➡ Judicial Watch, on behalf of Ashley Babbitt’s family, has filed a $30 million lawsuit against the federal government for her wrongful death at the US Capitol. They have revealed details about the incident and the shooter, Michael Byrd, who was given special protection and never seriously investigated. The organization has spent thousands of hours investigating the case and is hopeful for a resolution. They also highlighted their efforts in ensuring clean voter rolls, leading to the removal of 5 million names, reducing opportunities for voter fraud.
➡ The Supreme Court has made rulings that have been criticized for their interpretation of the law, particularly in relation to immigration. One case involved a decision to extend the deportation deadline for an illegal alien if the 60th day fell on a weekend or federal holiday. Another ruling prevented President Trump from deporting anyone under the Alien Enemies Act without a Supreme Court ruling. Critics argue these decisions undermine the enforcement of immigration laws and increase left-wing political power by allowing illegal aliens to remain in the country.
➡ The article discusses a legal case where lawyers for alleged criminals demanded a court ruling within a short timeframe, and appealed when this didn’t happen. The Supreme Court ruled on the case without waiting for the lower courts’ decisions, which the author criticizes as undermining the legal process. The author also mentions a judge’s arrest for obstructing an immigration arrest operation, suggesting this as a positive step for judicial accountability.
➡ A judge allegedly helped a violent offender, previously deported in 2013, evade immigration officers, causing public outrage. The offender had been charged with domestic violence. The Attorney General, Pam Bondi, criticized the judge’s actions on TV, emphasizing the need for law enforcement and public safety. The article also discusses ongoing legal issues, including the slow release of government records and the need for more transparency and accountability from the Justice Department.
➡ The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation raided a man’s home, seizing and killing his pet squirrel and raccoon, Peanut and Fred, due to suspicions of illegal wildlife possession and potential rabies. The pets’ owner, who had been sharing their lives on social media, was unaware he was doing anything wrong. The incident sparked public outrage and is now under investigation for abuse of power. The owner’s family is planning litigation, and there are efforts to pass a law in New York to prevent such abuses in the future.
➡ Judges are appointed to the court after a commission recommends three names to the president, who then picks one. This person serves for 15 years and can be reappointed. A judge named Todd Edelman was reappointed despite releasing a criminal who later was involved in a fatal shooting. This decision was criticized, but Edelman was still reappointed, highlighting the need for judicial accountability.
➡ Tom Fitton, a commissioner on the Commission for Judicial Disabilities and Tenure, disagreed with the reappointment of Judge Edelman due to his decision to release a dangerous criminal, Wingfield, which resulted in the death of an 11-year-old child. Despite Fitton’s dissent, Edelman was found well qualified and will be reappointed for 15 more years. Fitton believes this decision shows a lack of accountability and poses a risk to public safety. He encourages the public to support Judicial Watch, an organization that aims to expose government and judicial misconduct.

Microphone check. Microphone check. Hey, everyone. Welcome to Judicial Watch’s weekly update here on social media. If you haven’t been following this story, you should be. It’s our lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Ashley Babbitt’s estate and her family. Her widower, Aaron Babbitt, who was her husband at the time she was killed at the US Capitol. We have a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit that we filed against the federal government and through our litigation, through the actual lawsuit and our separate lawsuits under FOIA, to get access to information about how Ashley, a 14 year veteran, the Air Force, was killed that day in a way that was outrageous and unnecessary.

That’s hence the wrongful death lawsuit. We’ve exposed pretty much everything there is to know about what happened that day, specifically the murder or the killing of Ashleigh Babbitt. She was the only official homicide that day, the only official homicide victim. I know other Americans died that day, but she was officially labeled a homicide by government officials. And Michael Byrd, her shooter, as we’ve exposed, was given special protection. Never prosecuted, frankly, never seriously investigated. And then he was actually able to stay at a military facility for six months, courtesy of you, the American taxpayer. And we’ve demanded justice for Ashley through this litigation and spent thousands of hours investigating the case, not only separately, just in the public interest, but also on behalf of her family.

Once we began the representation. And that work included examining the video evidence of what happened to her that day. And it resulted in what? A compilation of her final 19 minutes of life on January 6, 2021. And this is a video the big media will never show you. This is a video that breaks apart the January 6 narrative because it shows a young woman killed for no good reason, shot at by a police officer in an ambush style. You recall in our lawsuit, witnesses at the time said to you murdered her. You murdered her. They shouted out.

And so I’m going to play you or play for you the final 19 minutes of Ashley’s life. And let me just say, before it runs, it can be quite graphic. So be warned. But it’s important to her memory and to the public interest that we have an historical accounting of what happened that day. Because you won’t get it from the media, but here you’re going to get it right now from Judicial Watch. That was pretty awful, huh? It was disturbing. Ashley Babbitt shouldn’t have been killed. You can see, frankly, they could have moved her a little bit more quickly than they did, but you know, it’s going to be resolved in our lawsuit and the lawsuit’s ongoing.

We’ve reported to the court, Judicial Watch’s attorneys did, who worked so hard. You could see this video was the result of, you know, significant resources by Judicial Watch to compile this evidence. We are seeking to, and both parties are operating in good faith to partially or completely resolve the litigation. And so I’m quite hopeful that that does happen. And I can’t imagine President Trump is going to want anything other than to resolve this litigation. So in the meantime, we’re prepared, you know, to proceed with the litigation. But right now, we’re talking to the other side to hopefully resolve the issues either completely or, or at least partly.

So stay tuned here for more information on the Ashley Babbitt lawsuit. And I encourage you to go to our website@judicalwatch.org, obviously, the video is there, but the material about Michael Byrd and his disingenuous, to put it mildly, actions that day and his dangerous behavior that suggested that he should have been nowhere near the Capitol that day, given his record we’ve uncovered and disclosed in our lawsuit and our various FOIA litigation lawsuits and our FOIA lawsuits and investigations. And, you know, Ashley deserves justice, and that’s what Judicial Watch aims to do. And we’re proud to represent her family.

