Judicial Watch Transparency Victory



[INSIDE JW]

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: FBI RAID AFFIDAVIT RELEASED

[[link removed]]

This is a good start, but the fight isn’t over.

The Department of Justice released its highly redacted affidavit
[[link removed]]
in response to our court request
[[link removed]]
to unseal the warrant materials used in the unprecedented raid on the
home of former President Trump.

Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart had granted our motion and ordered
that “before noon Eastern time on Friday, August 26, 2022, the
Government shall file in the public docket a version of the Affidavit
containing the redactions proposed.”

In a remarkable and historic victory for transparency, we forced the
release of the infamous and heavily redacted FBI raid affidavit.

Now we know why the Biden Justice Department did not want to release
this material, as it exposes how there was significant evidence of
President Trump’s cooperation, a major legal dispute about the legal
status of the records believed to be in Trump’s possession, and that
the FBI abusively raided his home anyway.

The Biden Justice Department’s dishonest redactions of the reasons
for its redactions makes a mockery of the American people’s right to
know the entire story about this raid on Trump’s home, which was a
wild abuse of power by the Biden administration.

This legal battle for accountability is just getting started.

We have been in the forefront in the court battle for transparency
regarding the abusive FBI raid. Here is the chronology of our efforts.

On August 9, we filed
[[link removed]]
its motion asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida to unseal as soon as possible the search warrant materials
used by the FBI to raid President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida
(_U.S. v. Sealed Search Warrant_
[[link removed]]
(Case No. 9:22-mj-08332)).

On August 11, the DOJ filed a motion
[[link removed]]
offering to unseal certain warrant materials.

On August 12, we filed
[[link removed]]
President Trump’s public statement with the court, in which he made
it clear that he would not oppose the release of documents related to
the August 8, 2022, raid. Later that day, the DOJ made a partial
release
[[link removed]]
of the Trump raid warrant materials.

Initially, the _Albany Times Union_
[[link removed]]
and the _New York Times_
[[link removed]]
joined us in filing for the unsealing of the warrant by filing an
amicus letter and motion respectively. Other interests later joined in
the effort.

The Justice Department was ordered
[[link removed]]
by Magistrate Reinhart to respond by August 15 to our Motion to Unseal
the warrant and supporting materials behind the FBI raid. In its
filing
[[link removed]],
the Justice Department alleged that releasing the affidavit would
“cause significant and irreparable damage” to its ongoing criminal
investigation.

The court also ordered the release of other documents
[[link removed]]
concerning the warrant.

On August 17, we submitted our reply
[[link removed]]
to the DOJ’s effort
[[link removed]]
to keep under
seal the affidavit used to justify the controversial raid on the home
of former President Trump. We cited former President Trump’s support
for the release of the affidavit.

After last week’s hearing in West Palm Beach, FL, the court issued
an order
[[link removed]]
that stated:

As I ruled from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing, I find
that on the present record the Government has not met its burden of
showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed. It is ORDERED
that by noon EST on Thursday, August 25, 2022, the Government shall
file under seal its proposed redactions along with a legal memorandum
setting forth the justification for the proposed redactions.
Four additional filings
[[link removed]]
were
made public on August 22.

Right now, our legal team is considering the next steps for any
challenges to the over-redactions of the new documents. Watch this
space for future updates!

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES NATIONAL ARCHIVES FOR HIDING RECORDS ON TRUMP RAID

The Biden administration’s raid on President Trump’s home is an
outrageous, reckless and unprecedented abuse of power. And the
American people have an urgent right to know how the administration
manufactured the records dispute used as a pretext for the raid.

So we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for records
regarding its communication with the Department of Justice (DOJ) about
President Trump’s presidential records (_Judicial Watch v National
Archives and Records Administration_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:22-cv-02535).

In February 2022, the National Archives reportedly
[[link removed]]
asked the Justice Department to investigate former President Donald
Trump’s handling of records from his presidency. This investigation
eventually led to the unprecedented raid on the former president’s
home.

We sued after NARA failed to respond adequately to our February 2022
FOIA request for:

* All records regarding the referral from NARA to the Department of
Justice regarding the records management procedures of former
President Donald Trump
([link removed]).
This request includes all related records of communication between any
official or employee of NARA and any official or employee of the
Department of Justice and/or any other branch, department, agency, or
office of the federal government.
* All records regarding the retrieval of records from President
Trump or any individual or entity acting on his behalf by the National
Archives and Records Administration. This request includes related
records of communication between any official or employee of NARA and
President Trump and/or any individual or entity acting on his behalf

The Biden administration’s unlawful secrecy on its political raid
of Trump’s home speaks volumes.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES OVER RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY MINNEAPOLIS
TEACHERS’ CONTRACT

Racial discrimination has become endemic on the Left.

For example, we just filed an important lawsuit on behalf of a
Minneapolis taxpayer over a teachers’ contract that provides
discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities.

