|
New Judicial Watch Book Rights and Freedoms
in Peril, Goes on Sale October 15
Since the release of my most recent Judicial Watch book, A Republic
Under Assault, the Left has taken extraordinary steps to eradicate
American liberty, motivated by a radical ideology whose adherents occupy
the nation’s highest offices.
Now, in RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN PERIL:
An Investigative Report on the Left’s Attack on America
(Threshold Editions; October 15, 2024), I detail a long chain of abuses
officials and politicians have made against the American people and call
readers to battle for the soul and survival of America.
My team and I march you to the front lines, to where the progressive
movement threatens America’s most venerable institutions and undermines
the core principles that make this country a beacon of hope to the world.
The Left has declared war on everything from the rule of law to a
colorblind U.S. Constitution, border security, and government
accountability. Their anti-American agenda must be stopped to save our
country’s future.
In this book, I discuss:
- Planned
chaos at the border
- Lawfare targeting
Trump
- Diversity scams and party spoils —
Kamala Harris and “equity,” Critical Race Theory, DEI, DEI and the
military, reparations and Judicial Watch’s class action
lawsuit
- The Covid
coverup
- An election unlike any
other
- The big lie about January 6th, and
Ashli Babbitt
Politicized indictments, ruined elections, invasions, and compromised
politicians have placed our republican form of government in peril. There
is a way forward, but we must be diligent about understanding the scope and
detail of the peril.
Court Hears Appeal over Challenges to Counting of Ballots after Election
Day
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held a hearing
regarding a lower court ruling on Mississippi’s election law that permits
absentee ballots to be received as late as five business days after
Election Day.
The Fifth Circuit heard the case on Tuesday, September 24. Here are some
highlights from the argument from Judicial Watch senior attorney Russ
Nobile and here is a link to listen to
a full recording of the argument.
Extending the counting of ballots five days after Election Day established
by Congress runs counter to federal law, invites fraud – and undermines
voter confidence.
Judicial Watch filed the civil rights lawsuit
challenging the Mississippi election law on behalf of the Libertarian Party
of Mississippi (Libertarian Party of
Mississippi v Wetzel et al. (No.
1:24-cv-00037)). The court consolidated the case we filed with one filed by
the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and
other complainants.
Our lawsuit argues:
Under federal law, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November
of every even-numbered year is election day (“Election Day”) for
federal elections.
Congress recently reaffirmed a single
national Election Day when it enacted the Electoral Count Reform Act
(“ECRA”).
Under the recent Congressional amendments,
no extension of Election Day shall be allowed unless there are “force majeure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic” that justify
extension.
Despite Congress’ unambiguous and
longstanding statement regarding a single and uniform national Election
Day, Mississippi extended Election Day by allowing five additional business
days after Election Day for receipt of absentee ballots.
No “force majeure events that are
extraordinary and catastrophic” currently exist in Mississippi to justify
extending the ballot receipt deadline for the November 5, 2024, federal
election for Presidential and Vice-Presential Electors.
We argued that holding voting open for five days past Election Day violates
the constitutional rights of voters and candidates:
Counting untimely, illegal, and invalid votes, such as those received in
violation of federal law, substantially increases the pool of total votes
cast and dilutes the weight of votes cast by Plaintiff’s members and
others in support of Plaintiff’s federal nominees.
Our complaint points out that, based on the reported numbers,
as many as 1.7% of votes cast in Mississippi in 2020 were received after
Election Day.
In our appeal filings, we
explain that the Mississippi law extending Election Day is obviously at
odds with federal law.
We are a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of
our work, we assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys
who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls
in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other
achievements.
Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads our election law
program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights
Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights
investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of
states.
In a similar lawsuit, in 2022, on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two
other registered voters, we sued Illinois for
allowing vote-by-mail ballots (even those without postmarks) to be counted
if received up to 14 calendar days after Election Day if the ballots are
dated on or before Election Day.
In May 2024, we sued California
under the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 (NVRA) to force it to clean up its voter rolls. The
lawsuit, filed on behalf of Judicial Watch and the Libertarian Party of
California, asks the court to compel California to make “a reasonable
effort to remove the registrations of ineligible registrants from the voter
rolls” as required by federal law (Judicial Watch Inc. and
the Libertarian Party of CA v. Shirley Weber et al.
(No. 2:24-cv-3750)).