And of course, I see this and I think of her mom and I think of her husband, Aaron, and what they must go through knowing this issue remains unresolved. Of course, the police officer was never prosecuted and we can’t prosecute him. Only government can. So stay tuned for more. And I hope to have some good news for you one way or the other soon. But we’ll see so much happening. Speaking of courts, in the courts these past few weeks, you still have judges that are seeking to overturn the constitutional order by substituting their judgment on matters of presidential power for the president, meaning the president has these powers under the Constitution related to protecting the country as commander in chief, just administering the law, as chief executive, etc.

And you have judges who don’t like his policies, don’t like his programs, don’t like his reforms, and they’re substituting their judgment. In my view, contrary to the roles of the judiciary, they are exercising powers that they don’t have the right to exercise. Meaning they can exercise judicial powers. Right. But they can’t exercise legislative powers and they can’t exercise executive powers. And you have judge after judge doing that in an abusive way as it relates to the Alien Enemies act, as it relates to the president trying to curtail outrageous misappropriation or waste fraud and abuse and follow the law carefully while saving tax dollars and reforming government.

You have most recently a judge say, oh, you know, the voice of America needs to be kept open. You’ve had recently a judge say the president can’t shut down DEI and say that there’s something improper because it’s hard to figure out what DEI means. They know what it means. And then you had a judge say just the other day, the president can’t take steps under the law to enforce federal law that only citizens can vote. And I applaud President Trump’s efforts in this regard. And I want to highlight for you that this is theit just highlights the importance of Judicial Watch’s efforts in this regard, especially when it comes to election integrity efforts, because the Justice Department has largely been AWOL up until now.

And I suspect things will get better in the Justice Department soon in that regard. But in the meantime, Judicial Watch has been doing virtually all the heavy lifting, for instance, on the basic issue of ensuring that the voter rolls are clean, as I reported again in this video the other day on Twitter. Everyone, great news. Judicial Watch legal action just led to the removal of 5 million names. I can report from voter rolls nationwide. A million dirty names cleaned from New York City’s rolls. 1,200,000 names cleaned from LA’s rolls. Hundreds of thousands, millions of names cleaned from Colorado, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Kentucky.

The list goes on and on, all thanks to Judicial Watches heavy lifting in court. Now, of course, millions more names need to be cleaned up and Judicial Watch is in federal court now. But in the meantime, right now there are 5 million fewer opportunities for voter fraud. Yeah. And we’re in court right now to clean up the roles in Oregon, California and Illinois to start. And we’ve got issues going on in Utah where they’re not following the law in terms of public release of information about their efforts to clean up the rolls. But 5 million names is extraordinary.

5 million fewer opportunities for voter fraud thanks to your friendly neighborhood Judicial Watch. And we can’t do it without your support. I commend our legal team, our expert legal team, who have some serious significant experience both at the Justice Department and obviously working for Judicial Watch in enforcing the rule of law on immigration. And so we know what we’re talking about. And I also want to acknowledge the passing of one of our colleagues, Chris Coats. He was basically, he didn’t work for Judicial Watch directly, but he was one of our go to lawyers on election law.

And Chris passed away recently. And you know his background. He used to work, you know, supporting the aclu. And he was in the Justice Department for many, many years. And he kind of saw that, you know, the kind of the equal application or equal protection provisions of the law weren’t being applied, especially in areas of voting law. And that’s why he started working with Judicial Watch. And he passed away. So. And Chris was instrumental in helping us achieve many of the good results I’m talking about here. So, you know, say a prayer for Chris family. And certainly we honor him.

And we honor him also by continuing the heavy lifting of federal court right to clean up more rolls. And this. And I get, and I kind of got into this because, you know, the president can’t do it alone. The Justice Department, even if it wanted to do it, can’t do it alone. These agencies need all the help they can get if they want to enforce the rule of law. And we’re friends of anyone who wants to enforce the rule of law. We will go after agencies when they’re not following the law in terms of transparency or other misconduct.

But certainly, you know, President Trump wants to try to clean up the rolls, right? And now the Justice Department’s got to get on with doing that. But in the meantime, we’re just going to do it. In fact, we’ve cleaned 5 million names off the rolls. So the good news is, even when these judges kind of sidetracked Trump or stall and obstruct our democracy, as I call it, right? Judicial Watch just keeps on keeping on in terms of exposing the corruption in government and enforcing the rule of law. And you know, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has gone south in many respects just in the last week or so.

I mean, there was one ruling, I guess the lesser of. There was one that was terrible. This one was the one I’m going to talk about was, I guess let not as terrible as the one I want to talk about, but it’s worth mentioning because of the absurdities involved. There was a case over whether an alien who is here illegally and is told to voluntarily deport under the law within 60 days gets an extra day, two or three if the 60th day falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or a federal holiday. So let’s say, for example, the 60th day fell on a Saturday of a holiday where the federal holiday was on Monday.

They wouldn’t have to be self deporting until or voluntarily depart until the next Tuesday. And it’s like the law says, 60 days. It doesn’t say except, except that the 60 day, if the 60th day arrives on a Saturday, Sunday or Monday. And, you know, it’s just another example to me of the courts not liking the fact that President Trump wants to enforce the rule of law on immigration and the absurdity. Justice Alito seemingly couldn’t take it anymore, and he issued a, a stinging dissent. PresidentExcuse me. Justice Thomas had a dissent in this case arguing over whether they even had jurisdiction and it was legally technical.

Justice Alito highlighted the absurdity of them being unable to define a day in any common sense way. And let’s bring up just the quote I have from Justice Alito on tweet number two, where he had to explain what a day was to his colleagues, the majority on the court that included, by the way, the three liberals, Kagan, Justices Kagan, Justice Jackson and Justice Sotomayor and Justice Gorsuch, and I believe, Justice Chief Justice Roberts. But let’s see what Justice Alito said. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, calls out the judicial coup by the Supreme Court against Trump.

In sum, literally, oh, no, this isn’t the one I want to do. One where he talks about the day. What does a day mean? Justice Alito had to explain what a day literally means to The Supreme Court 5, 4 majority who decided an illegal alien doesn’t have to self deport through voluntary departure. As I kind of said, despite the plain language of the law, as Justice Alito notes, we generally presume that terms used in statutes carry the same meaning they have in ordinary language. Therefore, when interpreting the term days, and he cites the law, we should start with a presumption that it means what it means in ordinary usage.

