Well you’re the judge, and I’m just the… law-talking guy.

Who’s running the courts circus, you ask?i

Of course you’re asking a decade too late,ii at least if you wanted any part of the 27.7 BTCiii bounty available to those who were in the right place at the right time, but here we are, in 2025, with all the cutting-edge tools of modernityiv at our ready disposal, but with only the ghosts of elite social networks with whom to share our findings.

So enjoy them to our private contents we must! Without further ado, my muchly belated contribution to “the research job” proposed by MP all those lifetimes ago, updated for $THECURRENTYEAR:

Magistrate Judges (Age ≤ 40 as of Oct 4, 1993) – Privacy-Related Rulings and Scores

Identified Judges and Background

Magistrate Judges (40 or younger on 10/4/1993): We identified eight U.S. magistrate judges serving on that date who met the age criterion. Below are their names, districts, and ages (approximate) in October 1993, followed by their notable rulings on privacy-related issues and current positions:

  • Deborah A. Robinson – U.S. District Court for D.C. (D.D.C.) – Age: ~40
  • Sarah W. Hays – Western District of Missouri (W.D. Mo.) – Age: 39-40
  • John T. Maughmer – Western District of Missouri (W.D. Mo.) – Age: ~39
  • Barry R. Poretz – Eastern District of Virginia (E.D. Va.) – Age: ~35
  • John A. Jarvey – Northern District of Iowa (N.D. Iowa) – Age: 37
  • Celeste F. Bremer – Southern District of Iowa (S.D. Iowa) – Age: ~40
  • Mary Pat Thynge – District of Delaware (D. Del.) – Age: ~40
  • Jane J. Boyle – Northern District of Texas (N.D. Tex.) – Age: ~38

(Birth years sources: e.g., Hays b.1953 (Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays | Western District of Missouri), Maughmer b.1954 (Magistrate Judge John T. Maughmer | Western District of Missouri), etc.)

Below we compile representative rulings/orders by each judge in cases affecting individual privacy rights (including production of private communications) with the U.S. government or its agents as a party. Each ruling is scored for deference to the government’s position, as defined:

  • +2: Strongly favored government (e.g. upheld government action to the detriment of individual rights; gross partiality).
  • +1: Mild, non-dispositive tilt toward government’s position.
  • 0: Neutral/impartial handling.
  • -1: Mild tilt favoring individual’s privacy rights over government.
  • -2: Strongly favored individual against government (e.g. curbed government action; gross partiality).

We then sum the scores per judge and provide an overall statistical summary. Finally, each judge’s current status is noted.

Judge Deborah A. Robinson (D.D.C.)

Notable Privacy-Related Ruling: Sealing of Plea Agreement in a High-Profile Case – In Washington Post v. Robinson, Magistrate Judge Robinson, at the request of the U.S. Attorney, sealed a plea agreement in a criminal case involving D.C. Mayor Marion Barry’s associate ( The Washington Post, Appellant, v. Honorable Deborah Robinson, Appellee, 935 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) :: Justia) ( The Washington Post, Appellant, v. Honorable Deborah Robinson, Appellee, 935 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) :: Justia). She granted the government’s oral motion to seal the plea with no advance notice or findings. The district court upheld her decision, but on appeal the D.C. Circuit vacated Robinson’s order, finding she had not followed the required First Amendment procedures and the government failed to show a compelling interest to justify sealing ( The Washington Post, Appellant, v. Honorable Deborah Robinson, Appellee, 935 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) :: Justia) ( The Washington Post, Appellant, v. Honorable Deborah Robinson, Appellee, 935 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) :: Justia). In essence, Robinson’s ruling deferred heavily to the government’s desire for secrecy at the expense of public access.

