Folks, this train is headed towards crazytown and the conductor is U.S. District Judge Ada Brown:

And to give you a sense of how wild things got in her courtroom, we will start by posting this:

As you will see in a moment, Ms. Thomsen is not making that up.

To put this in context, Judge Ada Brown serves in the Northern District of Texas. She self-identifies as black and Native American. Before you chalk this up to the judge just being a wild-eyed leftist, she was appointed by Trump, somehow, in 2019. We are not sure how to explain the jump from being a Trump appointee to this kind of behavior.

The other major player in the case is an attorney named Ezra Young. He represented a black woman in a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination at Southern Methodist University. So, for the record, he was hired by a black woman, to help her, in a case where she claimed to be facing racial discrimination. And, frankly, he himself seems to be pretty far to the left, though maybe not crossing the line into being a full-on 'leftist.'

Recommended
Margaret Brennan Responds to Report She Resisted Covering Mary Peltola ‘Two Dans’ Ballot Scandal Warren Squire Slurred Words: Amy Acton’s Latest on Stage Antics Have Earned Her the Nickname ‘White Kamala’ Warren Squire

It appears that he was an out-of-state lawyer relative to Texas, so he was admitted to that case pro hac vice, which means that he is an out-of-stater who was allowed to appear in this case, only. Think of it like the titular Vinny in My Cousin Vinny. As you will recall, in that classic comedy, Joe Pesci plays a New York lawyer who has to represent his cousin and his cousin’s friend when they are accused of murder in Alabama. Although the movie is actually extremely accurate on the law and good trial techniques (it is reportedly being used in law schools to teach these issues), one slight inaccuracy is how they handle Vinny’s status. Lawyers are routinely brought in from out of state, but in every jurisdiction this author is aware of, that lawyer then has to be officially supervised by a person admitted in that state. 

In the movie, the public defender was kept on as an advisor, but in real life, he would effectively be Vinny’s supervisor, and he would be required to vouch for everything Vinny does. It’s a small detail and we can understand why the writer or director wanted to push the public defender aside, but we point out the inaccuracy so you get a better understanding of what was going. 

We jokingly call such rules ‘The Full Employment of Local Lawyers Act.’ We are convinced that a large number of policies in each state bar is designed to protect the employment of in-state lawyers.

In any case, it appears that for some reason, Young had his pro hac vice status revoked in this case. From the article:

Brown accused Young of sanctionable conduct after a 2023 hearing but declined to issue sanctions. Brown subsequently revoked Young’s permission to represent his client in her court. The Fifth Circuit had rejected his bid to allow him back into the case to seek the judge’s disqualification. …

Months after Brown blocked Young from her courtroom, she summoned him back, alleging he had posted sealed court filings on his personal website. Young denied any misconduct, saying the papers she presented to him were either from an appeal in the case, or ones he wasn’t familiar with.

That leads us to an enterprising TSMSFKA Twitter (The Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter) user who got ahold of the transcript of that hearing and you need to buckle up before you read this:

Don’t worry, we have a copy of the transcript, too, and we will be cutting and pasting the text here so you don’t have to squint, and we are going to include much more than just the highlighted portion:

THE COURT: And so let the record reflect this is an African American woman judge making these findings. I think that what is going on in this case -- and we're going to talk about some of the e-mails you've sent, and some of the temper tantrums you've thrown, and some of the racial bullying you've done of lawyers who preceded you in the case and opposed you. We're going to talk about that.

The -- I think what's happening here, quite candidly, is you are very intimidated for some reason, Mr. Young, with Black excellence, in light of your White mediocrity. Yeah. Right? You should write that down. I mean, you -- I'm -- you look like a White man, right?

MR. YOUNG: I'm not White, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Oh, okay. What are you?

MR. YOUNG: I'm Latino, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. YOUNG: I took my wife's name, so it doesn't show as easily anymore.

