Govt's reply last night, asking Judge Cannon to stop Trump from claiming that FBI wanted to kill Trump & his family, gives details about Ricky Shiffer’s 2022 attack on an FBI hdqtrs & a more recent threat to an agent working on the Hunter Biden case... 1/9 bit.ly/45Dz9A4
... On 8/11/22, three days after the Mar-a-Lago search, Shiffer attacked an Ohio FBI office with an AR-15 & a nail gun. When FBI pursued him, he fired on agents & then engaged in a 6-hr standoff, per search warrant application appended to the reply.
/2
... Addressing Trump’s claim that Shiffer’s attack can't be linked to Trump, govt cites 8/8/22 Truth Social post, calling the search “political persecution,” & Shiffer’s Truth Social posts later same day, saying “this is it,” “I am proposing war,” & “Kill the FBI on sight.”
/3
... Shiffer then posts 29 more Truth Social posts the next day; 4 more on 8/10/22; and finally one last one during the shootout & standoff on 8/11/22, before he is killed. All sound the same themes: “Be ready for war tomorrow”; “Kill FBI on sight”; “call to arms.”
/4
... The govt reply also cites a TX man’s phone and text threats earlier this month to an FBI agent in the Hunter Biden inquiry. The man called the agent on the agent’s FBI-issued phone: “we’ll hunt you cock-suckers down & slaughter you” & “your whole f-ing family.” ...
/5
... Responding to Trump argument that the agents involved in the M-a-L search haven’t been ID'd, govt says they will be when they testify. Further, two agents have been, in fact, doxxed by a former Trump aide on Breitbart News, including names, DOBs, emails, etc.
...
/6
... The govt reply does not explain why it seeks modification in the terms of Trump’s release rather than a gag order fashioned more like those already upheld by the DC Circuit & NY appellate courts. This is just my speculation, but it might have something to do with ...
/7
... the fact that here the govt seeks mainly to protect the security of law enforcement agents rather than, mainly, the administration of justice (jurors, witnesses, court & prosecutorial personnel), though govt says the latter is also at stake. ...
/8
Last night, in the Ghana pass-thru case, Judge Chutkan found that the govt’s actions appeared to be part of a “pattern & widespread effort to evade [its] legal obligations by doing indirectly what it cannot do directly.” But she denied relief due to likely lack of jurisdiction ...
1/4
She noted that immigration judges have found that the 5 plaintiffs face “persecution, torture, or death” if returned to their home countries, as one already has been. US officials allegedly told plaintiffs on planes to Ghana that they would ultimately be sent to home countries.
/2
Chutkan noted that “this case is not an outlier,” listing 6 other examples of suspicious or abusive govt conduct. She says the deal with Ghana appears to be “hasty & unwritten” & suggests that the govt knew all along what it was doing. ...
/3
Judge Chutkan just finished a phone conference hearing in D.A. v. Noem. Plaintiffs allege the govt is sending African aliens to Ghana knowing Ghana will forward them to home countries where US courts have barred govt from sending them directly ... 1/5 courtlistener.com/docket/7132371…
... due to reasonable fear of torture or persecution. Judge Chutkan fears she lacks jurisdiction—4 plaintiffs are already in Ghana & one has already been forwarded to Gambia—or that she should transfer the case to Judge Murphy in Boston as part of the DVD class action on 3d country removals. ...
/2
The @ACLU 's Lee Gelernt argued that DVD challenges general procedures whereas DA's claim is narrow: Ghana gave the US diplomatic assurances that it would not forward aliens to countries where they face persecution/torture, yet it's doing exactly that with US acquiescence/connivance. ...
/3
At 2pm there will be a preliminary injunction hearing in the Guatemalan children case (LGML v. Noem). I hope to live-blog here for @lawfare , as will colleague @AnnaBower on another platform. For bracing & thorough background, see Anna's piece here:
/1 lawfaremedia.org/article/the-ju…
If you recall, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan entered a temporary restraining order 8/31, barring the removals— govt calls them "reunifications"—of Guatemalan children ages 10-17. Govt has admitted intent to deport 327 children, with the first 76 booked for departure at 10:45am ET on 8/31. ...
/2
... Judge Sooknanan was just covering the emergency docket that day—it was Sunday Labor Day weekend—so now the case has been randomly assigned to Judge Tim Kelly, who must decide whether to extend the TROs into a preliminary injunction & whether to certify a class. ...
/3
In weekend filing, govt admitted its shocking timeline for deporting Guatemalan children, ages 10-17. Just before midnight on Saturday, Labor Day Weekend, it told caregivers to have children prepared for departure within 2 hrs (4 if in foster care). ... 1/8
... That meant packing:
•a 40-pound suitcase
•30-day supply of prescriptions/medications
•2 sack lunches (nut-free) ... 2/8
... At 1:12 a.m. ET, govt notified the caregiver’s legal service providers that children would be put on planes at 10:45 a.m. that same day to be “reunified” with their parents or legal guardians in Guatemala. ... 3/8
On Thurs (while I was on vacation), @ACLU
sought full DC Circuit review of the splintered panel decision that would vacate the Judge Boasberg order that found probable cause to believe DOJ attys committed criminal contempt in the JGG case. ...
1/5storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
... Recall that on 8/8 all 3 panelists agreed that Boasberg’s order was not appealable, yet 2 Trump appointees, on different theories, voted to grant mandamus. @ACLU says the outcome “would have dire consequences for the Judiciary’s ability to enforce its orders.” ...
/2
... .@aclu says it wants to ensure parties can’t evade even answering questions about their possible defiance of court orders. Here, DOJ attys “chose to ignore the order & then retroactively manufacture ambiguity”—“a remarkable step for any litigant, much less the DOJ" ... /3
On Friday, in a 34-page unanimous ruling, the 1st Circuit denied govt a stay of Judge Young’s July 2 order declaring NIH’s cancellation of 100s of research contracts as “breathtakingly arbitrary & capricious.” Some interesting things...
If you recall, Judge Young found that DOGE had “force-fed” the cancellations to NIH, drafting cancellation letters, which no NIH scientist reviewed & which the NIH director approved “within [2] minutes”. ...
/2
DOGE’s template cancellation letter left blanks to be filled from a “reason-for-termination menu,” listing topics like “DEI,” “China,” “Transgender Issues,” “Climate Change.” Use of the menu was “mandatory.” ...
/3