In March 2024, we, Breakthrough Ideas, Illinois Family Action, and Carol J.
Davis sued Illinois
officials under the NVRA to force them to clean the State’s voter rolls.
(Judicial Watch Inc., et
al., v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al. (No.
1:24-cv-01867).
Federal Judge Sets July 20, 2026, Trial Date in Ashli Babbitt $30
Million Wrongful Death Lawsuit
Following a hearing on September 20, Judge Ana C. Reyes of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia scheduled a trial date of July
20, 2026, for the $30 million wrongful death suit filed on behalf of the
estate and the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed in the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd.
Discovery in the lawsuit has also commenced as the Court continues to
consider Ashli’s motion to retransfer the lawsuit to California where it
was originally filed earlier this year.
Ashli Babbitt, 35, owned and operated a successful pool business with her
husband Aaron. Ashli traveled alone from San Diego to Washington, DC, to
attend the Women for America First (aka Save America) rally on January 6,
2021, at the Ellipse.
The wrongful death lawsuit was filed
on January 5, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California 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 (No.
3:24-cv-00033)).
The lawsuit includes claims against the U.S. Government for wrongful death,
assault and battery, and various negligence issues.
Our complaint recounts:
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
United States 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.
***
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.
The lawsuit also alleges:
Lt. Byrd, who is a (US Capitol Police) commander and was the incident
commander for the House on January 6, 2021, shot Ashli as she raised
herself up into the opening of the right door sidelight.… Not one member
of Congress was in the lobby, which was guarded by multiple armed police
officers. Additional armed police officers were in the hallway outside the
lobby and/or on the adjoining stairway. Ashli could not have seen Lt. Byrd,
who was positioned far to Ashli’s left and on the opposite side of the
doors, near an opening to the Retiring Room, a distance of approximately 15
feet and an angle of approximately 160 degrees. Sgt. Timothy Lively, one of
the armed officers guarding the lobby doors from the hallway, later told
officials investigating the shooting, “I saw him . . . there was no way
that woman would’ve seen that.” Lt. Byrd, who was not in uniform, did
not identify himself as a police officer or otherwise make his presence
known to Ashli. Lt. Byrd did not give Ashli any warnings or commands before
shooting her dead.
The DC district court also continues to consider Ashli’s motion to retransfer the lawsuit to
Babbitt’s home of San Diego where it was originally filed.
Ashli Babbitt’s family is relieved that Ashli’s case is moving forward
to trial on all fronts. They seek justice and accountability for Ashli’s
violent and lawless death at the hands of U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Byrd.
In April 2024, records from the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) in a separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
lawsuit showed that the FBI opened a criminal investigation of Air Force
veteran Ashli Babbitt after her killing and listed four “potential
violations of federal law,” including felony rioting and civil
disorder.
In September 2023, we received records from the
Executive Office for United States Attorneys, a component of the Department
of Justice, in a FOIA lawsuit that detail the extensive apparatus the Biden
Justice Department set up to investigate and prosecute January 6
protestors.
A previous review of
records from that lawsuit highlighted the prosecution declination
memorandum justifying the decision not to prosecute U.S. Capitol Police
Lt. Michael Byrd for the shooting death of Babbitt.
In January 2023, documents 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 released multiple audio, visual and photo records 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 cell phone video of the
shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of the shooter, Michael
Byrd.
Judicial Watch Petitions Supreme Court on Behalf of Teacher Fired
for Conservative Social Media Posts
Judicial Watch filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court challenging the decision by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the case filed on behalf of Kari
MacRae, a Massachusetts high school teacher who was fired in retaliation
for social media posts which decried woke values such as critical race
theory being taught in schools. The posts predated her employment at
Hanover High School. Judicial Watch argues the Supreme Court should take up
the case as the lower courts misapplied the First Amendment and Supreme
Court precedent.
We filed a lawsuit for Ms.
MacRae against Hanover High School Principal Matthew Mattos and Hanover
School Superintendent Matthew Ferron in November 2021, asserting a claim
for First Amendment retaliation (MacRae v. Matthew Mattos, EL
AL. (No. 21-cv-11917, 23-1817)).
MacRae was hired as a Hanover High School teacher on August 31, 2021 but
was fired on September 29, 2021, over several TikTok posts that were made
months prior to her hiring at the school. MacRae, who in May of 2021 was
elected to the Bourne School Committee, made the posts in her personal
capacity as a citizen and candidate for public office.