We are reminded of George Zimmerman. He is roughly half white, half latino (with some black blood, even) and he self-identified as Latino, but became an ‘dishonorary white man’ during the Travyon Martin controversy. To this day, we believe that if Zimmerman had a name that sounded less ‘white’ such as ‘Jorge Zapata,’ then the controversy never would have stirred up the way it did in the first place, because most people would assume correctly he was hispanic and would assume (incorrectly) that a Hispanic couldn’t be racist against Martin. But because his name was George Zimmerman, the racist Left assumed he was white and couldn’t get out of that mindset even when they, you know, looked at him. They were bound and determined to set this up as a morality tale about an innocent black kid murdered by a white man, and they were not going to let any facts get in the way.

(And for the record, we don’t think people would be correct to assume Latinos can be racist. Racism is, ironically, an equal opportunity character flaw impacting people of all races. But just because something is illogical, doesn’t mean that people won’t believe it.)

And if you don’t believe Judge Brown was trying to hammer that proverbial square peg into a round hole, this next exchange should cement it, which is literally after he explained he was not white.

THE COURT: Well, you are White-presenting; is that fair to say?

MR. YOUNG: I'm fair-skinned, Your Honor, yes.

THE COURT: All right. Will you agree with me that when you accuse Black attorneys of misconduct, when you do it, you have White privilege; fair?

Oy vey.

The first highlight is the judge speaking (she is always speaking until and unless we say otherwise):

I find that you are a community narcissist. You're the main character. You're the White savior, come to save all the stupid Black lawyers in Texas who need your help, from New York.

This is where him being an out-of-state lawyer comes in. A ‘finding’ is an official factual conclusion of the court. The next highlight:

And you always do this Pikachu face like, what, I have no idea?

We have not been exposed to enough Pokemon games/shows/movies/trading cards to know what she means. Next highlight:

And so that's the finding I'm making, is that you are a raging hypocritical racist, who's abused lawyers on this case from the very beginning. And it needs to be looked into.

Next:

In the whole crazy story of this trashy Real Housewives of New York that you're trying to turn this federal court into, right, the craziest thing was when you demanded a Black lawyer opposing you immediately give up the fight and cede the case, to the detriment of her client, or else you would sic your flying-monkey law professors on her.

We have never met a working lawyer who gave the slightest frak what law professors thought of them, yet she is stuck on this in the next highlight:

When I read that e-mail this weekend about you trying to sic the law review goons on Black lawyers who won't be obedient to your master's wishes, you acted like you were about to slide for O'Block.

So, for once, Mr. Young is speaking in this highlight:

MR. YOUNG: To remind the Court, I have autism. I was checking to see if Ms. Askew used the word ‘sanction.’ That's all, Your Honor.

Back to the judge speaking, discussing whether a female lawyer had ‘bullied’ him about his disability:

You also accused her of bullying you about your disability. There's no evidence in this record of any disability. At your show cause hearing you mentioned some autism, that obviously didn't keep you from doing your job, and uploading things very successfully.

This doesn’t make much sense. First, a disability does not have to be in a court’s record to inspire bullying of some kind based on it. Second, it doesn’t have to be so bad that a person can’t upload documents and can’t function as a lawyer to be something to be bullied over. In fact, if he couldn’t do those things, he had no business being a lawyer at all — and clearly his years of service as a lawyer says otherwise.

And then for some reason, she gets paranoid because he follows Judge Dillard on TSMSFKA Twitter:

The highlights:

THE COURT: I want you to take a look at this picture and tell me if you recognize any people in it.

MR. YOUNG: I recognize Judge Dillard.

THE COURT: How do you know him?

MR. YOUNG: We've been appellate Twitter friends for a few years. We're Facebook friends.

This next part starts with Judge Brown speaking again:

So I just wanted to ask you your general interest in judges at the Duke University School of Law, class of 2025, in this program?

MR. YOUNG: My primary interest was following Judge Dillard's journey through the program.

Young continues:

Now, I might be misremembering. I think Your Honor, when you were a state court judge, some of your – I guess we called them tweets at the time -- were cited.

And this is when the paranoia starts building:

THE COURT: So just a guestion. Would you call that picture of people -- you see it's mostly women, mostly minorities in that class? Would you call that a niche community?

MR. YOUNG: I'd call it a small cohort for an academic program.

THE COURT: Okay. And so why are you so closely following federal judges and state Supreme Court judges?

Next:

THE COURT: What is that?

