A May 12 court hearing in the Ashli Babbitt $30 million wrongful-death lawsuit against the federal government devolved into shouting by U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, who lambasted Judicial Watch attorney Robert Sticht for the second time in 10 days.
The hearing was scheduled to consider a motion by Aaron Babbitt’s former attorney, Terrell N. Roberts III, who wants a 25% “charging lien” placed on the gross amount of any financial settlement. Judge Reyes rejected Roberts’ earlier request for a temporary restraining order combined with a settlement lien.
‘Judicial Watch does not a get fee out of this settlement.’
On May 2, attorneys disclosed that Judicial Watch, which represents Aaron Babbitt and his late wife’s estate, had reached a settlement agreement “in principle” with the U.S. Department of Justice. No terms were disclosed. A final agreement could be signed at any time but might take weeks to complete, attorneys said.
Roberts represented Babbitt from shortly after Babbitt’s wife was shot to death Jan. 6 by U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd. Roberts abandoned the case in late February 2022 but has been seeking up to 40% of the financial settlement negotiated by Judicial Watch. Babbitt was left to find new legal counsel after Roberts fired him as a client.
On May 6, Judicial Watch proposed that Roberts join in fee arbitration with the Attorney Client Arbitration Board of the District of Columbia Bar — an idea Roberts opposes.
Judicial Watch attorney Richard Driscoll said under D.C. Bar Rule 13, if one party requests it, arbitration is mandatory for both parties. Driscoll filed a petition for arbitration May 9 with the Attorney Client Arbitration Board. Roberts has 21 days to respond.
“The petition for arbitration that was filed with ACAB points out that he [Roberts] has asserted a lien for 40% on the recovery and that we dispute that, and therefore we’re asking the arbitration board to adjudicate that dispute,” Driscoll said.
“It’s in D.C. Bar Rule 13. It’s a condition of being a member of the D.C. Bar,” he said.
The loudest outburst by Judge Reyes came about 30 minutes into the hearing when Sticht complained that the ongoing fee dispute with Roberts is causing expensive delays in finalizing the case. Roberts first sought to intervene in the lawsuit and obtain a charging lien in February.
“This is crazy, and it is costing a lot money,” Sticht said. “And just so the court knows, for the record and all the press who may be on the telephone, Judicial Watch does not a get fee out of this settlement.”
Ashli Babbitt pleads with three U.S. Capitol Police officers to call for backup due to the angry crowd outside the Speaker’s Lobby on Jan. 6, 2021.
Photo by Tayler Hansen
Judge Reyes tried to cut Sticht off after he mentioned the media.
“Mr. Sticht, did I not just tell you that when I start talking, you stop?” Reyes asked.
“I’m sorry, your honor,” Sticht replied as the judge spoke over him.
“Stop talking when I’m talking,” Reyes shouted. “I have given you an opportunity to talk every single time you have asked. I have given every lawyer an opportunity to talk every single time they have asked in front of me, which is why my hearings sometimes go on for hours. The only thing I ask is that when I’m talking, you’re not.”
Zoom delays caused problem
Sticht tried to tell the judge that the cross-talk was due to a delay in audio and video over the Zoom teleconference system from Sticht’s California office. Reyes was having none of it.
“We have a delay, your honor. We have a delay,” Sticht said.
“All right, fine,” the judge replied. “Stop talking.”
Users of teleconference platforms such as Zoom, Webex, Google Meet, and GoTo Meeting often experience latency problems that cause uncomfortable audio and video delays. The results can include participants who speak over each other, video that goes out of sync with audio, video that freezes or skips, and screeching audio feedback if participants don’t mute the microphone when not speaking. Those phenomena launched a barrage of teleconferencing memes on social media.
‘It’s a really simple rule around here.’
During the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. District Courts offered audio dial-in lines for hearings in the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C. Judge Reyes opened public access audio for the Babbitt lawsuit hearings.
