The notice filed pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure stated that it was a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Oddly, the notice went on to present argument that by dismissing the matter with prejudice, the court was divested of jurisdiction and thus unable to render any decision or order relating to the matter.

¹ Although Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) filings are sometimes colloquially styled as “motions,” the Eleventh Circuit has made clear that a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) dismissal is self-executing, terminates the action upon filing, and divests the district court of jurisdiction. See Est. of W. v. Smith, 9 F.4th 1361, 1367–68 (11th Cir. 2021); Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs accordingly file this document as a Notice rather than a motion, as the notice does not require judicial action. Est. of W., 9 F.4th at 1368.

Why did Trump’s attorneys feel it necessary or appropriate to include such obvious argument, given that a dismissal is a dismissal, and that’s that? The reason quickly became apparent when the Department of Justice, under Auditioning Attorney General Todd Blanche, issued a press release to announce what it Orwellianly called the Anti-Weaponization Fund.

In the adorable amount of $1.776 billion coming from the Judgment Fund. a five-person commission would be created, named by Blanche who happens to work for Trump, could divvy up money to anyone it wanted to for any reason it wanted to in any amount it wanted without any oversight or congressional approval. The settlement agreement incorporates some vagaries about lawfare and weaponization, but it’s empty verbiage since there is no oversight into how it hands out money and no recourse if it hands out checks for kicks. Some have called this a slush fund. I am  included in that “some.”

The obvious purpose of captioning the notice as one of dismissal rather than one of settlement is to prevent Judge Kathleen Williams from exercising her general supervisory authority over a suit before seeking to use the authority of the court to circumvent the funding authority of Congress. Dismissal is self-executing. Dismissal divests the court of jurisdiction. Dismissal ends any further involvement by the court.

But this was no dismissal.

Local Rule 16.4 of the Southern District of Florida requires a litigant who has invoked the authority of the court to reach a settlement to notify the court of such.

RULE 16.4 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

If the parties reach an agreement to settle the entire case or certain claims or issues therein, counsel shall notify the Court of such settlement by filing and serving a notice of settlement within two (2) Court days of such agreement being reached. The notice shall be filed and served jointly by counsel for all parties to the settlement. Alternatively, the parties may file and serve a notice or stipulation, as applicable, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. But unless such notice or stipulation is filed within two (2) Court days of the parties reaching a settlement, the parties are still required to file and serve a separate notice of settlement.

In the normal course of practice, the notice filed with the court after a settlement is captioned a “notice of settlement,” not a notice of dismissal. Employing the courts general supervisory authority, settlements are subject to oversight to assure that they fair, appropriate and lawful. Indeed, courts retain jurisdiction to oversee the performance of settlements, as the dismissal pends until the settlement is complete. But that’s not what happened here.

By filing the notice of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a) rather than notice of settlement as required by Local Rule 16.4, did Trump end the case without regard to any settlement, leaving nothing to be settled as the case is now dead? If so, the purported settlement, meaning the Anti-Weaponization Fund, is purely a gift of $1,776,000,000 of taxpayer’s money to Trump’s allies and friends, lacking any pretense of a lawful justification whatsoever.

Did Trump find a way to circumvent the requirement that only Congress can spend by filing a frivolous lawsuit, then settling it with himself by taking money from an authorized Judgment Fund to hand out to his supporters? Or did Trump blow it by filing a self-executing notice of dismissal rather than settlement to preclude the court’s further oversight, but rendering the settlement legally baseless per se, as well as for the host of constitutional infirmities?

Of course, this scheme wasn’t solely from the pen of Trump’s lawyers, but with the participation of Trump’s other lawyer, Todd Blanche. Did this attempt to oust the court from jurisdiction constitute a fraud upon the court?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.