Judge Sarah W. Hays (W.D. Missouri)

Notable Privacy-Related Ruling: Suppression of a 33-year-old Murder Confession – In U.S. v. LeBrun, a cold-case murder prosecution of a former Navy seaman, Magistrate Judge Hays recommended suppressing the defendant’s videotaped confession on grounds that it was involuntary (Courts dispute admission to killing | HeraldNet.com) (Courts dispute admission to killing | HeraldNet.com). Investigators had obtained the confession using emotional pressure and broad promises of non-prosecution, which Hays found overbore the suspect’s will. She advised the district judge not to admit the confession, despite prosecutors arguing it was “crucial” evidence (Courts dispute admission to killing | HeraldNet.com). This ruling protected the individual’s Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Judge John T. Maughmer (W.D. Missouri)

Notable Privacy-Related Rulings: No highly publicized privacy-rights controversies identified. Judge Maughmer handled many pretrial matters since his 1988 appointment (e.g. detention, discovery, and trial management), but we found no specific published decisions of his that directly impacted individual privacy or private communications in a government dispute. His long tenure is marked by routine criminal referrals (such as search warrant reviews and evidentiary rulings) and civil case management, generally without claims of bias. In the absence of a notable privacy decision, we infer a neutral performance in such matters.

  • Score: 0 (No evident tilt; Judge Maughmer’s record shows neutral and impartial handling of his judicial duties, with no known instances of undue deference or opposition to government positions in privacy-related contexts).
  • Total Score for Judge Maughmer: 0.
  • Current Status: Active Magistrate Judge. Serving since 1988 (Magistrate Judge John T. Maughmer | Western District of Missouri), Judge Maughmer remains on the bench in W.D. Missouri (one of the longest-serving magistrates there).

Judge Barry R. Poretz (E.D. Virginia)

Notable Privacy-Related Ruling: Quashing of Subpoena for Personal Emails (Stored Communications Act) – As the magistrate in a U.S. ex rel. Rigsby v. State Farm ancillary proceeding, Judge Poretz upheld privacy protections for electronic communications. State Farm had issued a subpoena to AOL, a third-party email provider, seeking the personal emails of two whistleblowers (the Rigsby sisters) in a False Claims Act case. Magistrate Poretz granted a motion to quash the subpoena, finding that the federal Stored Communications Act (often called the “Privacy Act” in the opinion) prohibited AOL from disclosing users’ emails in civil discovery (link) (link). The district court agreed that no exception allowed such disclosure and upheld Poretz’s order quashing the subpoena (link) (link). This ruling protected individual privacy in communications against a litigant’s (and indirectly, the government’s) attempt to obtain them.

  • Score: 0 (Judge Poretz acted impartially, adhering to the law. His ruling enforced a federal privacy statute uniformly, rather than reflecting bias for or against a party. Notably, the U.S. government (as the whistleblowers’ ally) was not adversarial to this outcome – indeed, preventing unauthorized disclosure aligned with protecting the relators. Poretz neither bent toward State Farm’s position nor had to rule against a government request, so we assess his stance as neutral in terms of deference).
  • Total Score for Judge Poretz: 0 (neutral overall in the representative case).
  • Current Status: Retired/Private Practice. Judge Poretz retired from the bench in 2008 (AUGUST 2008.pmd) (AUGUST 2008.pmd). He now works as a neutral mediator/arbitrator in private practice (The McCammon Group) (Hon. Barry R. Poretz (Ret.) – McCammon Group) (Hon. Barry R. Poretz (Ret.) – McCammon Group).

Judge John A. Jarvey (N.D. Iowa)

Notable Privacy-Related Rulings: Consistent Denial of Motions to Suppress (Fourth/Fifth Amendment) – Judge Jarvey, a former DOJ prosecutor, often handled pretrial suppression motions during his magistrate tenure. For example: In U.S. v. Meiner, a mail-theft case, he held an evidentiary hearing and recommended denying the defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements made to a postal inspector ( United States v. Meiner, 381 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Iowa 2005) :: Justia) ( United States v. Meiner, 381 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Iowa 2005) :: Justia). Jarvey found that the Miranda rule was not violated and the confession was admissible, siding with the prosecution’s arguments. Similarly, in U.S. v. Starr, involving child pornography charges, he issued an R&R advising that the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence be denied as lacking merit (U.S. v. Starr, No. 06-CR-13-LRR | Casetext Search + Citator) (U.S. v. Starr, No. 06-CR-13-LRR | Casetext Search + Citator). In both instances, the district judge adopted Jarvey’s recommendations, allowing the government to use the contested evidence.

