Judicial Watch Victory: FBI Raid Affidavit
Released
This is a good start, but the fight isn’t over.
The Department of Justice released its highly redacted affidavit
in response to our court
request 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
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 (Case No. 9:22-mj-08332)).
On August 11, the DOJ filed a motion
offering to unseal certain warrant materials.
On August 12, we filed
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 of the Trump raid warrant materials.
Initially, the Albany
Times Union and the New
York Times 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
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,
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 concerning the warrant.
On August 17, we submitted our reply
to the DOJ’s effort
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 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
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 (No.
1:22-cv-02535).
In February 2022, the National Archives reportedly
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 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-archives-asks-doj-investigate-trumps-handling-white/story?id=82781128).
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. (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
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 against California’s gender quota law for corporate
boards. The verdict came after a 28-day trial. The verdict followed a similar
ruling 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 (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 Eric Nagy with Board
Vice Chair Diane Ellis-Marseglia, Board
Chair Bob Harvie, former
Director of the Commissioners’ Office of Public Information Larry
King, Chief
Clerk Gail Humphrey, and Health
Department Director David Damsker from 8/10/2021 to 8/28/2021, on the
buckscounty.gov
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 Margaret McKevitt on 8/23/2021 on the buckscounty.gov
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. 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 …
|
