Unveiling Dog-Whistling: Recognizing Subtle Communication Between Judges and Attorneys

In the legal realm, effective communication is paramount to ensure justice is served fairly and impartially. However, within the intricate dynamics of courtroom proceedings, subtle forms of communication can sometimes occur, potentially influencing outcomes and undermining the principles of fairness and equality before the law. One such phenomenon is known as “dog-whistling,” a subtle form of communication that can occur between judges and attorneys.

Dog-whistling refers to the subtle use of language, cues, or signals that carry deeper, often implicit meanings understood by a specific audience while appearing innocuous to others. Originating from the practice of using high-frequency whistles to communicate with dogs, the term has been adapted to describe communication intended to appeal to certain groups without overtly stating so.

In the legal context, dog-whistling can occur between judges and attorneys, where subtle cues or signals are exchanged that may influence case proceedings, rulings, or perceptions without being explicitly stated. This form of communication can potentially compromise the fairness and impartiality of judicial proceedings, undermining public trust in the legal system.

Manifestations of Dog-Whistling:

  1. Tone and Language: Judges and attorneys may employ subtle changes in tone or language to signal agreement, disagreement, approval, or disapproval during court proceedings. These cues may be subtle but can carry significant weight in shaping the direction of the case.

  2. Non-Verbal Cues: Body language, facial expressions, or gestures can also serve as vehicles for dog-whistling. For example, a judge’s subtle nod or raised eyebrow in response to a particular argument or statement by an attorney may convey approval or skepticism, potentially influencing the course of the proceedings.

  3. Prior Relationships and Connections: Personal or professional relationships between judges and attorneys outside the courtroom can also contribute to dog-whistling. Shared experiences, affiliations, or biases may influence the dynamics of communication, leading to subtle forms of favoritism or partiality.

  4. Implicit References and Appeals: Dog-whistling may involve the use of implicit references or appeals that resonate with specific ideologies, beliefs, or interests shared between judges and attorneys. These references may not be overtly stated but can subtly influence decision-making processes or case outcomes.

EXCERPT FROM JANUARY 6, 2022 STATUS CONFERENCE - DISCOVERY

Maybe she doesn't really understand, and maybe I'm mistaken, but I think if she were represented by counsel, it would be fair to say: You can't defend the criminal case by saying you didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You're going to have to come up with something to show that you didn't really do it... she has the sense throughout the transcript, which is a sense of not understanding and it may -- if we clarify it today, it might make it go easier or smoother. This is her opportunity. It's the third or fourth or fifth rescheduled time for her deposition… and I need to know what it is that she's challenging because she has our record of what that is…
Attorney Stanford Solomon
The Solomon Law Group
“You can talk about habit, you can talk about anything you want. I mean, I don't -- I understand that there are ways that are corroborative that you may get into, and maybe she doesn't understand that, you know... That can be your whole case, if you don't have any documents where Daniel said, "I love you, Honey, charge whatever you want." I mean, that would be the smoking gun obviously. But maybe she has nothing. Maybe it's only going to be word against word, and that happens sometimes too.”
Judge Catherine Peek McEwen
U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division

Identifying Dog-Whistling:

  1. Contextual Analysis: Paying close attention to the context of communication within courtroom proceedings is essential for identifying potential instances of dog-whistling. Consider the nature of the relationship between judges and attorneys, the dynamics of communication, and the underlying implications of language and cues exchanged.

  2. Patterns of Behavior: Recognizing patterns of behavior or communication that consistently favor certain parties or outcomes can be indicative of dog-whistling. This may involve observing recurring themes, preferences, or biases in judicial rulings or attorney strategies.

  3. Scrutinizing Language and Cues: Analyzing the language used by judges and attorneys, as well as their non-verbal cues and interactions, can reveal subtle forms of communication that may carry deeper meanings. Look for inconsistencies, implicit messages, or signals that deviate from the standard norms of courtroom conduct.

  4. Independent Verification: Seeking independent verification or perspectives from impartial observers, legal experts, or professional associations can help validate suspicions of dog-whistling. Discussing concerns with trusted colleagues or mentors within the legal community can provide valuable insights and support in addressing potential misconduct.

There's not going to be any -- no end-its, no dead pass. I'm going to make a ruling and you're going to answer or not. If you continue to refuse, then that, you know, risks sanctions and adverse inferences and so forth.
Judge Catherine Peek McEwen
U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Dividion

January 17, 2022 Third Req. For Documents

REQUEST #6: Please provide the vendor receipts, vendor emails, and any and all documentation for the following transactions listed in the unredacted portions of Exhibit B of the Complaint, which, in part, reflects the amount listed in Plaintiff’s Proof of Claim, and that would show that this transaction was made by and received by Debtor-Defendant and this being for Defendant’s benefit.