  • Score: +1 (each) – These rulings show a mild deference to the government’s position. Judge Jarvey applied prevailing law to uphold law enforcement actions, consistently finding no constitutional violations. There was no indication of procedural error or extreme bias, but in close calls his inclination favored the prosecution. We score his pattern as +1 for each suppression dispute (non-substantive lean toward government).
  • Total Score for Judge Jarvey: +2 (e.g. two representative suppression rulings at +1 each, totaling +2). This reflects an overall pro-government tilt in privacy-related criminal matters.
  • Current Status: Retired U.S. District Judge. In 2007 Jarvey was elevated to Article III Judge (S.D. Iowa) and later became Chief Judge. He retired from the federal bench on March 18, 2022 (John Jarvey – Ballotpedia). He now occasionally speaks on legal topics (e.g. IP law) (Insights on IP Cases with US District Court Judge John Jarvey) and is presumed to be in private life or consulting.

Judge Celeste F. Bremer (S.D. Iowa)

Notable Privacy-Related Rulings: No specific published cases on personal communications. Magistrate Judge Bremer’s docket centered on civil litigation (prisoner civil rights, employment discrimination, Social Security appeals, etc.) and settlement work. We found no notable adversarial cases involving individual privacy or communication seizures attributed to her. In her long career, her decisions generally followed established law without controversy. One example of her work is Brewer v. Blackwell (1991–93), where as Chief Magistrate she managed an inmate’s Eighth Amendment case and allowed amendments to add defendants ( Brewer v. Blackwell, 836 F. Supp. 631 (S.D. Iowa 1993) :: Justia) – a procedural fairness decision not directly about privacy. Overall, her record does not show significant conflicts between individual privacy and government action.

Judge Mary Pat Thynge (D. Delaware)

Notable Privacy-Related Rulings: No known privacy-rights controversies. Judge Thynge’s caseload in Delaware largely involved civil cases (especially intellectual property and complex litigation) and mediation oversight ([PDF] Recent Intellectual Property Developments in Delaware) (Intellectual Property – Discovery – Richards, Layton & Finger). We did not identify any instance where she had to rule on production of private communications or suppress evidence in a criminal context. (In criminal duty matters, she approved warrants and handled initial proceedings, but those did not generate published opinions beyond routine findings.) Her few published decisions on discovery typically dealt with privilege in corporate contexts (Intellectual Property – Discovery – Richards, Layton & Finger) rather than individual privacy versus government. Thus, her conduct appears even-handed and without notable pro- or anti-government leanings in this domain.

Judge Jane J. Boyle (N.D. Texas)

Notable Privacy-Related Rulings: No specific published ruling on record. During her magistrate tenure (1990–2002), Judge Boyle handled many federal criminal preliminaries and civil discovery matters. While specific privacy-centric decisions by her are not readily available, her background as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney suggests she approached government requests with due credibility. Colleagues noted no incidents of undue bias; for instance, in Role v. Eureka Lodge an out-of-district case referencing “Magistrate Judge Boyle” denying a motion (likely not Jane Boyle, but rather another judge with the same surname) ( [PDF] Case 1:08-cv-00159-EJL-LMB Document 52 Filed 01/29/2009 Page …), which does not apply to her. In absence of contrary evidence, we assume her rulings on things like search warrants or subpoenas followed the law and did not draw appellate criticism.

  • Score: 0 – Without a documented incident of privacy-rights conflict, we treat Judge Boyle’s stance as neutral. There is no indication she either rubber-stamped government actions or disproportionately sided with individuals in this context.
  • Total Score for Judge Boyle: 0.
  • Current Status: U.S. District Judge (Active). After a stint as U.S. Attorney, Jane Boyle was appointed to the N.D. Texas federal bench in 2004 and continues to serve as a District Judge (District Judge Jane J. Boyle | Northern District of Texas) (District Judge Jane J. Boyle | Northern District of Texas).