“I got fired specifically for a social media post I made,” she said.
“That’s a violation of free speech,” MacRae told the Cape Cod
Times in an interview published on October 13, 2021.
The lawsuit details that Mattos met with MacRae on September 24, 2021 to
inform her that he was investigating the impact of six memes and two TikTok
videos that MacRae posted which were referenced in a September 22, 2021,
Boston Globe article.
On May 18, 2021, as part of her campaign for school committee member,
MacRae posted a TikTok video
which stated, in part:
So pretty much the reason I ran for
school board and the reason I’m taking on this responsibility is to
ensure that students, at least in our town, are not being taught critical
race theory. That they’re not being taught that the country was
built on racism. So they’re not being taught that they can choose
whether or not they want to be a girl or a boy. It’s one thing to
include and it’s one thing to be inclusive. And it’s one thing to
educate everybody about everything. It’s completely another thing to push
your agenda. And, with me on the school board, that won’t happen in
our town.
In a letter dated September 29, 2021, Mattos fired MacRae from her position
at Hanover High School, stating “I have determined that continuing your
employment in light of your social media posts would have a significant
impact on student learning at HHS.” Ferron reviewed and approved
Mattos’ decision to fire MacRae.
No Hanover High School parent or student had raised concerns about
MacRae’s employment at Hanover High School because of the social media
posts.
In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the lower
court’s decision which concluded that Hanover Public Schools provided
evidence of the potential for disruption, which justified MacRae’s
firing.
We argue that MacRae was fired for unrelated, pre-employment speech on
matters of public concern:
Here, MacRae spoke as a private citizen
on a matter of public concern before she applied to—let alone was hired
by—Hanover Public Schools. Her speech was not at school because,
obviously, it could not have been. Nor was it about the school district or
its administrators, teachers, parents, or students. It was not even about
the town. In fact, it is undisputed that MacRae’s speech falls squarely
within the (Supreme) Court’s category of private speech on matters of
public concern. Her speech added to the public debate on immigration
policy, racism, and gender identity.
We note that our petition “raises a question of exceptional importance
for tens of millions of current and future public-school teachers:
There are approximately four million
public-school teachers in the United States. There are also tens of
millions of persons who aspire to be public-school teachers in the future.
This case concerns whether those individuals have the same free speech
rights as every other private citizen.
In a July 9, 2024, editorial that calls for
the Supreme Court to review the case, the Wall Street Journal
Editorial Board states:
Ms. MacRae says no federal appellate
court to her knowledge has held that government employers can punish
employees for speech unrelated to their jobs and which occurred before they
were on the payroll.
The First Circuit’s decision delineates no statute of limitation or
limiting principle to employee speech that government employers can punish.
A teacher could be fired for hanging a “Make America Great Again” flag
at home. Political activity during college years could become grounds for
dismissal. Workers who don’t agree with the left’s cultural mores may
now have to self-censor in private life to avoid losing their jobs.
Donald Trump likes to say
that his opponents aren’t only coming after him—they’re also coming
after you. Ms. MacRae’s cancellation is a case in point that could use
Supreme Court review.
Let’s cut to the chase: Kari MacRae was fired because she spoke out
against woke critical race theory before she was hired as a teacher at
Hanover High School. The firing was a blatant violation of her First
Amendment free speech rights. The Supreme Court should step in and uphold
the First Amendment.
In February 2021, Judicial Watch filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of
David Flynn, the father of two Dedham Public School students, who was
removed from his position as head football coach after exercising his right
as a citizen to raise concerns about his daughter’s seventh-grade history
class curriculum being changed to include biased coursework on politics,
race, gender equality, and diversity (Flynn v. Forrest et
al. (No.
21-cv-10256)). The case was ultimately settled with the
Superintendent acknowledging in a letter “the important and valid
issues” raised by Flynn and specific changes in school policies because
of Flynn’s complaint.
In July 2021, we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of
Palatine, IL, tenured high school teacher Jeanne Hedgepeth, who was fired
by the suburban-Chicago school district where she had worked for 20 years
after posting comments on Facebook criticizing the riots, violence, and
shootings in Chicago in the aftermath of the May 25, 2020, killing of
George Floyd. Hedgepeth made the posts on her personal Facebook page while
vacationing after the end of the school year, just as some of the most
severe violence was occurring. In her posts, Hedgepeth recommended studying
Thomas Sowell, whom she described as a “treasure” and a “truth
seeker,” and praised political commentator and activist Candice Owens and
talk show host Larry Elder. She alleges that the firing violated her First
Amendment rights.
