Ashli Babbitt Update



[INSIDE JW]

Judicial Watch Sues for Details of DA Willis’ Hiring of Special
Prosecutor

[[link removed]]
We are in court fighting the lawfare being waged against former
President Donald Trump.

We filed a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against Fulton County, Georgia, for records of the hiring of Nathan
Wade as a special prosecutor by District Attorney Fani Willis
(_Judicial Watch Inc. v. Fulton County, Georgia_
[[link removed]]).

Wade was hired to pursue unprecedented criminal investigations and
prosecutions against former President Trump and others over the 2020
election disputes. We sued after Fulton County failed to respond to a
January 11, 2024, Georgia Open Records Act request for:

> All County public records, as defined in O.C.G.A.§ 50-18- 70(b)(2),
> related to the hiring/appointment/procurement of the professional
> services of Nathan Wade (or his law firm) as Fulton County Special
> Prosecutor. This includes any request for services/proposals,
> contracts, invoices, or correspondence (physical or electronic)
> related to his hiring/appointment/procurement.
>
> Any applicable procurement policies and procedures related to Mr.
> Wade’s hiring or appointment.
Wade and Willis are allegedly involved in a romantic relationship.
Earlier this month, records relating to Wade’s divorce were unsealed
[[link removed]]
by a judge. They included evidence of his relationship with Willis
such as “credit card charges for trips the pair took together to
Florida and California.” His wife’s attorneys also asserted that
Wade hid his true earnings, “totaling almost $700,000 for his work
as special prosecutor.”

Fani Willis’ politicized and unprecedented prosecution of former
President Trump has been further compromised by credible allegations
of personal corruption tied to the hiring of Nathan Wade as special
prosecutor. That we had to file a lawsuit to try to get records about
this scandal further suggests that there is something to hide.

In October 2023, we sued
[[link removed]]
the U.S. Department of Justice for records and communications between
the Office of U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Fulton County,
Georgia, District Attorney’s office regarding requests/receipt of
federal funding/assistance in the investigation of former President
Donald Trump and his 18 co-defendants in the Fulton County indictment
[[link removed]]
of August 14, 2023.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FBI FOR FILES ON ASHLI BABBITT – FAMILY DEMANDS
RECORDS

Ashli Babbitt was the only homicide victim on January 6, yet the FBI
has been illicitly hiding its files on her from her family for a year.
Why the cover-up?

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
on behalf of Aaron Babbitt, the late Ashli Elizabeth Babbitt’s
husband, and Ashli Babbitt’s estate against the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) for all FBI files on Ashli Babbitt
[[link removed]
[[link removed]
of Ashli Babbitt and Aaron Babbitt et al. v. U.S. Department of
Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 24-cv-0119)).

Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was shot and killed inside the
U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6,
2021.

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California to compel production of the FBI files on Ashli Babbitt and
Aaron Babbitt after the FBI denied two February 27, 2023, FOIA
requests to the FBI and subsequently failed to respond to an appeal of
the denial for:

> All FBI files for Ashli Elizabeth Babbitt. Additional information:
> “Subject also used the names” Ashli Elizabeth McEntee and Ashli
> Elizabeth Pamatian;” and
>
> All FBI records, including main and cross-referenced files, related
> to Aaron Raymond Babbitt.
Babbitt was a 35-year-old resident of San Diego, California, where
she owned and operated a successful pool business with her husband
Aaron. Ashli traveled alone from San Diego to Washington, D.C. to
attend the Women for America First (aka Save America) rally on January
6, 2021, at the Ellipse.

The shooting occurred at the east entrance to the Speaker’s Lobby.
After demonstrators filled the hallway outside the lobby, two
individuals in the crowded, tightly packed hallway struck and
dislodged the glass panels in the lobby doors and the right door
sidelight. Lt. Byrd, who is a U.S. Capitol Police commander and was
the incident commander for the House on January 6, 2021, shot Ashli on
sight as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door
sidelight. Lt. Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashli before seeing
her hands or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as
female. Ashli was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty, and in
plain view of Lt. Byrd and other officers in the lobby.

