BREAKING NEWS: “Are You Being Served, Madame Speaker?”
The answer is yes. Although perhaps not the kind of service the Speaker would prefer.
Speaker Mimi Minor-Brown has been served with a Cease And Desist Order by the Neuberger Firm, representing Rep. Sherae’a Moore. From the order:
Cease And Desist–Your Retaliation for Core Political Speech In Violation Of The Ku Klux Klan Act Of 1871, 42 U. S. C., S. 1983
In The Matter Of Sherae’a “Rae” Moore
My Firm represents Representative Sharae’a “Rae Moore in all matters relating to your blatant retaliation against her for her core political speech on matters of paramount public concern. Your actions have violated her First Amendment rights to Freedom Of Speech and political association under the U. S. Constitution, and your false smearing of her good name in an attempt to destroy her livelihood similarly violate Article I, S. 9 of the Delaware Constitution and Delaware common law.
There’s lots more. But you get the drift.
All this because Kim Williams didn’t want kids to have free school lunches?
Gotta say, didn’t expect a Speaker to sink below Longhurstian depths. Gotta say, I was wrong.
Mimi was more of a whip type legislator.
But being a leader/speaker takes someone with more tact and people skills.
Even most of the caucus was nervous this happen and well here we are…
In 2026 we must focus on ousting this tyrant from office. I was hopeful when she first got elected, but she is in this for herself.
Cease what?
Presumably the alleged ‘false smearing of her good name in an attempt to destroy her livelihood’.
There was a lot more to the order than what I posted. Pretty sure we’ll see the entire order soon…
It’s not an order.
It’s a letter. Making a demand. I understand the people think cease and desist letters have magic powers. But it’s just a letter from a guy making demands.
It’s a letter from an attorney ordering the Speaker to cease and desist on behalf of another state rep.
Maybe it comes to something, maybe it doesn’t.
But I can recall no precedent of this happening in the General Assembly, at least during and after my time working there.
It also confirms what has been common knowledge for at least a couple of months: That caucus is in disarray.
Attorneys can “order” anything they want, but there is utterly nothing of any consequence or obligation that arises from an attorney sending a letter to someone making demands. It seems that there is an affliction among bloggers generally to act as if getting a demand letter from a lawyer is a bigger deal than it is. It can be tossed into the trash with no consequences to the recipient whatsoever.
Thank you for pointing out my affliction to me.
I’ll treat it with the respect it deserves.
Well then, I hereby order you to cease and desist from making snarky replies. You see how effective that is?
I see how effective your attempts to minimize this are.
Accordingly, no cease and desist order is required.
Spotlight Delaware now covering it:
https://spotlightdelaware.org/2025/06/24/end-of-session-live-blog/
The attempts to minimize this news begs the question of how little control or respect the Speaker commands. Neuberger is a pit bull and would not have taken the case if he didn’t think he could win. Ask the folks at the Diocese of Wilmington or one of my classmates from St. Elizabeth’s who cased a giant check.
Tom Neuberger is the original candidate to run on the platform of “Tom Carper beats his wife” and was slaughtered 2:1 at the polls.
Do you know what you do if your client has a solid legal claim? You file a lawsuit. But if all you have is a bag of smoke then, yeah, you write a letter and try to make that the news. He’s just barking here with no bite. And, really, the session is ending anyway, so the entire General Assembly is going to cease doing anything anyway.
If the idea is “I want you to stop talking about me” then you don’t publicize an inane threat to bring a lawsuit that will require that person to talk about you a whole lot more.
I’m no fan of the speaker, but it is not a First Amendment issue for her to legitimately exercise her power to determine who sits on which committees, and particularly where a member of the committee was clearly acting out of personal interest.
I wasn’t praising his political skills but his success in winning cases. All cases start somewhere and this one was injected into the last week of session, smart in my view.
Interestingly my point that Mimi is a weak, ineffectual bully went unchallenged .
I know is tough to defend the indefensible.
Clearly, you have not learned that merely because two odious people are having a conflict, it does not make one of them right.
If there was a case here, Neuberger would simply file suit instead of pandering for attention. He is a longstanding champion of the definition of “religious freedom” under which my religious freedom is a license to control the behavior of those who do not subscribe to my religion. Other than that, extracting settlements from sexual abuse claims against Catholic institutions is pretty much like shooting fish in a barrel, as far as skills sets go.
My point is the wording of the original post here, which is written to convey the disingenuous impression that an “order” of some kind was “served” on someone. There is no case here, and the notion that the exercise of a political office in order to obtain a political result – whether or not it is one with which I disagree – is a First Amendment violation, is ridiculous. Would you like to discuss the underlying merit of the claims made in the letter, or just focus on personalities?
Your condescension is duly noted.
You’ve repeated the same point over and over again.
Move on or move on out.
CoastTV now covering the story:
https://www.coasttv.com/news/cease-and-desist-letter-targets-delaware-house-speaker-over-alleged-retaliation/article_0c92be77-9a33-450f-b722-26a8791d3fcd.html
Shupe is sharpening his pen on this one over on Facebook. An exchange on his Facebook yesterday following a constituent call to remove Moore from office for this “crime”
Me: “Gregory Franzoni Sr. Omg you’re delusional. Has anyone asked the Public Integrity Commission for clarity because ethics dictates that bringing broadly -based legislation that helps the many is fine even as it may provide those same benefits for the public official introducing it.”
Jennifer Maria Bartsch
“I definitely would like clarity on this myself. If the bill would have been a good thing for the education system and helped the many what’s the issue? The fact that this person worked in education meant that she understood what that field needs and doesn’t need…..Mr 302 Bryan Shupe I realized that I didn’t ask the question I meant to ask. Would the bill have benefited the education system/helped the many?
Seriously, this is a non-issue, in my opinion with the corruption that goes on in all parties, this seems like not even an ethical violation compared to the actual ethical violations that have been deemed okay by higher politics – such as in areas of the Supreme Court all the way up to our President. If the President can push his Big Beautiful Bill that will indeed benefit him (and not the many), the Supreme Court can accept “gifts that aren’t bribes”, then why is it an issue for someone to bring forth legislation they have true knowledge about – that will actually help those it needs to help?
I want clarity on what Nancy stated. I want clarity from the ethics committee itself. You sir, unfortunately, are biased and not bipartisan.”
Me: “I know about the ethics boundaries here because I formally asked the AG for an opinion of then NCC Council President Paul Clark who had introduced land use legislation that would have made him filthy rich via his land use attorney’s wife. AG response was that if the ordinance was beneficial to many, it was of no consequence that it would also benefit the bill sponsor. That ruling was the clarity that it is permissible to run legislation that may benefit a legislator as long as it was broadly intended to benefit the common good. Immaterial to have also a benefit for an individual. If all of the benefit had been solely for enrichment for Ms. Scott and Mr. Clark, a violation would have been cited”