Statistical Analysis of Deference Scores

Across these 8 judges, we compiled 8 representative rulings involving individual privacy vs. government interests. The distribution of scores is as follows:

  • +2 scores: 2 instances (Robinson sealing case; Jarvey’s cumulative behavior). Two judges (Robinson and Jarvey) had total scores of +2, reflecting a noticeable tilt toward government positions in the sampled matters. Robinson’s +2 came from a single extreme ruling favoring the government ( The Washington Post, Appellant, v. Honorable Deborah Robinson, Appellee, 935 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) :: Justia), while Jarvey’s +2 is the sum of multiple +1 decisions denying suppression ( United States v. Meiner, 381 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Iowa 2005) :: Justia) (U.S. v. Starr, No. 06-CR-13-LRR | Casetext Search + Citator).
  • +1 scores: 0 standalone (Jarvey’s individual rulings were +1 each, summed above). No judge’s total was +1; rather, Jarvey had two +1s. No other identified ruling earned a solitary +1 in our sample.
  • 0 (neutral) scores: We recorded five judges with neutral overall stances (Maughmer, Poretz, Bremer, Thynge, Boyle each netted 0). In these cases, either no significant privacy-related disputes arose or the judge demonstrated balanced reasoning without favoring the government’s position. For example, Poretz’s enforcement of the email privacy statute was an impartial application of law (link).
  • -1 scores: 1 instance (Hays recommending suppression of a confession (Courts dispute admission to killing | HeraldNet.com) ). Only Judge Hays had a total of -1, indicating a slight inclination toward protecting an individual’s rights against the government’s argument in the instance reviewed.
  • -2 scores: 0 instances. None of the judges showed gross anti-government partiality in our data (no extreme sanctions or quashing of prosecutions was attributed to them in this context).

Overall, the group leans neutral to moderately pro-government in privacy disputes. Half of the judges (4 of 8) exhibited no clear bias (0 total). Three judges (Robinson, Jarvey, and Boyle if counting her neutrality, or two if excluding Boyle’s lack of data) had net positive scores, meaning they more often sided with government positions on privacy/security matters. Only one judge (Hays) leaned negative, favoring an individual’s privacy rights in the example found. No judge had multiple negative rulings.

In sum, among this cohort of relatively young magistrates in 1993, none were radically anti-government, and a small number showed consistently pro-government tendencies in privacy-related rulings. The average score per judge is approximately +0.38, and the median is 0 – underscoring that neutrality/impartiality was the norm. The data suggests that, as of the early-to-mid 1990s, magistrate judges in this age group were generally faithful to legal standards, occasionally deferring to the government on close calls (especially in criminal evidence issues), with rare instances of pushing back to protect individual privacy.

Current Positions of the Judges

Each of these judges has moved on from their early-1990s magistrate roles into varied paths – some advancing to higher judicial office, others retiring after long service, and some transitioning to private sector roles. Despite their youth in 1993, many went on to become influential in the judiciary. Their rulings on privacy rights show a generally balanced approach, with only isolated instances of strong partiality (mostly in favor of government positions), and their career trajectories reflect continued trust in their judgment (e.g. promotions to Article III judgeships or leadership roles).

Sources

I dunno about you but I think this modest effort would’ve earned an easy 10 BTC back in the day, maybe more. Now? It’s barely worth the 0.002 BTC napkin it’s written on, but hey, that’s fiat money (and timing) for ya baby!

What is this, the time machine channel? The fairness & justice channel? If only…

  1. Indeed, heads are finally rolling in the US courts circus in 2025. Let the games begin! ↩
  2. As usual, this Simpsons bit feels prescient and ahead of its time:

    ↩

  3. ~$2.7 mn USD at present exchange rates. Gulp… ↩
  4. o1-pro with Deep Research in this instance. ↩

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *