Then Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in DC reamed Halligan\u2019s office out for its inexcusably shoddy \u2014 not to say unconstitutional! \u2014 work, before locking her out of the evidence she was relying on to re-indict former FBI Director James Comey.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s enough to make a fake prosecutor want to give up and go get a real job.<\/p>\n
The case that won\u2019t die<\/h2>\n
The Comey investigation was a Frankenstein\u2019s monster of illegality which likely would have collapsed under its own weight even if Halligan\u00a0had<\/em>\u00a0been lawfully appointed. One of the most glaring defects was its reliance on evidence seized from Comey\u2019s friend and sometime lawyer, Daniel Richman.<\/p>\n In 2019 and 2020, the FBI executed four separate search warrants for his various email, hard drive, and iCloud accounts, essentially seizing Richman\u2019s entire digital life. Failing to find evidence that Comey had leaked classified information to Richman back in 2017, the FBI closed that investigation in 2021. The data was then tossed in a locker, where it sat until 2025, when Halligan pulled it out and started rummaging through it in search of proof that Comey lied to Congress in 2020.<\/p>\n A competent prosecutor would have sought a new warrant before accessing the Richman materials. Judge Kollar-Kotelly and Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, who was tasked with adjudicating discovery disputes in the Comey case, both expressed astonishment that no one bothered to get a court to bless their use of evidence collected six years ago in an entirely different case. Whether this was due to incompetence or the need to indict Comey before the statute of limitations elapsed was never explained. But that procedural omission may turn out to be costly.<\/p>\n On November 26, Richman filed a\u00a0motion for return of property<\/a>\u00a0under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). He argued that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights by retaining non-responsive information from the original warrant, failing to destroy it when the leak investigation was closed in 2021, and re-using that dataset in 2025 without a warrant.<\/p>\n After nine days with no appearance by lawyers the government, Richman moved for a temporary restraining order. Noting that DOJ appeared to be playing games, avoiding assigning a lawyer to the case in an effort to keep using Richman\u2019s files, Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the TRO and ordered the DOJ to enter an appearance. After no small amount of\u00a0rigamarole<\/a>, Halligan and her deputy Robert McBride finally complied.<\/p>\n Halligan signed the\u00a0response<\/a>\u00a0to Richman\u2019s motion as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, despite conceding in the filing that the Comey case was \u201cdismissed after the court found that Lindsey Halligan, who presented the proposed indictment to the grand jury, had been improperly appointed as Interim U.S. Attorney in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 546.\u201d<\/p>\n Halligan barely bothered to defend her office\u2019s conduct, instead arguing that Judge Kollar-Kotelly should dismiss the case because of Richman\u2019s improper motive.<\/p>\n \u201cPetitioner\u2019s motion is a collateral (and premature) motion to suppress evidence in another criminal proceeding, masquerading as a motion for return of property under Federal Rule 41(g),\u201d she insisted. \u201cIt is impermissible for a court to enjoin a criminal investigation and potential prosecution in another district by restraining use of evidence to benefit a third party.\u201d<\/p>\n Halligan argued that the government can retain and scrutinize Richman\u2019s files forever \u2014\u00a0or at least until she manages to convince another grand jury to indict James Comey. At that point Comey \u2014 but not Richman! \u2014 can file a suppression motion. As for Richman\u2019s interest in his own data, Halligan sneered in a footnote that he \u201cplainly has an adequate remedy at law\u2014he could bring a\u00a0Bivens<\/em>\u00a0action.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s a patently silly argument. Individuals can indeed file\u00a0Bivens<\/em>\u00a0actions in limited circumstances when their rights have been violated by federal officers, but those actions are for damages \u2014 i.e., money \u2014 and not for the return of property.<\/p>\n This case was probably always going to be a loser for the government. But Halligan\u2019s flippant brief almost certainly made it worse.<\/p>\n A few days later, on Friday, Judge Kollar-Kotelly\u00a0granted<\/a>\u00a0Richman\u2019s motion for the return of his property, ordering the Department of Justice to destroy the copies of his data in its possession.<\/p>\n \u201c[T]his Court agrees with Petitioner Richman that the Government\u2019s retention and use of his files has violated his Fourth Amendment rights,\u201d she wrote, adding that Halligan\u2019s decision to rummage through Richman\u2019s files in 2025 without getting a new search warrant was \u201ca remarkable breach of protocol\u201d that clearly reflected a \u201ccallous disregard\u201d for Richman\u2019s constitutional rights.