On January 5, 2024, we filed a wrongful death
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
against the U.S. Government on behalf of the family of Ashli Babbitt
(_Estate of Ashli Babbitt and Aaron Babbitt, et al. v. United States
of America_
[[link removed]]
(No. 3:24-cv-00033)). The lawsuit includes $30 million in claims
against the U.S. Government for wrongful death, assault and battery,
and various negligence issues. Describing Babbitt’s murder by Lt.
Byrd, our complaint recounts:

> The facts speak truth. Ashli was ambushed when she was shot by Lt.
> Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, “you just murdered
> her.”
>
> Lt. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for
> Ashli’s homicide.
We are extensively investigating the events of January 6.

In October 2023, we
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
that we received the
court-ordered
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
of James W. Joyce, senior counsel in the Office of the General Counsel
for the Capitol Police, in which he describes emails among senior
officials of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) in January 2021
that show warnings of possible January 6 protests that could lead to
serious disruptions at the U.S. Capitol.

In September, we received
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
from
the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, a component of the
Department of Justice, in a FOIA lawsuit that detailed the extensive
apparatus the Biden Justice Department set up to investigate and
prosecute January 6 protestors.

A
[[link removed]
review of records
[[link removed]]
from that lawsuit highlighted the
[[link removed]
declination memorandum
[[link removed]]
justifying the decision not to prosecute U.S. Capitol Police Lt.
Michael Byrd for the shooting death of Babbitt.

In January 2023,
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
from the Department of the Air Force, Joint Base Andrews, MD, showed
U.S. Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd was housed at taxpayer
expense at Joint Base Andrews after he shot and killed U.S. Air Force
veteran Ashli Babbitt inside the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

In November 2021, we
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
multiple
[[link removed]
[[link removed]],
[[link removed]
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
and
[[link removed]
records
[[link removed]]
from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about the shooting death of
Babbitt on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Building. The records
included a
[[link removed]
phone video
[[link removed]]
of the shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of the
shooter, Byrd.

In October 2021, United States Park Police
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
related to the January 6, 2021, demonstrations at the U.S. Capitol
showed that on the day before the January 6 rally featuring President
Trump, U.S. Park Police expected a “large portion” of the
attendees to march to the U.S. Capitol and that the FBI was monitoring
the January 6 demonstrations, including travel to the events by
“subjects of interest.”

SAN FRANCISCO TAXPAYERS SUE OVER PAYMENTS TO ‘BLACK/LATINX’ MEN
(‘TRANSGENDER WOMEN’)

The transgender extremists running San Francisco are illegally using
taxpayer money to hand out free cash to transgender individuals based
on race and sex in blatant violation of the state’s constitution.

We filed a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on behalf of San Francisco taxpayers over a city program that
discriminates in favor of biological black and Latino men who identify
as women in the distribution of tax money.

The taxpayer lawsuit was filed against San Francisco Mayor London
Breed, City Treasurer Jose Cisneros, the director of the city’s
Office of Transgender Initiatives, and City Administrator Carmen Chu
for violating the Equal Protection clause of the California
Constitution (_Phillips et al. v Breed et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 24-611915)).

Mayor Breed announced
[[link removed]]
the launch of the Guaranteed Income for Trans People (GIFT) program on
November 16, 2022. The mayor’s office stated in a press release that
the city will “provide low-income transgender San Franciscans with
$1,200 each month, up to 18 months to help address financial
insecurity within trans communities.”

According to our lawsuit:

> Applicants who do not identify as transgender, non-binary, gender
> non-conforming, or intersex are not eligible to participate in the
> GIFT program.
>
> Applicants are prioritized based on their biological sex and
> race/ethnicity. Biological males identifying as female are given
> preference over biological females identifying as male, and
> applicants identifying as Black or Latino are given preference over
> applicants identifying as other races/ethnicities.
The program began disbursing funds
[[link removed]]
in January 2023. GIFT payments to these participants will continue
through June 2024.

Our taxpayer clients allege that San Francisco is discriminating in
violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the state constitution on three
counts:

> Transgender Status Discrimination:
> Plaintiffs contend that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or
> taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program is illegal …
> because of the requirement that eligible participants be
> transgender, non-binary, gender nonconforming, or intersex is
> immediately suspect and presumptively invalid and cannot survive
> strict scrutiny review.