REQUEST #7: Please provide the vendor receipts, vendor emails, and any and all documentation for the following transactions listed in the unredacted portions of Exhibit C of the Complaint, which, in part, reflects the amount listed in Plaintiff’s Proof of Claim, that would show that this transaction was made by and received by Debtor-Defendant, and this being for Defendant’s benefit.

REQUEST #8: For Exhibit D of the Complaint, please provide any documentation that shows (1) date and time the transaction was made, (2) the Defendant made the withdrawal for each transaction; and (3) Defendant withdrew each transaction for her own use, (4) the transaction was found in Defendant’s possession, (5) and this being for Defendant’s benefit.

 

EXCERPT FROM DEFENDANT FAITH ANTONIO’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANTS SECOND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2021, ADV. DOC. 374

REFERENCING THE JULY 21, 2021 STATUS CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT (DOC. 193-3)

MS. ANTONIO: There is not a single one that relates to their allegations. It’s all — it’s just all scattered receipts not pertaining – (pg. 73 ln. 17-19)

THE COURT: Well, then may I — may I ask this? If you intend to prove an allegation in your Complaint that she was diverting company assets to purchase prescriptions, do you have receipts that you are going to be entering into evidence to prove that those were her purchases? (pg. 74 ln. 16-23)

MS. THOMPSON: Yes, Your Honor. We will have evidence to support the claims that we’re seeking to recover on. (pg. 74 ln. 21- 23)

MS. ANTONIO: I wanted the ones that are listed in the Complaint. (pg. 75 ln. 14-15)

THE COURT: Okay. We can change 7, Ms. Thompson. Could you please produce the ones that you reference in the Complaint? (pg. 75 ln. 16-18)

MS. THOMPSON: Yes, I will produce the ones that are referenced in the Complaint to the extent that they’re available. And if they’re not, then we shouldn’t be able to rely on them at trial, Your Honor. (pg. 75 ln. 19-22)

THE COURT: And when can you get those, Ms. Thompson? (pg. 76 ln. 1-2)

MS. THOMPSON: Friday, Your Honor? (pg. 76 ln. 3)

THE COURT: Friday. (pg. 76 ln. 4)

THE COURT: With respect to No. 7, at my suggestion, Ms. Antonio has reworded that request to ask for the documents showing the receipts that are complained about in the Complaint. Those will be given to Ms. Antonio by Friday. (pg. 83 ln. 18-21)

Plaintiff has still refused to provide any receipts or documents from the First Request and as promised to this Court during the July 21st status conference, including any receipts relating to CVS, Publix, Walgreens, & Target. Therefore, as Plaintiff continues to stonewall and object to Antonio’s relevant discovery requests, it would be sufficient to conclude that (i) Plaintiff failed to conduct a prefiling investigation to these claims, (ii) this is an admission that these transactions are those of Plaintiff’s principal, (iii) Geberth perjured himself in his verified declaration in Response to the Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and is tantamount to a Bad Faith Affidavit in violation of Rule 56(g).

"Yes. I will produce the ones that are referenced in the Complaint to the extent that they're available. And if they're not, then we shouldn't be able to rely on them at trial, Your Honor. "
Attorney Allison D. Thompson
Former Attorney with the Solomon Law Group
"With respect to No. 7, at my suggestion, Ms. Antonio has reworded that request to ask for the documents showing the receipts that are complained about in the Complaint. Those will be given to Ms. Antonio by Friday."
Judge Catherine Peek McEwen
U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division

The fact that Judge McEwen continued the proceedings, threatening to strike my pleadings, using that to cause fear that she would grant Geberth the ability to STALK me, was beyond malicious. Every day, I continued to ask what was going on? Nothing makes sense. I questioned Judge McEwen’s mental capabilities to demand me to produce evidence of Plaintiff’s claims. NO ONE WAS WILLING TO STEP IN AND STOP THIS BEHAVIOR AND CLEAR ABUSE BY THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM ITSELF. THE INTENT WAS CLEAR, IN MY OPINION, THEY WANTED TO FRAME ME FOR CRIMES TO ABSOLVE THEMSELVES. 

Dog-whistling between judges and attorneys represents a subtle yet significant phenomenon within the legal realm, with the potential to influence case outcomes and erode public trust in the judiciary. By understanding the manifestations of dog-whistling, identifying subtle cues and language, and taking proactive steps to address concerns, readers can contribute to promoting fairness, integrity, and accountability within the legal system. Recognizing the importance of transparent communication, ethical conduct, and judicial impartiality is essential in upholding the principles of justice and equality before the law.