Defendants include the superintendent of the Minneapolis Public
Schools, the Minneapolis Public Schools, and the Minneapolis Board of
Education for violating the Equal Protection Guarantee of the
Minnesota Constitution (_Clapp v Cox et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 27-CV-22-12454)). We are assisted in the lawsuit by Daniel N.
Rosen of Rosen LLC in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The controversial contract was agreed to in March 2022 to end a 14-day
teacher strike. The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers ratified the
contract shortly after the agreement was reached. The Minneapolis
Board of Education ratified it in May of this year.

Our lawsuit states:

Among other things, the contract provides preferences, protections,
and privileges for MPS teachers of certain races and ethnicities under
a section entitled “ARTICLE 15. PROTECTIONS FOR EDUCATORS OF
COLOR.” There is no similar provision covering educators who are not
“of color.”

Under the contract, teachers of color are exempt from Defendant
MPS’s seniority-based layoffs and reassignments, which means, when
layoffs or reassignments occur, the next senior teacher who is not
“of color” would be laid off or reassigned. In addition, the
contract mandates that Defendants reinstate teachers of color over
more senior teachers who are not “of color.”

Upon information and belief, prior to the contract, teachers were laid
off or reassigned in order of seniority, with the least senior
teachers laid off or reassigned first, without regard to race or
ethnicity. Similarly, teachers were reinstated in order of seniority,
with the more senior teachers reinstated first, without regard to race
or ethnicity.

***

Article 15’s preferences, protections, and privileges for certain
public-school teachers on the basis of race and ethnicity violates
Minnesota’s Equal Protection Guarantee, which states that “no
member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of
the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the
law of the land or the judgment of his peers.” Minn. Const. art. 1,
§ 2. The Equal Protection Guarantee is analyzed under the same
principles and mandate as the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
Our suit asks the court to enter a judgment that will declare that all
actions taken to implement the racial and ethnic preference provisions
of Article 15 of the contract to be illegal. We are also asking that
the court declare it illegal to use any taxpayer dollars to implement
these provisions of the contract, and the defendants be prohibited
from taking any actions to implement these racial and ethnic
provisions.

It is incredible that in this day and age a school system would engage
in blatant racial discrimination in employing teachers. The courts
can’t move soon enough to shut down this extreme leftist attack on
the bedrock constitutional principle that no one can be denied equal
treatment under law on account of race.

We have been busy successfully challenging similar civil rights
lawlessness across the country.

In January this year 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 also agreed to remove racially discriminatory
eligibility provisions in a related program that provides grants to
educators.

In May this year, 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 diversity mandate for
corporate boards unconstitutional.)

JUDICIAL WATCH DEFENDS MOTHER SUED FOR REQUESTING SCHOOL COVID
DOCUMENTS

We’re pleased to announce that Judicial Watch is providing legal
representation to Megan Brock, a parent being sued by Bucks County,
PA, to prevent the release of documents she requested under the
commonwealth’s Right-to-Know Law that are related to COVID
restrictions and the re-opening of the county’s schools (_County of
Bucks v. Megan Brock_
[[link removed]]
(Nos.
2022-03083 and 2022-02979)).

The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records found in Brock’s favor and
ordered Bucks County to search for and release the documents in two
Right-to-Know Law requests. But Bucks County filed multiple suits
against Brock to prevent the release of the documents after Brock sent
a February 7, 2022, request asking for all electronic correspondence
by Bucks Co. Director of Policy and Communications
[[link removed]]
Eric Nagy with Board
Vice Chair
[[link removed]]
Diane
Ellis-Marseglia, Board Chair
[[link removed]]
Bob Harvie, former Director of the Commissioners’ Office of Public
Information
[[link removed]]
Larry
King, Chief Clerk
[[link removed]]
Gail
Humphrey, and Health Department Director
[[link removed]]
David Damsker from
8/10/2021 to 8/28/2021, on the buckscounty.gov
[[link removed]]
domain. Also, all communications about Bucks
County Health Department School Guidance.

A March 8, 2022 request asks for a copy of an email sent to Acting
Chief Operating Officer
[[link removed]]
Margaret McKevitt
on 8/23/2021 on the buckscounty.gov
[[link removed]]
domain,
which contained the final copy of the Bucks County COVID-19 Amended
School Guidance, including all responses.

On July 18, 2022, our local counsel, J. Chadwick Schnee, filed answers
to Bucks County’s lawsuits against Brock.

Parents Megan Brock and Jamie Walker led a fight to reopen the
county’s schools during the pandemic, “and then to keep schools
open and opening close to normal,” according to _National Review_
[[link removed]].
They “suspect county officials and two Democratic commissioners had
a hand in updating the county’s guidance, and possibly overruling
their own health director, a strong advocate for in-person leaning.
They believe Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf’s administration coerced
the county into adopting its more restrictive Covid policies and its
one-size-fits-all approach to school reopening.”

Our client Megan Brock and other parents won’t be intimidated by
Bucks County government’s abusive lawsuits designed to thwart basic
information requests. We are honored to represent a concerned parent
being punished through lawfare for daring to demand accountability
from her local government.

Until next week …







[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></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 - 2022, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]