And then he quotes what it means in ordinary usage. A division of time equal to 24 hours in representing the average length of the period during which the earth makes one rotation on its axis. So really, what an embarrassment for the Supreme Court that Justice Alito has to go back and explain to the majority what a day means. That’s where we are. And then on top of that, we have justice, or excuse me, the Supreme Court really engaged in an abusive use of power that frankly they don’t have in a kind of a strange midnight ruling, essentially restraining Trump from deporting anyone under the Alien Enemies Act.

And what happened is that there were these illegal aliens who were subject to deportation under the Alien Enemies act, seeking review of the deportation, you know, moves, and they couldn’t get any result from the court within like three minutes. I’m exaggerating, but not much. So they went to the appellate court and the appellate court wasn’t moving fast enough. So they went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court just ruled outright on their behalf. No info from the Trump administration. Basically didn’t wait for any of the lower courts to resolve the issue. And they ruled in a way that essentially told Trump he’s not allowed to do anything absent for a ruling from the Supreme Court.

And, you know, as I highlighted in this tweet, I forget which one it was. Tweet number seven. You remember Chief Justice Roberts, what he said a few weeks ago where he attacked Trump for promoting judicial impeachment, and his response was, we should only rely on the normal appellate review process instead. So much for that. And again, it was left to Justice Alito. And sadly, there were only, I think, two justices in this case who thought this was inappropriate to kind of bypass the normal procedures and rule on a case they had no really legal right by their own rules to rule upon.

So Trump has to follow normal appellate procedure, but the Supreme Court doesn’t. And they hijacked the presidency effectively in stopping the president from enforcing his lawful declaration or proclamation under Alien Enemies act that these Venezuelan terrorist gang members can be deported immediately because they’re working in league with a foreign government. It’s insanity. It’s absolute insanity. And President Trump was saying, I mean, they literally, this is what the left wants them to do. And frankly, a lot of the courts, you can invade the country by the millions, but if you deport anyone, it has to be one at a time after a full trial.

And I highlighted that point in a tweet here. I think I highlighted it. Oh, yeah, Number four, it’s even worse. Our enemies now have a path on how to destroy the country, invade, and then rely on the courts to prevent a reversal of the invasion. That’s literally what’s happening now. And I tell you what happened. You know, the president deserves, as I’ve said, a Nobel Peace Prize for shutting down the border. But there are millions, if not tens of millions of aliens here in the United States who are unlawfully present, legal, who need to be deported.

And if they’re not deported by the next census and the law doesn’t change in terms of counting them for purposes of apportionment, it means that the left will be able to increase the number of people they have in Congress, number of seats they have in Congress, and that blue states will get more seats or more Electoral College, Electoral College electors for the presidency. So they want these aliens to keep on staying here in order for them and forget about them voting illegally. Okay, that’s one issue, just their mere presence increases left wing political power. And that’s why they’re stalling the, trying to stall the mass deportations that President Trump is trying to implement under law.

And it’s worth going over the abuses of the Supreme Court as highlighted by Justice Alito, who really had a devastating opinion he issued in response. I mean, the justice of the Supreme Court was so desperate to stop Trump, they issued the order without the normal attachment of a dissent. And Justice Alito had to file it a little bit later. And it’s worth sharing with you because there’s got to be a record of this abuse of the Supreme Court. I mean, it’s one thing to talk about presidential corruption, it’s one thing to talk about congressional corruption. It’s also important to talk about judicial corruption.

And right now, that’s a major issue for our republic. Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting. Shortly after midnight yesterday, the court hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief proceeding under the All Writs Act. The court ordered the government not to remove a putative class of detainees until this court issues a superseding order. Although the order does not define the putative class, it appears that the court means all members of the class that the habeas petitions petitioners sought to have certified, namely all non citizens in custody in the Northern District of Texas who were or will be subject to the March 20, 25th, March 2025 presidential proclamation entitled Invocation of the Alien Enemies act regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren Duragra and or its implementation.

And although the court does not specify what it means by the government, it appears that the term is intended to embrace all the named defendants, including the President. And then Justice Alito tears his colleagues apart in this dissent. It is not clear that the court has jurisdiction. The All Writs act does not provide an independent grant of jurisdiction. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction only if the court of appeals had jurisdiction of the applicant’s appeal. And the court of appeals had jurisdiction only if the supposed order that the applicant’s appealed amounted to the denial of a preliminary injunction.

So as I’m reading this, I’m taking out some legal citations for brevity, but here the order that the applicants appealed was what they viewed as the district court’s constructive denial of their request for a temporary restraining order, or tro. That is, the district court did not actually deny their most recent request for tro, but they inferred that it was constructively denied because the district court failed to rule on that request before the Expiration of a truncated counsel imposed deadline. Did you hear that? Truncated counsel imposed headline. The lawyers for the illegal alien, criminals or alleged criminals, terrorists, whatever you want to call it, they told the court, you rule within 45 minutes or so, otherwise we’re going to appeal.

That’s not the way it works in America. At least it wasn’t the way it was supposed to work. Denial of a true TRO is not appealable. And here it is not clear that the applicant’s TRO request was actually denied. Indeed, in an order issued last night, the Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction. For this reason, Supreme Court didn’t wait for the Fifth Circuit to rule, by the way, which is what they’re supposed to do. Or we’ve been lectured that that’s what they’re supposed to do by the same judges who. Justices who did the exact opposite.

It is questionable whether the applicants complied with the general obligations to seek emergency injunctive relief in the district court before asking for such relief from an appellate court. And then they quote the Federal Rules of Procedure. Do the rules matter? Not if you’re a terrorist seeking help from the Supreme Court, evidently. When the applicants requested such relief in the district court. So the district court is the lowest court in the federal court. I shouldn’t say lowest court, but it’s the first court. Right. And then you go to the appellate court, and then in theory, you go to the Supreme Court.