Soros-Tied Facebook Censorship Board May Push for Censoring Opponents of
Transgender Extremism
Facebook may be on the verge of a mass censorship operation on major area
of public debate – to help the Left! Our Corruption Chronicles
blog looks into it.
The Facebook (now Meta) censorship board stacked with leftists, many with
deep connections to leftwing billionaire George Soros, is considering if
social media posts complaining about transgender females—biological men
who claim to be in the wrong body and identify as women—constitute hate
speech, bullying or harassment. This is relevant because the oversight board,
as it is officially known, determines which posts get blocked from the
world’s most popular social networking website which has an estimated 5
billion users. Other topics recently considered by the board include
whether anti-immigration posts fall under hate speech since Meta has
declared that refugees, migrants and asylum seekers are protected against
“the most severe attacks” on its platforms.
Now the panel is preparing to examine a pair of 2024 posts reported for
hate speech, bullying and harassment multiple times but allowed by Meta to
remain on Facebook and its other popular social media platform Instagram.
Users appealed to Meta against its decision not to remove the posts, but
the California-based technology conglomerate determined that neither
violated its “community standards.” At least two individuals reported
the content to the oversight board, which announced recently that
it is taking on the cases. In one a Facebook user in the United States
posted a video of a woman confronting a transgender woman—a biological
man—for using the women’s bathroom. “The post refers to the person
being confronted as a man and asks why it is permitted for them to use a
women’s bathroom,” the board writes in its announcement. The other
complaint involves an Instagram account that posted a video of a
transgender girl—a biological boy—winning a female sports competition
in the U.S. In the post spectators vocally disapprove of the result and the
athlete is identified as a boy, “questioning whether they are female,”
according to the censorship panel.
Meta’s hate speech policy prohibits direct attacks targeting a person or
group of people based on protected characteristics, including sex, gender
identity and sexual orientation, but does not include misgendering as a
form of prohibited attack. “Misgendering means referring to a person
using a word, especially a pronoun or the way in which they are addressed,
that does not reflect their gender identity,” the oversight board
explains. Meta standards for bullying and harassment were not met in either
case because there was no explicit call for exclusion and there was no
“cognizable attack or call for exclusion” in either social media post.
One of the users who appealed Meta’s decision to keep the posts on its
platform played the “transphobic” card and the other asserted that the
post attacks and harasses the transgender athlete. “The Board selected
these cases to assess whether Meta’s approach to moderating discussions
around gender identity respects users’ freedom of expression and the
rights of transgender and non-binary people,” the panel writes, adding
that both fall under its “hate speech against marginalized groups and
gender strategic priorities.”
It seems like the panel is fabricating terms to align with the left’s
political correctness on steroids. Not surprising considering who sits on
the censorship board, which Judicial Watch exposed shortly after it was
launched. For starters, the group of 21 is overwhelmingly leftist and
likely to restrict conservative views. Nearly half of the members have ties
to Soros, the wealthy philanthropist who dedicates huge sums to spreading a
radical left agenda that includes targeting conservative politicians,
erasing national borders and identities, financing civil unrest and
orchestrating refugee crises for political gain. Some on the oversight
board have made political contributions to top Democrats such as Hillary
Clinton, Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren and others have publicly
expressed their disdain for former President Donald Trump.
Among the panel’s standouts is András Sajó, the founding Dean of Legal
Studies at Soros’s Central European University and a board member of his
Open Society Foundations (OSF) Justice Initiative. Alan Rusbridger, a
former British newspaper editor and Oxford University official, serves on
the board of directors of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which has
received at least $750,000 from OSF. Afia Asantewaa Sariyev, a human rights
attorney, is the program manager at Soros’s Open Society Initiative for
West Africa. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, an Indian lawyer and civil society
activist, runs a nonprofit called Centre for Law and Policy Research that
focuses on transgender rights, gender equality and public health. The group
is a grantee of a justice foundation that pocketed $1.4 million from OSF.
The list of Meta judges connected to Soros and the organized left
continues. Read more about it in a Judicial Watch report published last
year.
Until next week,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024
|
|
202.646.5172 |
|
|
© 2017 - 2024, All Rights Reserved
Manage
Email Subscriptions |
Unsubscribe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|