I imagine this holds true (via chatting with insider friends) for many such "industries" including lawmaking, scientific/academic papers, industry RFCs, etc. More or less credential washing.
The closest I can think of is when jury instructions are issued. But in that, the two sides ultimately work with the court to hammer out the details of how those instructions should look. And often, they are based on a more or less standard template with minor revisions.
Generally speaking, an attorney can make a request for a ruling by the judge and the other side can oppose it. However, beyond just citing relevant case law there wouldn't be anything that could be copied verbatim by a judge.
There should be relevant court filings that show what you are saying happen. Do you have them?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.589...
Go to https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71191591/abrego-garcia-... and search "proposed order." You will find like 20+ of them, they are basically complete orders where they wrote the judge name and everything, just left the signature blank.
For example, here's the proposed order to strike [1], and here is the Judge's order granting that strike [2]
It's definitely ignorance on my part. I didn't realize the motions filed by a party ultimately took the form of unsigned orders.
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71191591/81/2/abrego-ga...
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71191591/90/abrego-garc...
You'll have to sift through them because it happens some of the time not all of the time. The example I gave was how they did it, if you wanted a 1:1 example in that case of the judge just signing off verbatim below ought to fit:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.589...
and
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.589...
look identical to me, and if not damn near it.
> the winning attorney may have a good idea of where the judge stands, what the ruling would be and is also incentivized to stay on their good side.
You haven't seen many litigators at work. Their job is to "zealously" represent their client, getting as much as possible. The speculation about the rest is just hope, not due process.
this claim is utter fiction, your extraordinary claim requires evidence
It's literally a laundering scheme. The industry can't wine and dine and send bills over to the politicians directly so they create some "clean" middle men to make it all look legit at first glance.