MR. YOUNG: So it's like the reply field on a Twitter account. And it shows a post to which I responded to that was made by Judge Dillard.

Again, this is in the year of our Lord, 2026. The judge should know what she is looking at. TSMSFKA Twitter is not exactly new anymore. But apparently the judge thought she had some kind of smoking gun on him:

THE COURT: Uh-huh. The program that's posted, this 30 people, my name's in that program. He posted it on graduation day, for my graduation. Why were you following my graduation?

MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I was following Judge Dillard. That was the person to whom I was responding with a celebration party hat. Like congrats, you finished.

So, because he happened to follow a relatively popular TSMSFKA Twitter account of a conservative judge, this was part of a nefarious plan to … look at her graduation photos or something.

(And, no, we are not sure what she was graduating from. Surely law school is many years behind her. Maybe she was getting some post-graduate law degree, such as an LLM?)

Next, she gets into whether or not he met Judge Dillard:

THE COURT: Is it fair to say you reached out to meet him?

MR. YOUNG: I think he reached out to me at some point.

THE COURT: Really? A Republican judge in Georgia?

And then she asks him about another post:

THE COURT: So what is that, if there's no dog? What are you looking at?

MR. YOUNG: It looks like a post from Judge Dillard, with a caption that says: Serious in Durham. That one, Your Honor?

THE COURT: That one.

Why are they talking about a dog? Because it is connected to what Judge Brown thought was an ‘Aha!’ moment:

THE COURT: But where is it? If you take the dog out, what's that location?

MR. YOUNG: I'm not aware, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, you liked it. You were posting. What is it?

MR. YOUNG: Well, Your Honor, I don't think I posted this. I think this captures anything that like I liked or replied to, and...

THE COURT: Let me pause you --

MR. YOUNG: Yeah.

THE COURT: -- and we can shortcut this. You liked it. You talked about getting Duke swag. You made comments about it being in Durham. So can we both agree that you know that this is connected to a location in Durham; is that fair?

MR. YOUNG: I believe Judge Dillard posted he -- he brought his dog to the program for some period of time. I'm not sure how the program is structured. My understanding is there's like -- because it's a bunch of judges.

To jump ahead a bit, this is the offending post:

In the transcript, they accidentally wrote ‘serious’ for ‘Sirius.’ It’s a very common transcription problem.

Anyway, the judge springs what she thinks is some kind of trap:

THE COURT: Okay. So would it surprise you to know that that photo you have, when that photo was taken and when that photo was posted, that's my garden? That's my apartment? That's where I'm living, when you're posting and liking it?

MR. YOUNG: So I was not aware of that.

THE COURT: No idea, okay. No idea?

MR. YOUNG: I don't know what the lodgings are for that program.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. YOUNG: I liked a picture of an online friend's dog.

We can almost feel his bewilderment.

But that’s not the only dog the judge is fixated on. Judge Brown is also concerned that Young set up a racist display with his dog in a Halloween costume.

And before we go further, here is allegedly racist photo:

This might be cut off on your computer, but near the dog’s feet appears to be a mock up of the New York Times announcing the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which of course marked the death knell for segregation in America.

Now, normal people would say, ‘oh! The doggo is named Thurgood, after famous lawyer and eventual Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was one of the NAACP lawyers who won in Brown. How clever!’ 

Okay, maybe not normal people, but normal legal nerds would think that. But you get our point. No one would read a deeper meaning into it. They would just smile and move on.

But Judge Brown was not amused:

The highlights, again:

THE COURT: What is that?

MR. YOUNG: This appears to be a picture – a screenshot of my Twitter account. I'm not sure what the date on it is, but I recognize the photo. It's a photo of my dog. He's not a lab. He's actually a weird mutt, but he looks like a lab. He passes for a lab. And this is a photo I took of him that won a -- like a puppy Halloween costume contest at like his doggy daycare.

THE COURT: So describe it for the record. What's it look like in there?

MR. YOUNG: There is a picture of a lab-looking dog, who's not a lab.

THE COURT: Can we agree -- let me pause you for a second. Can we agree that he is pitch black? That's the blackest dog you could ever have. Black eyes, black nose, black paws. That dog is black, correct? That's a black dog, yes?

