Judicial Watch Sues for Details of DA Willis’ Hiring of Special Prosecutor
Judicial Watch Sues FBI for Files on Ashli Babbitt – Family Demands Records
San Francisco Taxpayers Sue over Payments to ‘Black/Latinx’ Men (‘Transgender Women’)
Court Hearing in Suit Seeking Release of ‘Manifesto’ of Nashville School Shooter
Federal Judges Grant Oral Argument Based on Lawyers’ Sex, Race
Judicial Watch Sues for Details of DA Willis’ Hiring of Special Prosecutor
We are in court fighting the lawfare being waged against former President Donald Trump.
We filed a lawsuit 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).
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 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 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 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) lawsuit 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 (Estate of Ashli Babbitt and Aaron Babbitt et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice (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 lawsuit 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 $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 announced that we received the court-ordered declaration 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 records 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 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, Byrd.
In October 2021, United States Park Police records 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 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. (No. 24-611915)).
Mayor Breed announced 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 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 from the City of San Francisco showing the city prioritized tax money for black and Latino transgenders (biological men) in the (GIFT) 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 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 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 race, ethnicity and LGBT quotas for corporate boards unconstitutional.
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 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, 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 lawsuit 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. (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 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: “[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 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.
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 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 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,
Source
