You would think after misinterpreting the law, improperly asserting jurisdiction and getting slapped on the wrist pretty hard by the Eleventh Circuit Court, Judge Cannon would be a bit more careful, considering her lack of experience.
Here is one of the kinder recaps of what happened just a few months ago:
I don't believe Judge Cannon's demand for a brief is a rebuke in and of itself. Exactly what law or federal guideline does she think is in question here?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6
This was an NSU law professor's comment: (The gentleman's name is Tom Jarvis and the article is behind a paywall, so I'm going to quote it here.)
"There is no issue...Obviously prosecutors are entitled to use multiple grand juries and can empanel grand juries in each and every district where they believe a crime or part of a crime has occurred."
I also think the term, "submitted under seal" might be misinterpreted. The "seal" prevents the document from becoming a public record for a length of time (Usually specified)
You can go to Court Listener, for example, and read the entire docket if you want. What the general public won't be able to read are those filings submitted under seal, but it would be a mistake to infer from this that the filing is also concealed from the judge and defense attorneys.
This actually connects to yesterday's (Friday) D.C. hearing. (United States v Donald Trump) The DOJ's concern is that Trump will disclose sensitive information, as in names of witnesses that were sealed. --To which John Lauro, Trump's own attorney said (In apparent frustration) that he was unable to "babysit" his client 24/7.