MR. YOUNG: The picture looks black. He's a little bit brown and other things, Your Honor. But, yes; here, black.

THE COURT: All right. What's his name?

MR. YOUNG: His name's Thurgood, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Who's he named after?

MR. YOUNG: Thurgood Marshall, Your Honor.

THE COURT: How would you describe him in this little photo there?

MR. YOUNG: Well, the description has it, too, Your Honor. But I believe the setup of this was --

THE COURT: Just -- let me just ask, what's he wearing? Because your dog's in a little outfit.

MR. YOUNG: Yeah. He's wearing like a doggy costume that's like a suit and tie-looking thing.

THE COURT: He's dressed up like Thurgood Marshall, right?

THE COURT: Okay. And he has a little fun- -- I think you think it's funny, at least -- a little Brown v. Board of Education, like a little funny news article --

MR. YOUNG: It's --

THE COURT: -- no, let me finish. So your little black lab, right? Has a little chain on, and he's got a little suit on, your little Thurgood Marshall dog. And your funny Halloween costume, Chad, is to have your little black dog, with the Brown v. Board of Education headline, like you've got a little prop or something for it for, I guess, when you walk him around on Halloween, that sort of, I guess, yucks it up about school desegregation. So this is your dog's Halloween costume; right? Is that right?

MR. YOUNG: When he was a puppy, yeah. There's no chain. He's wearing a collar. And I believe it was a pastiche of a more famous photo of actual Thurgood Marshall holding the headline, desegregation headline, on the steps of the Supreme Court.

THE COURT: I will tell you that Brown v. Board of Education is the reason I'm a federal judge today.

For the record, we have read enough about Marshall to believe that he would be deeply amused by the photo and not even a little bit insulted. He reportedly had a very big, very charming laugh. We would probably have enjoyed his company.

The highlight, with slight censorship because we don’t want this site suppressed:

THE COURT: One last exhibit for you. Court's 22, please. If you'll tell me what this is. What's this?

MR. YOUNG: It appears to be a thread on Twitter to which I responded to.

THE COURT: And what's the name of the person you're talking to?

MR. YOUNG: The -- the identity that -- it's @f*ggyforthe.

THE COURT: No, not that one.

MR. YOUNG: And then the -- the name, which is -- I was -- that's the account, pseudo-n***a.

THE COURT: Would you spell that out for the record?

MR. YOUNG: Yes, Your Honor. P-S-E-U-D-O, dash, N-*-*-*-A.

THE COURT: And so you are yucking it up with pseudo-n***a; is that right?

MR. YOUNG: I responded to something that person said. Yes, Your Honor.

To jump ahead, we couldn’t find this person’s account on TSMSFKA Twitter. It wouldn’t shock us if he was suspended for the anti-gay slur in his name. The n***a term is personally distasteful to this author and we wouldn’t use it, let alone the n****r form. But we also exist in the real world where many people have been socialized to think that the ‘ga’ version is socially acceptable in many contexts. Therefore, we can’t think that a person using that term is automatically racist toward black people, and I can’t think Young is a bad person for just … *checks notes* … talking to him.

And apparently this was the conversation:

This one you might have to squint at. We did and the gist of the conversation is that this man that Young conversed with is saying he saw a 15-year-old kid who was allegedly kicked out of the house for being ‘queer’ and he was trying to help him. And rather than berate him for his nickname or handle, Young simply said, ‘Good on you. Thanks for trying to help the kid.’

And if you have trouble trying to figure out what any of this has to do with anything, we are with you on that.

This highlight comes after he tries to make the point that he was in this case to help a black woman get justice when she allegedly faced racial discrimination:

THE COURT: Yes. Can I pause and just tell you, I appreciate, on behalf of Black people, your White saviordom. What else do you have?

MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, again, I'm not White.

THE COURT: Okay. White-appearing.

MR. YOUNG: Okay. But again, Your Honor, the Court appears to be injecting my race, supposed race --

THE COURT: Oh, is it reverse racism now? I'm --

MR. YOUNG: No, Your Honor --

THE COURT: -- listen --

MR. YOUNG: -- I think this Court is inappropriately searching for reasons to punish me because I have tried to zealously advocate for my clients. Because I have not agreed with this Court's characterizations of my behavior. Which is my right. I have a right to disagree with this Court.