When the applicants requested such relief in the district court, they insisted on a ruling within 45 minutes on good Friday afternoon. And when the district court did not act within 133 minutes, they filed a notice of appeal which the district court held deprived it of jurisdiction. It is doubtful that this aborted effort satisfied the Federal Rules of Appellate procedure. So you set a court up, demand that they rule within a specific time, and you get an automatic appeal if they don’t follow your timeline. No, that’s not the way it’s supposed to work. I mean, the idea that Judicial Watch would even think to do something like that, it’s not right.

When this court rushed to enter its order, the Court of Appeals was considering the issue of emergency relief. This is important. And we were informed that a decision would be forthcoming. Well, let’s think about that. The Supreme Court of the United States knew that. That a decision from the Fifth Circuit that they should be considering was coming, forthcoming, and yet they precipitously ruled anyway. That’s not right. That raises an ethics issue, as far as I’m concerned as to what happened. The court, however, refused to wait. But under this court’s rule, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, an application for a stay will not be entertained until the relief requested was first sought in the appropriate court or courts below or from a judge or judges thereof.

You’ve heard the shadow docket, right? Justice Amy Coney Briart and Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts talks about, and they don’t talk explicitly about it, but they don’t like the idea of the court. And the leftist justices have said this too. Oh, we shouldn’t interfere in this process until it’s right for us. We shouldn’t short circuit the process. Justice Alito just cited the rule and they just did it. So all their excuses not to quote short circuit the process in order to protect the rule of law, they’re unwilling to do, or, you know, they don’t want to invoke that same excuse in order effectively to allow illegal alien criminals to remain here, terrorists, gangsters who remain here in the United States.

The only papers before the court were those submitted by the applicants. The court had not ordered or received a response by the government regarding either the applicant’s factual allegations or any of the legal issues presented by the application. And the court did not have the benefit of a government response filed in any of the lower courts either. When the applicants first raised their allegations in the district court, that court provided the government with 24 hours to respond and was poised to rule expeditiously. But the district court dissolved the government’s obligation to respond after counsel for appellate’s applicants filed their hasty appeal, which in the district court views deprived it of jurisdiction to rule.

So this is what happened. The lawyers for the terrorists went into court, said, you need to rule within 45 minutes. The court said, well, what are you talking about? The government has to have a chance to respond here. I’m going to give them 24 hours, they said. After a little over two hours, they appealed, pretending they were constructively denied relief. That’s bunk and they know it. And the Supreme Court, as Justice Alito highlights, should have known it as well. The papers before us, while alleging the applicants were in imminent danger of removal, provided little concrete evidence, little concrete support for that allegation.

Members of this court have repeatedly insisted that an All Writs act injunction pending appeal may only be granted when, among other things, the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear and even then sparingly and only in their most critical and circumstances. So my. I should have looked this up before I came on. My memory of the All Writs act is essentially The Supreme Court takes jurisdiction in cases when it wants to take jurisdiction, but Justice Alito says it’s not for everybody. Every time someone comes running the Supreme Court, although this court did not hear directly from the government regarding any planned deportations under the Alien Enemies act in this matter, an attorney representing the government in a different matter informed the district court in that case during a hearing yesterday evening that no such deportations were then planned to occur either yesterday or today.

So no emergency. Although the court provided class wide relief, the district court never certified a class. There was no class, and yet the Supreme Court ordered the class be protected from being deported. What’s going on? And this court has never held that class relief may be sought in a habeas proceeding. Now, habeas corpus proceeding is someone who says, look, I’m being detained or I’m about to be removed after being detained or as a result of detention, and I have a right to go to the court and seek relief immediately or relatively immediately. And it’s a one by one issue.

Right. And the idea that there’s a whole class under habeas relief, it’s habeas corpus present the body. It’s not present the bodies. It’s not present the whole class of bodies. It’s an individualized analysis. At least that’s my understanding of the law. All the lawyers will argue with me about this, but I think I’m right. In sum, literally, in the middle of the night, the court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party within hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order and without providing any explanation for its order.

I refused to join the court order because we had no good reason to think that under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate. Both the executive and the judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The executive must proceed under the terms of our order, and this court should follow established procedures. And he was referencing the order previously that deprived Justice Judge Boasberg of jurisdiction and gave it to the judges over in which these applicants actually were being incarcerated in preparation for removal. Pretty devastating stuff from Justice Alito. And you won’t hear it from the liberal media.

You’re going to hear that Trump is the one causing a crisis. This is troubling to me because when the Court, Supreme Court starts acting outside the law, it does increase the likelihood of a constitutional crisis. That’s my concern about this. I’m concerned about our republic, that the courts are rogue. The Supreme Court hasn’t figured out how to check them sufficiently. And in a key matter, they are acting in a way that undermines confidence in their ability to fairly administer justice as the Constitution requires. That’s the constitutional crisis. The constitutional crisis. Every time you hear that word or that phrase, just remember it’s being caused by rogue judges and, yes, rogue justices of the Supreme Court.

It’s not Trump, it’s the courts. But on the other hand, there’s some good news for judicial accountability. Did you see the news? The FBI arrested a judge in Minnesota for obstructing immigration arrest or detention. And Pam Bondi was on television talking about it. And Cash Patel tweeted about it. I think I have Cash’s tweet here just now. The FBI arrested Judge Hannah Dugan out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin on charges of obstructing obstruction after evidence of Judge Dugan obstructed an immigration arrest operation last week. We believe she intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse.

Eduardo Flores Ruiz, who was, by the way, accused of beating to near death two individuals, his girlfriend and a man, allowing the subject, an illegal alien, to evade arrest. Thankfully, our agents chased down the perp on foot and. And he’s been in custody since. But the judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public. And Pam Bondi, the attorney general, was on TV talking about it. She appeared on Fox News. Let’s play that clip. Sandra, this was truly horrific. This guy was in court being prosecuted by a state prosecutor for domestic violence battery. He had beat up two people, a guy and a girl.

Beat the guy, hit the guy 30 times, knocked him to the ground, choked him, beat up a woman so badly they both had to go to the hospital. And John, you know, it’s so rare for victims to want to cooperate. They wanted to cooperate. They were sitting in the courtroom with the state prosecutor. The judge learns that ICE was outside to get the guy because he had been deported in 2013, came back in our country, commits these crimes, charged with committing these crimes, victims in court. Judge finds out. She goes out in the hallway, screams at the immigration officers.

She’s furious, visibly shaken, upset, sends them off to talk to the chief judge. She comes back in the courtroom. You’re not going to believe this. Takes the defendant and the defense attorney back in her chambers, takes them out of private exit and tells them to leave. While a state prosecutor and victim, victims of domestic violence are sitting in the courtroom and to set the standard. I mean, given those circumstances, the attorney general really had no choice but to follow up, of course, the crazed left that is on the side of alien invaders, dangerous criminals amongst them, rather than the rule of law, is all in favor of the judge allegedly doing what she did.

Now, to be fair, the judge has. We haven’t heard from her. We don’t know what the evidence is that she has against these charges. Maybe she’s innocent, maybe they’re overstating things, maybe they’re completely wrong. But given the evidence as presented, it’s pretty darn serious. And I tell you, every local, state and judicial official who engages in this type of contact, in this type of conduct to obstruct the rule of law, obstruct justice, should be prosecuted, should be detained. I mean, given what they did to innocent Americans for merely disputing an election, the idea that judges or any official would actively engage in an effort, in this case really quite specific, to stop a dangerous criminal alien from being arrested.

Completely lawless. Completely lawless. So kudos to Pam Bundy for taking this step because, you know, she was going to get criticized for it and there’s going to be a whole eruption around it, but she’s standing with the rule of law and the public safety in taking this action. But there’s still much more work to be done by the Attorney General. There’s been a lot of discussion back and forth online about whether she and the FBI are taking appropriate steps to enforce the rule of law when it comes to the abuses targeting Trump and other American citizens by the regime, the weaponization of government, lawfare, etc.

And I don’t think they’ve done enough yet. And I’m encouraging them to do more. The good news is we’re getting more transparency out of the Justice Department. It’s incremental, but it’s significant. As I highlighted last week, they gave us documents showing the White House interfered or tried to change the transcript of Joe Biden’s interview with the special counsel in a way that hid the fact he couldn’t remember who the defense secretary was and changed the fact he couldn’t remember when his son Beau died. They tried to change the literal things he said in the transcript. And that was an extraordinary release of information by the Justice Department.

There’s still much to be done. I mean, we’ve been in litigation for seven years, I think now for records of the anti Trump activists in the FBI, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the Lovebirds, as we called them, and the government had. We had a federal court hearing earlier this week and they told the court, well, they still need more time to review the. Right. Excuse me now which is reacting up. I’m going to get another sneeze here soon. Is it coming? No, it passed that they needed four months to review the transcript. Let’s go to the.

I think I had a tweet on it. I don’t remember the specifics. Now the tweet with Michael number eight. There’s a picture of me and Michael Pikesha. This is where Ray FBI said no text messages are subject to FOIA hiding page struck McCabe text Judicial Watch suit in federal court. We made this, we sent this release out in October 2020, and now it’s 2025. We still don’t have all the records. And the DOJ attorney told the FBI for the FBI told the court just yesterday that they need at least four months to review the same records they’ve been collecting withholding for all that time.

And the court gave them three months. So they got to accelerate the release of this information. Don’t you? I mean, they’ve been collecting these text messages messages for seven years, and now they need to review them. Weren’t they reviewing them as they were collecting them? What are they withholding? This is the way it works. They want you to go in, sue, they give you all the records, and then at the end, it’s another fight as to what they withheld. So you’ve got to wait for them to give you all the records and they won’t tell you what they’re withholding specifically until they’re completed the production.

But the production can go on for well over half a decade. It’s absurd. And I’m hoping the Justice Department takes action here. You know, but FOIA is generally half the battle. The other battle is, you know, holding the deep state accountable, holding the abusers accountable. And I’ve talked to you, and I just talked about the records related to the interview of Joe Biden and Congress. Well, Judicial Watch is suing in court for the videotapes. Still waiting for the Bondi Justice Department to get back to us as to whether they’re going to release them and stop the basically corrupt secrecy of Joe Biden.

I don’t know what’s taking so long. But remember, Speaker. Excuse me, Attorney General Garland went into contempt of Congress in order to hide this material from Congress. And of course, he, they refused to prosecute him. And I raised this issue here. Let’s watch the. I raised this issue actually, when we first sued for this information, I think it was last year. Let’s go to that. Hey, Everyone, Joe Biden is so desperate to keep those audio tapes of his special counsel interviews away from you and from Congress that he is asserting executive privilege in a way that’s never been done before in American history.

And of course, it’s also designed to protect Attorney General Garland, who seems so intent on hiding these audio tapes that he’s willing to go into contempt of Congress, joining Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, as the only attorney general was found in contempt of Congress. I tell you, Judicial Watch is already now in federal court suing for these audio tapes. They have asserted privacy exemptions to hide the records from us. They’re trying to protect Joe Biden’s privacy. Now, on top of that, now they’re asserting executive privilege. We’ve never seen anything like it before. The tapes must be devastating.

Now Judicial Watch is going to pursue this issue in federal court. Frankly, I think we’ll get the audio tapes before Congress does at this rate. But we’re here fighting for you, the American people, as Joe Biden tries to cover up his corruption. So when is Pam Bondi going to prosecute Garland? And if not, why not? The audio tapes are one thing, but does she agree that the decision that only Peter Navarro goes to jail for obstructing Congress, only Steve Bannon goes to jail for obstructing Congress. Is that the rule? They don’t need six months to make a case on this.

This is a pending issue. It was resolved by the prior administration. Obviously, Garland wasn’t going to prosecute himself with the Justice Department. What’s so hard about figuring out whether you’re going to prosecute someone or at least announce that you’re looking at the issue? So, yeah, Pam Bonney’s doing a lot of great work. Kash Patel’s doing a lot of great work. But I think they need to focus on these rule of law issues, lawfare issues, in a more aggressive way and a timely way, because I’m not seeing evidence they’re doing it at all right now. Peanut the Squirrel.

We sued for records for Peanut the Squirrel’s execution by New York state government officials. I announced it a few weeks ago. I guess here’s a video talking about the case. Well, Judicial Watch just sued the state agency responsible for raiding this man’s home, taking his pets, including Pink Squirrel here, and then killing them. And now there’s a cover up, and we’re in court to get answers. Heavy lifting necessary. So Judicial Watch sued. We got the documents. Now I think they’re pretending the documents weren’t because of the lawsuit. But you sue, you get the documents, it’s pretty clear what happened.

And we got 100 and received 163 pages of records from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. And they show that they were prepared to go in and kill the animals from the get go. There was Peanut the squirrel and Fred the raccoon. Fred doesn’t get as much, nearly as much attention as poor Peanut does. But it’s clear that because they were supposedly illegally kept wildlife, there was a presumption of a rabies issue and they were going to be tested. And the only way to test an animal is to kill it. I think they literally reference decapitation.

Thankfully, I don’t have much experience with that. But those of you who’ve been in circumstances like this probably know better than I do. And the records are really awful in terms of showing an obliviousness to the rights of the owners of Peanut and Fred. Common sense, application of the law and safe application of the law. You know, you go and raid someone’s home as a law enforcement officer, it’s a dangerous thing. It’s necessarily dangerous. You don’t, you know, that’s why when they raid homes or they go in with a lot of force or preparation and protection, because it’s a dangerous, dangerous situation when you enter someone’s home and so to do it, you don’t do it lightly, right? You don’t do it because you’ve got someone complaining that there’s a raccoon being kept illegally.

You don’t do it because you’ve had bureaucrats reviewing video footage on social media that the poor guy had a squirrel at his house and you send 12 agents to his home because he didn’t have the proper license. It’s insanity. And we uncovered all of it in this document lawsuit we filed on this abuse of these poor people and the killing of their pets. They found Peanut in the bathtub and Fred in a suitcase and they took him and killed them. The details are just unbelievable. They supposedly had received multiple complaints of unlawfully possessed raccoons and an unlawfully possessed squirrel that were posted to several media outlets because the family, the guy who owned them, had the pets on social media.

So he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong. He was celebrating the animals he had rescued on social media. I was forwarded an email on my approved day off such government speak regarding assisting with possible search warrant to collect the unlawfully possessed raccoons. I met with so and so they black out the name and began researching the social media accounts of suspect Mark Longo who is the owner of Peanut. And I also advised Blank of the case and to relay any new complaints to me. I observed several videos on TikTok which they misspelled Facebook and Instagram related to the suspected unlawful possession of squirrels and raccoons on the accounts held by Mark Longo.

So I want you to think about this. This poor guy is posting pictures of his pet on social media and there’s some thick headed, frankly government bureaucrat trolling his social media accounts looking for evidence of a crime because he’s got his raccoon in his house and a squirrel. Supposedly he didn’t have the proper wildlife conservation or wildlife rehabilitation license and it generated a crisis in this agency in New York. High profile they called it. You bet it’s high profile. You go in and raid a man’s home, take their pets and then execute them. Oh, but this is serious.

Look at this part. It’s like if it weren’t so outrageous, it’d be comical. They detail they took 70 photographs of the home after they raided it. I want to find some good stuff here because I wasn’t going to spend that much time on it. But as I look at this stuff, it’s so outrageous I’m going to spend more time than I planned on it. Oh, this is my favorite. Well, I shouldn’t say it’s my favorite part. So they talk about, well, Peanut bit someone and that’s why they needed to test them for rabies. They were planning to kill them and test them for rabies before they entered the home because the so called expert they consulted said, well, you just have to presume they have rabies and we have to test them to make sure.

And it’s not like they can take a blood test. They got to kill the animals in order to confirm whether they have rabies or not. The animals have been present at the home for a long period of time. So the likelihood of a rabies issue was in my view, my non expert view ridiculous. A squirrel or raccoon that cohabitated a common living area were confiscated during the investigation. So and so was advised that the squirrel had bitten an employee, that the incident and investigation is high profile, and then was asked that the animal should be tested for rabies since the raccoon is a rabies vector species.

The person whose name is redacted stated that both animals should be tested as a precaution and he didn’t want to chance it. Earlier before the raid, they said if any animals had any wild, any of the Wild animals had contact with humans, they would most likely need to be submitted for rabies testing. So they go in knowing that they would most likely have to be killed. So they were planning to get the animals killed. So the story is in one document that the squirrel bit one of the 12 people who went in to raid the home.

The squirrel did not break the glove, did not break the skin. But then there’s a subsequent report that he did break the skin. Which is it? I think the first report is probably more accurate. So. And so, you know, namedacted. And I met with and brought the raccoon and squirrel into the facility. I assisted and another animal control officer in transferring I assisted blank and another animal control officer in transferring the raccoon and squirrel into different enclosures so they would be able to euthanize them utilizing drugs that they’re certified to use. Now, the family whose animals were taken, stolen, in my view, and murdered, they are planning litigation.

They sent a document request or document preservation request late last year. They want the bodies preserved. I don’t know if their bodies are still around to be preserved. And of course, you know, this event sparked public outrage. You know, it came up during the presidential campaign. J.D. vance mentioned it. And these documents, to me just confirm a wild abuse of power in New York state. And it’s something that should be concerning nationally because these powers are available and often abusively exercised all across the land. And this was something that gained national attention, and rightly so. And hopefully, in a way, I know there’s a law that they’re trying to pass in New York to make it more difficult to engage in this type of abuse.

So maybe there’s something that happens good out of this, and hopefully our investigation and litigation and this disclosure of information will show that something needs to be done. New York State bureaucrats did not want to turn over these documents, but Judicial Watch’s lawsuit forced their hand. The documents show an abuse of power where 12 officers were sent in on a raid to seize Peanut and Fred, who the bureaucrats decided beforehand would be killed. These documents show the killing of Peanut the squirrel and Fred the raccoon was the result of pure government abuse and insanity. So we’re going to get more documents.

I don’t know, but I tell you, you wonder how President Trump’s document home can be raided for no reason. I mean, they’re raiding homes to kill pets, raiding homes to take documents that some bureaucrat in Washington thinks the president shouldn’t have. I mean, that’sthat should be no surprise when you have that type of attitude generally by the government. I mean, in the case of Trump, it was an obvious political abuse. Here it was just the raw exercise of power, contempt for the rights of the poor owners of the two pets. And now they’re probably licking their wounds, more or less because of the negative blowback thanks to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and the controversy around it.

But this is your government, folks, and the more you know. Right. The more you know. So I have another interesting thing to talk about now. In 2020, I was appointed, it was a great honor by President Trump to body here in Washington, D.C. called the D.C. commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. And the commission is composed of seven commissioners, and I’m the only commissioner appointed by the president. There’s one slot for a presidential appointment and other slots are there for the federal court appoints folks, appoints a judge to sit. The D.C. council, I think, appoints one person.

The D.C. mayor appoints two people, and I think the bar appoints a person as well. I think I covered all seven. And the body has the ability to remove from office someone, a judge for disability or an ethics issue. And the judges we have oversight over are D.C. superior Court judges and D.C. court of Appeals judges, basically the D.C. equivalent of our state court judges. So it’s a very powerful body and it’s an honor to be on it, and it’s a lot of work. But one of the unique powers we have in terms of a commission or interesting powers, is the way judges are appointed to that court is they are appointed initially after a commission recommends to the president three names.

The president has to pick from those names. They’re sent to the Senate, and the Senate confirms the person, and then they have a term of 15 years. And if they wish to be reappointed, they have to go through us. And we have three choices. After an investigation and an analysis of their request for reappointment, we can find them well qualified, and we tell the President that and they’re automatically reappointed, or we find them qualified and we tell the President that, and then it’s the president’s discretion to whether to reappoint them or submit someone else to Congress and begin the whole process again.

Or we find them well qualified and they’re out. Now, we had a judge come before us and here’s the I push a tweet, put a tweet before on it out there, kind of describing it briefly, Judge Todd Edelman, who by all accounts is well liked and well loved and respected on the court, but he made a decision that I had a significant issue with and many others did as well. And let’s go to this tweet for Judge Edelman. It’s too far away for me to read it. The D.C. commission I wrote on judicial disabilities and tenure, on which I sit as a commissioner through appointment by President Trump, just took action to reappoint for 15 years a D.C.

superior Court judge, the Honorable Todd Edelman, who made what I consider to be a reckless decision to release a criminal with a dangerous record. The criminal later was involved in the shooting death of a young boy named Devon McNeil here in Washington, D.C. based on this release decision and its catastrophic outcome, I alone found Judge Edelman unqualified for reappointment due to the grave threat to public safety posed by his exercise of judicial discretion. And then I quoted the dissent below. Now, I didn’t do that lightly. I did it. I was the only one who dissented or found him unqualified or not qualified.

And I think it’s important that a line be drawn and there be accountability when a judge releases someone in a way that proves so awful in terms of the consequences and he didn’t have to release the person, it was all a discretionary release. And I want to go over the dissent with you because I think it’s important. The Washington public safety in Washington, D.C. is an important issue. Judicial accountability is an important issue. And as President Trump’s appointee and as a Citizen of Washington, D.C. president of Judicial Watch, everything I bring to the table at that commission, I thought it was important to take a stand in this regard.

I respectfully disagree with my fellow commissioner’s conclusion that Judge Edelman is well qualified. On July 4, 2020, a neighborhood in Washington D.C. was beset by a tragedy that claimed the life of 11 year old Davon McNeil, a beloved boy who had dreams of NFL stardom. As reported by the Washington Post, on June 3, 2022, Devon’s mother, Crystal McNeil, a committed advocate against gun violence, organized an anti violence cookout that was attended by members of the community. After Devon was dropped off to meet his mother while fetching a phone charger from his aunt’s house, he was struck and killed by a stray bullet.

Collapsing on the sidewalk, he was shot in the head. His mother, heartbroken, called him, quote, my baby, my everything. It’s awful. It was a big story here in Washington, D.C. it was an anti violence hookout and the boy was shot in the head. At the core of this catastrophicat the core of this catastrophe were four young men Including Christian Wingfield, who was on release in an illegal gun case six weeks earlier by Judge Todd E. Edelman. This is the court. The judge that was before us. Wingfield would eventually plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter for his role in Devon’s death.

Wingfield, armed and violating the conditions of his release by Judge Edelman, was among those whose actions led to the murder, his culpability affirmed by his guilty plea. So he pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter. Devon’s grandfather, John Alyla Ayala, voiced the community’s outrage and concern about the judiciary’s contributing role, stating it’s ridiculous that people like Wingfield are being released due to the pandemic. From D.C. to New York City, we have to put more pressure on the judges because these guys, if they are violent criminals dealing with firearms, these guys should not be released. The only ones, if they’re going to release somebody, they have to be non violent offenders.

It is because of Judge Edelman’s misjudgment in this tragic. In this tragedy that I respectfully dissent from the District of Columbia’s Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure’s majority determination that he is well qualified for reappointment as an associate judge at a Superior Court, which would automatically extend his term for 15 years based on his release decision. In the Wingfield matter and its catastrophic outcome, I find Judge Edelman unqualified for reappointment due to the grave threat to public safety posed by his exercise of judicial discretion. Pretty serious in my view. The public expects judges to exercise discretion with utmost caution, particularly in cases involving obviously dangerous defendants with criminal convictions or arrests.

By releasing Wingfield, Judge Edelman failed to adequately weigh the clear and present danger to the community, a lapse that cannot be excused by any other aspects of his record. On April 22, 2020, almost three months before the shooting death of Devon McNeil, Christian Wingfield was arrested in Washington D.C. and charged by the government for the illegal possession of a Glock handgun and extended magazine, a configuration designed to maximize its lethal capacity. At that time, he was on probation under the Youth of rehabilitation act for a 2000, which is a D.C. law for 2017 felony conviction for illegal possession of a handgun.

Under the act, his criminal history was extensive, with a demonstrated pattern of dangerous criminal behavior. In the arrest paperwork, the police also included information which I consider to be quite powerful regarding the alleged discharge of a weapon in a public area during daylight hours. That if true, was an act of reckless disregard that could have endangered innocent lives. In the lease, the record shows who he’s on probation for one felony con conviction, but had had a new felony gun charge and there was information about a dangerous firearm firing on a public street. Wingfield’s record, which includes both public and non public information, persuades me that Wingfield was a clear and present danger to the community.