<\/p>\n As for the government\u2019s insistent that Richman\u2019s Rule 41(g) motion was actually an improper collateral motion to suppress evidence in Comey\u2019s case, Judge Kollar-Kotelly brushed that aside in a little over two paragraphs, dryly noting that Halligan\u2019s brief \u201cmisses the mark\u201d by citing \u201cinapposite\u201d cases.<\/p>\n Judge Kollar-Kotelly\u00a0did<\/em>\u00a0throw the government a bone of sorts by ordering it to deposit a single copy of the material seized from Richman with the district court in the Eastern District of Virginia. That preserves the materials in the event that Halligan\u2019s office manages to (finally) play by the rules and seek a new search warrant in connection with its ongoing investigation of James Comey.<\/p>\n And although Judge Kollar-Kotelly was polite enough not to point out that Halligan is inappropriately trying to pass herself off as the US Attorney, her ruling nevertheless explicitly adopted Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick\u2019s findings from the prior Comey litigation that exposed Halligan\u2019s incompetence, including his conclusion that the unconstitutional search was performed \u201capparently with the concurrence of\u201d the US Attorney\u2019s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.<\/p>\n If Halligan were capable of shame, that would be humiliating. But it\u2019ll probably take at least a couple more no-bills before she wanders back to Washington to\u00a0de-woke-ify the Smithsonian<\/a>.<\/p>\n Subscribe to read more at Law and Chaos\u2026.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n Liz Dye<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Andrew Torrez<\/a>\u00a0produce the Law and Chaos\u00a0Substack\u00a0<\/a>and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0You can subscribe by clicking the logo:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The post Lindsey Halligan Humiliated In Court. Again.<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n Lindsey Halligan had another bad week at her pretend job as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.<\/p>\n First Halligan got no-billed\u00a0for the third time<\/em>\u00a0when she tried to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James. The week before, a grand jury in Norfolk bounced an attempt to charge James with mortgage fraud. This time around, a grand jury in Alexandria did the honors.<\/p>\n Then Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in DC reamed Halligan\u2019s office out for its inexcusably shoddy \u2014 not to say unconstitutional! \u2014 work, before locking her out of the evidence she was relying on to re-indict former FBI Director James Comey.<\/p>\n It\u2019s enough to make a fake prosecutor want to give up and go get a real job.<\/p>\n The Comey investigation was a Frankenstein\u2019s monster of illegality which likely would have collapsed under its own weight even if Halligan\u00a0had<\/em>\u00a0been lawfully appointed. One of the most glaring defects was its reliance on evidence seized from Comey\u2019s friend and sometime lawyer, Daniel Richman.<\/p>\n In 2019 and 2020, the FBI executed four separate search warrants for his various email, hard drive, and iCloud accounts, essentially seizing Richman\u2019s entire digital life. Failing to find evidence that Comey had leaked classified information to Richman back in 2017, the FBI closed that investigation in 2021. The data was then tossed in a locker, where it sat until 2025, when Halligan pulled it out and started rummaging through it in search of proof that Comey lied to Congress in 2020.<\/p>\n A competent prosecutor would have sought a new warrant before accessing the Richman materials. Judge Kollar-Kotelly and Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, who was tasked with adjudicating discovery disputes in the Comey case, both expressed astonishment that no one bothered to get a court to bless their use of evidence collected six years ago in an entirely different case. Whether this was due to incompetence or the need to indict Comey before the statute of limitations elapsed was never explained. But that procedural omission may turn out to be costly.<\/p>\n On November 26, Richman filed a\u00a0motion for return of property<\/a>\u00a0under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). He argued that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights by retaining non-responsive information from the original warrant, failing to destroy it when the leak investigation was closed in 2021, and re-using that dataset in 2025 without a warrant.<\/p>\n After nine days with no appearance by lawyers the government, Richman moved for a temporary restraining order. Noting that DOJ appeared to be playing games, avoiding assigning a lawyer to the case in an effort to keep using Richman\u2019s files, Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the TRO and ordered the DOJ to enter an appearance. After no small amount of\u00a0rigamarole<\/a>, Halligan and her deputy Robert McBride finally complied.<\/p>\n Halligan signed the\u00a0response<\/a>\u00a0to Richman\u2019s motion as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, despite conceding in the filing that the Comey case was \u201cdismissed after the court found that Lindsey Halligan, who presented the proposed indictment to the grand jury, had been improperly appointed as Interim U.S. Attorney in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 546.