During a tense May 2 court hearing, Reyes repeatedly lost her temper with Sticht. She constantly pronounced his surname “Stitch.” When he made a remark about Roberts getting his case information from a reporter who called for comment on the alleged settlement, Reyes lowered the boom.
RELATED: New video covers 19 minutes in the Jan. 6 life and death of Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt
Ashli Babbitt celebrated her 35th and final birthday on Oct. 10, 2020.Photo courtesy of Aaron Babbitt
“When I tell you just stop talking, you stop talking. And you are not going to make snide remarks in your responses to my questions that are not only snide but don’t answer my question,” Reyes said. “OK? So my question is not about where Mr. Roberts gets his information.”
The May 12 hearing did not go much better.
About 30 minutes into the proceeding, Sticht said the lawsuit was making headway toward possible settlement when Roberts came along with a “crazy idea of a charging lien.”
“One complaint, though, Judge, is that these resources are being spent frivolously: mine, the court, the government, and we’re delaying the inevitable settlement,” Sticht said. “I think everybody needs to get out of it and let us finish our job. When there is a settlement fund, there is nothing that prevents Mr. Roberts from chasing that, wherever it is.”
The judge kept interrupting, apparently not realizing that the Zoom teleconferencing platform the court used to connect to Sticht in California had audio and video delay. This resulted in repeated cross-talk episodes and, in the case of the judge, flashes of anger.
After four intonations of “Mr. Stitch” from the judge, the Judicial Watch attorney said, “If I may, your honor. The CH is pronounced with a K.”
Judge Reyes again took after Sticht.
“When I say your name, that means you stop talking,” she said. “It’s a really simple rule around here. When I start talking, everyone else stops. Now I honestly don’t know if this, if you interrupting judges, is what you do all the time or if I just get the particular joy of it, but from now on when I start talking, please stop.
RELATED: President Trump says he’s ‘going to take a look at’ fatal Jan. 6 shooting of Ashli Babbitt
On the eve of the third anniversary of Jan. 6, Aaron Babbitt looks out on North San Diego Bay near the home he shared with his wife, Ashli.
Joseph M. Hanneman/Blaze News
“Secondly, we are here to decide a legal argument. Do not start anything with for the press. We are not here for the press; we’re here for the legal argument.”
Brian J. Boyd, a DOJ civil rights trial attorney, told the judge the government objects to the part of Roberts’ motion that would impinge on the government’s sovereign immunity.
“He is seeking injunctive relief against the United States under the FTCA [Federal Tort Claims Act] to preclude us from disbursing funds from Treasury,” Boyd said. “We’ve raised this issue with him. We did so again on May 6 in the joint meet and confer. He has yet to explain to us under what jurisdiction or what authority he believes he can pursue injunctive relief against the United States here.”
‘He wants the full amount of the fee when he didn’t perform.’
Judge Reyes dismissed the government from Roberts’ motion.
The judge entered an order that gives Roberts a limited intervention in the case for the purpose of receiving timely notices of the signed settlement agreement, the request to the U.S. Treasury for funds, and the eventual payment of funds.
Sticht said he would speak with Aaron Babbitt about the proposed solution to have Sticht divert 25% of the settlement into a trust fund until the Attorney Client Arbitration Board rules on the fee dispute. Judicial Watch told the judge that under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Roberts could receive no more than 25% of the settlement.
“I don’t have my client here in my office, your honor, so I can’t get his consent, but I’ll say that I agree the court should not get involved in the underlying fee dispute. I don’t know any case anywhere where an attorney claims he fired a client and then he wants the full amount of the fee when he didn’t perform. I just don’t know how that’s going to fly.”
Still, Roberts made a last pitch for the 40% contingency fee contained in his January 2021 engagement agreement with Aaron Babbitt.
“I believe that I’m entitled to the contingency fee that I agreed to, subject to the law,” Roberts said.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Read the full article here