And I do not believe he should have been on the streets at all. So I looked at all sorts of documents, including material that was under seal and that I can’t talk about. Two experienced Superior Court judges effectively recognized Wingfield’s dangerousness and did not release him, despite the discretion under law to do so. On April 23, 2020, the day after his arrest, the Honorable Julia J. McKenna, who is a. Who is a Superior Court judge here in Washington, D.C. issued, ordered Wingfield held without bond. Her decision was Based on the 2020 pretrial detention statute that had an initial presumption of detention for dangerous crimes, a decision obviously I agree with.

Right. I understand. Her decision was based on the information before her, including the government’s new felony gun and extended magazine charge arrest paperwork filed in court, Wingfield’s prior criminal history, including a 2017 felony gun conviction, and other information presented by the Pretrial Services Agency, which is an arm of the court that helps the court determine whether to keep people held pending trial. Subsequently, on May 7, 2020, another judge, the Honorable James A. Quarwell IV, reviewed an emergency bond review motion filed by Wingfield’s counsel, which sought Wingfield’s release based on, among other things, alleged health risks from COVID 19 in the D.C.

jail and procedural arguments about the Superior Court’s temporary suspension of full detention hearings due to the pandemic. So, I mean, it was kind of a mess in the court, generally speaking, because of the reaction to Covid. Judge Quarwell denied the motion. Although the judge’s written order was later challenged as legally deficient, his ultimate conclusion was also to keep Wingfield off the streets. Together, these rulings by judges McKenna and Crowell established a significant judicial record that Wingfield’s release would jeopardize public safety. So Judge Edelman’s subsequent release of Wingfield on May 22, 2020, seems oblivious to the clear evidence of Wingfield’s dangerousness and the combined import of the prior detention orders of judges McKenna and Cralwell.

The consequences of Judge Edelman’s decision were catastrophic and irreversible and foreseeable generally, if not specifically. On July 4, 2020, Wingfield violated the terms of his release, was present and armed at the scene of the shooting, death of Davin McNeil. After McNeil was killed, Wingfield cut off his GPS monitoring device and fled the jurisdiction. His subsequent guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter legally affirmed his culpable role in the child’s homicide. The murder’s impact on the community was profound. D.C. residents already burdened by the scourge of gun violence reported pervasive fear with parents restricting their children’s outdoor activities to shield them from further harm.

Judge Edelman continues to assert the propriety of his releasing Wingfield, even though the motion for reconsideration filed by Wingfield attached information about his juvenile history. And Judge Edelman was aware of his 2017 felony conviction for illegal handgun possession, active probation status and possession of a high capacity Glock handgun and of course, the credible evidence that I highlighted before that he fired a gun in a public area during daylight hours. As Judge Edelman remains convinced that releasing a defendant with Wingfield’s profile was justified, the public may fairly presume he will make similar reckless decisions in future cases involving defendants with at best dangerous criminal histories, firearms offenses or probation violations.

The Wingfield decision is not a minor judicial lapse, but a decision was devastating consequences the death of an 11 year old child and it demands a central focus in the commission’s evaluation. Indeed, the Wingfield decision garnered intense criticism during Judge Edelman’s 2022 nomination to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He was nominated by President Biden on September 27, 2022. The Senate response was definitive. He was not confirmed. Judge Edelman’s continued presence on the court is an unacceptable risk in a position where public safety and trust are paramount. The judiciary and the Commission must prioritize accountability and public safety.

And my conclusion finding Judge Edelman unqualified for reappointment reflects that imperative. Therefore. Therefore, I respectfully dissent and I sign it. Tom Fitton, Commissioner on the Commission for Judicial Disabilities and Tenure As I noted, I’m the only person on the Commission of the seven who found him to be unqualified, he was found well qualified and therefore is going to be his. He gets automatically reappointed for 15 more years. And I think I made a good case as to why that should not be the case. I didn’t. I think this is the first time I voted any judge to be, well, unqualified.

I know it’s the first time I’ve done that since I’ve been on the Commission. I’ve been on the commission for five years and I didn’t do it lightly. And I think when judges do this and make these types of decisions. There’s got to be some accountability. And, and I was, I shouldn’t say pleased to be able to do it, but I thought it was important that I stood up, as I did in dissent, given the consequences of that young child getting shot in the head as a result, in part, of the release of this dangerous criminal back onto the streets.

So that’s kind of, you know, it’s interesting in the sense I’m doing It As a D.C. resident, I was appointed by President Trump to this important commission. But in this and you’ll see in this case, I tried to uphold, in my view, the rule of law. And I’m trying to protect the public by standing up and highlighting that the judge made the wrong call here in a way that makes him unsuitable for future office. So I wish there were more votes with me, but that’s life. I respect my fellow commissioners and I understand we disagree here, but I wanted to share this with you because I think it’s important.

I mean, we all know about these types of cases happening in other jurisdictions. And at least in my corner of the world here in Washington, D.C. our nation’s capital, I’m not going to sit idly by or quietly as it happens without saying something about it. I mean, that kid didn’t have to die, in my view. It was just awful. And decisions like that have consequences and there’s got to be accountability. And that’s what I tried to provide here. So you can tell we’re pretty busy here at Judicial Watch. I’m pretty busy myself sometimes. But we’re only able to do this work with your support.

And I encourage you, if you’re not already supporting Judicial Watch, to go to our website and support us. Go to judicialwatch.org, you can see all the information I’m talking about here today. Follow us on social media, share the wealth of information we provide as part of our educational mission about government misconduct and abuse, including judicial misconduct and abuse, as I’ve highlighted with respect to, frankly, the Supreme Court of the United States. If you think that’s all important, and most of you know what Judicial Watch is, and my question to you is, aren’t you supporting us yet? Join our cause.

Join our movement. Go to judicialwatch.org, and if you’re already supporting us, I want to thank you and encourage you to keep up the support. And I’ll see you here next time on the Judicial Watch weekly update. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below.
[tr:tra].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.