearly stated that opposing counsel’s request fell outside the scope of Rule 11(c) and asked that the Chief District Court Judge resolve the matter solely through written motions—without allowing it to proceed to a hearing—due to how improper and procedurally abusive it was. I emphasized that even the one factual dispute he raised could be resolved easily based on the record, and that his attempt to reframe the issue was simply more procedural gamesmanship. I also used the opportunity to highlight the broader pattern of misconduct that had unfolded in the trial court, including prior inappropriate communications with judges, and made clear that it was now the Chief District Court Judge’s responsibility to step in and preserve the integrity of the record and the process.