\u201d<\/p>\n Halligan barely bothered to defend her office\u2019s conduct, instead arguing that Judge Kollar-Kotelly should dismiss the case because of Richman\u2019s improper motive.<\/p>\n \u201cPetitioner\u2019s motion is a collateral (and premature) motion to suppress evidence in another criminal proceeding, masquerading as a motion for return of property under Federal Rule 41(g),\u201d she insisted. \u201cIt is impermissible for a court to enjoin a criminal investigation and potential prosecution in another district by restraining use of evidence to benefit a third party.\u201d<\/p>\n Halligan argued that the government can retain and scrutinize Richman\u2019s files forever \u2014\u00a0or at least until she manages to convince another grand jury to indict James Comey. At that point Comey \u2014 but not Richman! \u2014 can file a suppression motion. As for Richman\u2019s interest in his own data, Halligan sneered in a footnote that he \u201cplainly has an adequate remedy at law\u2014he could bring a\u00a0Bivens<\/em>\u00a0action.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s a patently silly argument. Individuals can indeed file\u00a0Bivens<\/em>\u00a0actions in limited circumstances when their rights have been violated by federal officers, but those actions are for damages \u2014 i.e., money \u2014 and not for the return of property.<\/p>\n This case was probably always going to be a loser for the government. But Halligan\u2019s flippant brief almost certainly made it worse.<\/p>\n A few days later, on Friday, Judge Kollar-Kotelly\u00a0granted<\/a>\u00a0Richman\u2019s motion for the return of his property, ordering the Department of Justice to destroy the copies of his data in its possession.<\/p>\n \u201c[T]his Court agrees with Petitioner Richman that the Government\u2019s retention and use of his files has violated his Fourth Amendment rights,\u201d she wrote, adding that Halligan\u2019s decision to rummage through Richman\u2019s files in 2025 without getting a new search warrant was \u201ca remarkable breach of protocol\u201d that clearly reflected a \u201ccallous disregard\u201d for Richman\u2019s constitutional rights.<\/p>\n As for the government\u2019s insistent that Richman\u2019s Rule 41(g) motion was actually an improper collateral motion to suppress evidence in Comey\u2019s case, Judge Kollar-Kotelly brushed that aside in a little over two paragraphs, dryly noting that Halligan\u2019s brief \u201cmisses the mark\u201d by citing \u201cinapposite\u201d cases.<\/p>\n Judge Kollar-Kotelly\u00a0did<\/em>\u00a0throw the government a bone of sorts by ordering it to deposit a single copy of the material seized from Richman with the district court in the Eastern District of Virginia. That preserves the materials in the event that Halligan\u2019s office manages to (finally) play by the rules and seek a new search warrant in connection with its ongoing investigation of James Comey.<\/p>\n And although Judge Kollar-Kotelly was polite enough not to point out that Halligan is inappropriately trying to pass herself off as the US Attorney, her ruling nevertheless explicitly adopted Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick\u2019s findings from the prior Comey litigation that exposed Halligan\u2019s incompetence, including his conclusion that the unconstitutional search was performed \u201capparently with the concurrence of\u201d the US Attorney\u2019s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.<\/p>\n If Halligan were capable of shame, that would be humiliating. But it\u2019ll probably take at least a couple more no-bills before she wanders back to Washington to\u00a0de-woke-ify the Smithsonian<\/a>.<\/p>\n Subscribe to read more at Law and Chaos\u2026.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n Liz Dye<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Andrew Torrez<\/a>\u00a0produce the Law and Chaos\u00a0Substack\u00a0<\/a>and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0You can subscribe by clicking the logo:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Lindsey Halligan had another bad week at her pretend job as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. First Halligan got no-billed\u00a0for the third time\u00a0when she tried to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James. The week before, a grand jury in Norfolk bounced an attempt to charge James with mortgage fraud. This time […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":139101,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/law-and-chaos-logo-liz-dye-300x153-3KOZ2f.jpg?fit=300%2C153&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=139100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139100\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/139101"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The best defense is a good \u2026 yeah, not that one either<\/h2>\n
Give it up already<\/h2>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2025\/06\/law-and-chaos-logo-liz-dye-300x153.jpg?resize=300%2C153&ssl=1\" "\\"\\""){kind=logo}
<\/a><\/figure>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2025\/10\/lindsey-halligan-GettyImages-2237057834-300x200.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
\n<\/a><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"