> Sex Discrimination:
> [P]laintiffs contend that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or
> taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program is illegal …
> because the program grants preferential treatment to biological
> males who identify as females …
>
> Race/Ethnicity Discrimination:
> Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that any expenditure of taxpayer
> funds or taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program is illegal
> … because the program grants preferential treatment to persons who
> identify as Black or Latino …
Our clients are asking for:

> A judgment declaring any and all expenditures of taxpayer funds and
> taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program to be illegal [and]
>
> An injunction permanently prohibiting Defendants from expending or
> causing the expenditure of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed
> resources on the GIFT program[.]
In October 2023, our open records request forced the release of
records
[[link removed]]
from the City of San Francisco showing the city prioritized tax money
for black and Latino transgenders (biological men) in the (GIFT
[[link removed]])
program, which also allowed illegal aliens to apply; allowed people
who “engage in survival sex trades” to apply; and the use of the
funds by participants was virtually unrestricted.

In December 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court’s ruling and allowed
[[link removed]]
our
historic lawsuit filed on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a
teachers’ contract that provides discriminatory job protections to
certain racial minorities to proceed.

In May 2022, we won a court battle
[[link removed]]
against California’s gender quota law for corporate boards. The
verdict came after a 28-day trial. The verdict followed a similar
ruling
[[link removed]]
in our favor in April finding California’s race, ethnicity and LGBT
quotas for corporate boards unconstitutional.

The City of Asheville, NC, in January 2022 settled
[[link removed]]
our federal
civil rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove all racially
discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship program.
Additionally, the city agreed to remove racially discriminatory
eligibility provisions in a related program that provides grants to
educators.

COURT HEARING IN SUIT SEEKING RELEASE OF ‘MANIFESTO’ OF NASHVILLE
SCHOOL SHOOTER

We were in court this week for a hearing
[[link removed]],
asking for the release of records related to the March 27, 2023,
shooting at The Covenant School in Tennessee, including the reported
“manifesto” written by the suspected female shooter. The hearing
was held before Chancellor I’Ashea Myles in the Chancery Court for
Davidson County, 20th Judicial District, in the public records lawsuit
against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.

We filed our
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
on behalf of
retired Hamilton County Sheriff James Hammond and the Tennessee
Firearms Association, Inc. (“TFA”) (_Hammond et al. v.
Metropolitan Govt of Nashville et al._
[[link removed]
_(No. 23-0538-III)). The court later consolidated our lawsuit with
several others related to release of public records from The Covenant
School shooting.

Recently, petitioner Clata Brewer filed a motion
[[link removed]]
asking the court to schedule a show cause hearing to finally rule on
whether to release the records and another motion asking the court to
unseal the initial log created by Metropolitan Nashville Police
Department (“MNPD”) describing records and materials in its
possession. Petitioner Brewer argues the log needs to be unsealed
because the current restrictions “interfere with the ability of the
parties to refer to various documents, identified in the Log …”
Brewer explains “the information in the Log is necessary to allow an
unfettered presentation of evidence and arguments …”

On April 13, 2023, the TFA submitted two open records requests. The
first asked the MNPD to produce copies of records or files and
inspection of “the ‘manifesto’ reportedly found in the home of
Audrey Elizabeth Hall on March 27, 2023.” The second asked MNPD
produce copies “all email communications of Metropolitan Nashville
Police Department officials regarding the mass shooting committed by
Audrey Elizabeth Hale on March 27, 2023, as well as MNPD officials’
text messages regarding the same, and copies of the ‘manifesto’
reported left by Audrey Elizabeth Hale in her vehicle.”

In a separate request on April 17, 2023, Sheriff Hammond asked that
the MNPD provide all criminal police reports documenting the incident.

The MNPD denied these requests citing without identifying any
underlying criminal case or even a potential defendant.

The Tennessee Public Records Act states
[[link removed]
“[a]ll state, county and municipal records shall … be open for
personal inspection by any citizen of this state, and those in charge
of the records shall not refuse such right of inspection to any
citizen, unless otherwise provided by state law. See Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 10-7-503(a)(2)(A).” The lawsuit requests the court allow prompt
access to the requested public records.

On May 17, 2023, MNPD argued in court
[[link removed]]
that it did not object to a release of the “redacted” manifesto,
but many other records are still under review. Additionally, the MNPD
stated the investigation could take approximately one year to
complete.

