Stone Cold Denial of Roger Stone's 'Motion to Clarify' Gag Order

The Roger Stone case is certainly the center of quite a bit of media fanfare, and for those in the legal community, it's starting to get even more interesting as Stone's lawyers appear to be scrambling over surprises.

Most recently, in an order denying his attorneys' "Motion to Clarify," we're given a glimpse into just how frustrating this situation must have been for his attorneys. Hat tip to @Popehat for alerting the world of just how nutty this must be.

Client Did What Now?

After Roger Stone got in trouble for posting an Instagram photo of the judge in his case along with what appeared to be crosshairs in the background, you would have thought that his attorneys would have thrown his own book at him.

However, it seems that they may not have even known about the book's "re-release" as their motion to clarify seems to bring up the fact of its very existence for the first time to the court.

In short, Stone wrote a new introduction to a book he published in 2017. That introduction is critical of Mueller. The gag order he is currently under prohibits him from making critical statements about Mueller. Naturally, given all this, Stone's team not only got spectacularly shot down in their motion to clarify asking if the re-release of the book would be okay, the judge gave them a long list of supplemental information that is now required to basically provide the factual evidence surrounding the re-release of the book with the new introduction.

Bound by Negotiated Terms

As the denial explains, the defense counsel had suggested the terms of the very gag-order that they were now seeking clarification on. And as the court explained succinctly explained:

"Defendant's Motion for Clarification will be denied because the order issued on February 21, 2019 is clear."

Related Resources:

• Roger Stone Charged in Florida Federal Court (FindLaw's U.S. Eleventh Circuit Blog)
• How Law Firms Can Stop Striking Out on Diversity (FindLaw's Strategist)
• Protip: Don't Call a Judge a 'Succubus' (FindLaw's Strategist)