THE COURT: You have a right to appeal. I'm not going to argue with you again. You've said you're not a racist. You've told me about your Black friends. You tell me how much you do for us. On behalf of Black people, thank you so much.

And that is it for the highlights from that transcript. To go back to the Bloomberg article that started it, apparently some people believe that the judge was having a mental health problem:

Soon after, Young filed a formal complaint against Brown, saying he believed the judge may be suffering from a mental health condition. The complaint helped launch a judicial investigation that resulted in her temporarily losing her docket earlier this month.

A special judicial committee has ordered Brown to undergo a psychiatric examination as part of that investigation.

While we used the term ‘crazytown’ to describe this hearing, we will note that on the face of the text, the judge doesn’t seem any crazier than your average campus leftist. Her behavior was naturally way out of bounds, and, crucially, we weren’t there, so maybe there was something in way the judge spoke, her affect or something intangible like that, that supports the mental health concerns. But again, the text alone doesn’t support that.

Back to the article:

Brown has said she won’t participate in proceedings tied to complaints by Young and Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the Fifth Circuit. Brown earlier defended her conduct toward Young in a 76-page written response viewed by Bloomberg Law.

Brown in that response denied having a mental health issue, as raised by Young in his complaint, and denied that any of her actions were inappropriate. She acknowledged that she might have handled her discussions about race ‘more delicately.’

Andre Davis, a former Fourth Circuit judge who previously served as a federal trial judge in Baltimore, said the purported conduct — at the hearing and since — shows ‘a clear pattern of inappropriate and abusive behavior by Judge Brown that reflects violations of numerous provisions of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges.’

‘If the investigation of the matters at issue were to conclude on the current facts, without consideration of any potential information bearing on mitigation, the case for removal of a judge, at the state or federal level, would be compelling,’ Davis said.

We shall see how this shakes out, but taking away the judge’s entire docket while the investigation proceeds is a big freaking deal. But we also have to say, if this judge has not lost her mind, what was Trump thinking in appointing her? Was he that hard up for good judicial candidates?

And finally, while we won’t be doing many reactions, we think it's worth it to include this one:

We don’t use the term ‘reverse racism.’ It’s all just racism to us whether it is anti-white, anti-black or whatever, and this judge is showing a ton of it. And ‘Deetz’ is right to say this opens up her entire docket (criminal or otherwise) to scrutiny. Or rather it opens up every case where the person is white, black, asian or any other race, that’s all. /sarcasm.

You might think ‘well, wait a minute. Although this author is brilliant, handsome, a stud, the kind of man where men want to be him and women want to be with him, why would Judge Brown’s racism be a problem for cases involving black people? Like suppose a black lawyer represented a black defendant in a criminal case, who was still convicted and sent to prison. She evidently likes black people better than white and ‘white presenting’ people, so what is the problem?’

Well, the problem is that if she is perceived as being against white people and for black people, then she might be tempted to go extra hard on black lawyers and/or black defendants in an attempt to prove how un-racist she is, which isn’t fair to those lawyers and/or defendants. This is why it is a matter of black letter law that if a bias is shown, everyone on either side of that bias can challenge it. Whether she has mental health issues or not, she has created what could amount to a giant mess in her district.

RELATED: James Comey Charged Again, This Time for an Alleged Violation of the Espionage Act

New Ad for ‘Stepstool’ Abdul El-Sayed Blames High Grocery Prices on … Guess Who?

Prayers Up for Lisa Baker Graas a.k.a. @CatholicLisa

Let’s Do a Deep Dive Into the Dispute Between Amy Acton and Her Mother, Donna Arthur

BREAKING: Virginia State Senator Louise Lucas Arrested

Keelah Se’lai: Very Bad News for Fans of BioWare, Mass Effect, Dragon Age And Other Games

One ‘Weird Trick’ That Would Instantly Undermine the Political Power of Illegal Immigrants (and Democrats)

BREAKING: An NYT Interview With Biden Just Undermined Thousands of His Late Pardons (A Deep Dive)