The resolution of the case has been delayed for disputes about whether
the school and school/victims parents could intervene and prevent the
release of the “manifesto” and other investigatory material.

John I. Harris III, Esq., of Schulman, LeRoy & Bennett, PC in
Nashville, TN, is assisting Judicial Watch with the lawsuit.

FEDERAL JUDGES GRANT ORAL ARGUMENT BASED ON LAWYERS’ SEX, RACE

Our federal judiciary is showing signs of “going woke,” as our
_Corruption Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]].


> The robust woke movement gripping the nation’s private and public
> sectors is also threatening judicial impartiality with three federal
> judges enacting unlawful race and sex discrimination policies that
> grant oral argument in cases based on a lawyer’s gender and race.
> The goal is to give young women and minority attorneys greater
> opportunities to argue in court, according to the judges, who
> benefit from lifetime appointments. Two of the federal
> judges—Nancy J. Rosenstengel and Staci M. Yandle—were appointed
> by Barack Obama and one—David W. Dugan—is a Donald Trump
> appointee. All three sit on the U.S. District Court for the Southern
> District of Illinois.
>
> The unconventional policies adopted by the three jurists constitute
> judicial misconduct because they unlawfully discriminate, evidence
> judicial bias, undermine faith in the judiciary’s integrity, and
> violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment,
> according to a judicial misconduct complaint
>
[[link removed]]
> filed this month. To “encourage the participation of newer,
> female, and minority attorneys in proceedings,” the judges
> instituted a two-part process of discrimination, says the complaint
> filed by a conservative legal group. After a motion is fully briefed
> a party may alert the court that, if argument is granted, it intends
> to have a newer, female, or minority attorney argue the motion or a
> portion of the motion. The court will grant the request if
> practicable and “strongly consider allocating additional time for
> oral argument beyond what the Court may have otherwise allocated”
> but for the sex or race of the lawyer, the complaint reads. “The
> judges’ policies are essentially oral-argument affirmative action
> for lawyers,” according to the complaint, which points out that
> “the policies expressly reward female and minority lawyers.”
>
> In the two-page orders, which are identical, the three judges
> explain that they are cognizant of a growing trend in which fewer
> cases go to trial and in which there are generally fewer in-court
> advocacy opportunities. “This is especially true for newer
> attorneys (attorneys practicing for less than seven years) in
> general, and women and underrepresented minorities in particular,”
> the orders state. “Recognizing the importance of the development
> of future generations of practitioners through courtroom
> opportunities, the undersigned Judge encourages the participation of
> newer, female, and minority attorneys in proceedings in my
> courtroom; particularly with respect to oral argument on motions
> where said attorney drafted or contributed significantly to the
> briefing for the motion.” The reality is that the judges have a
> legal duty to grant oral argument requests based solely on the
> case’s legal merits and not the lawyer representing the parties
> engaged in the litigation.
>
> The judicial misconduct complaint stresses that few judicial acts
> are as confidence-shaking as an announcement by a federal judge that
> he or she will manage a case depending in part on the sex or race of
> a litigant’s attorney. “Judges do not promote public confidence
> in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary when they
> announce policies expressly favoring persons with certain immutable
> characteristics,” the document states. “Public confidence in the
> judiciary is especially threatened when judges effect those policies
> through contemplated and actual exercise of the judicial power of
> the United States.” The document further points out that ratifying
> the discriminatory policies as standing orders creates an official
> acceptance of long-outlawed forms of discrimination in the federal
> judiciary.
>
> In a press release
>
[[link removed]]
> announcing the judicial misconduct complaint, the Washington D.C.
> group, America First Legal, writes that all Americans deserve equal
> treatment and opportunity under the law and the legal profession has
> a special duty to serve as an example for the rest of society.
> “This is particularly true for federal judges, whose conduct must
> be beyond reproach–particularly when it comes to policies that
> overtly discriminate against attorneys appearing before them based
> on their race or sex.” The group adds that the Constitution
> forbids using sex and race preferences to provide parties with
> in-court argument time. The practice leaves less time available for
> lawyers of non-favored races or the wrong sex, which of course, is
> not legal and cheats both plaintiffs and defendants.
>
Until next week,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%;height:auto;" alt="advertisement"></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2024, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]