It’s Time For Reparations For Taxpayers Forced To Pay Reparations
The Evanston, Ill. Reparations Committee has doled out at least $6.36 million in payments through a constitutionally suspect program.The Evanston, Ill. Reparations Committee has doled out at least $6.36 million in payments through a constitutionally suspect program.FBI forced to release damning docs revealing chilling new details on Trump's would-be assassin
Judicial Watch obtained heavily redacted documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation showing that law enforcement broadcast radio warnings about an "unknown male acting suspiciously" prior to the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.
The FBI was forced to release the first records after President Donald Trump's assassination attempt on July 13, 2024, following Judicial Watch's lawsuit against the bureau. A year and a half after the shooting, very little is known about the assassination attempt, the failures leading up to it, and the shooter himself.
'It shouldn't have taken years and a federal lawsuit to get this basic FBI material.'
In the lawsuit, Judicial Watch asked for all records and communications related to Trump's would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks, after the FBI failed to comply with a July 2024 FOIA request.
As a result, the FBI was forced to release 37 heavily redacted pages revealing the extent to which law enforcement was aware of "suspicious" activity leading up to the deadly shooting.
RELATED: Damning social media footprint suggests Thomas Crooks was another 'they/them' radical
One investigative report found that law enforcement flagged a suspicious male wearing a gray T-shirt with "Demolition Ranch" written on the front like the one Crooks was wearing. The same report found an unknown male scouting out a law enforcement sniper position, leading several officials to communicate about his activity.
Another report released portions of an interview done on July 16 where a member of the Saxonburg Police Department noted that sniper teams called out and sent photos of a "suspicious person" with a range finder. The same officer later said that a call came out over the radio of a "long gun on the roof" moments before shots rang out.
Several similar interviews the FBI was forced to release corroborated these details, including the apparent sightings of Crooks and his suspicious activity prior to the assassination attempt.
RELATED: The CHILLING online trail of Trump's would-be assassin
"These documents raise troubling new questions about Secret Service failures to protect President Trump," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement obtained by Blaze News. "And it shouldn't have taken years and a federal lawsuit to get this basic FBI material about the near assassination of President Trump."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'Solely on the basis of race': White-majority Chicago suburb sparks outcry with $25K payments to some black residents
A white-majority Chicago suburb is preparing to distribute hefty cash payments to dozens of black residents as part of the city's $10 million reparations pledge.
Black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston, Illinois, between 1919 and 1969 are eligible to receive the payments. Evanston plans to pay $25,000 to 44 qualifying black residents.
'They are just entirely giving money, usually to black residents solely on the basis of race.'
The City's Reparations Committee previously pledged $10 million over a decade as part of its Reparations Program, which was established in 2019 and approved by the city council in 2021. The government-funded program is the first of its kind in the U.S.
Cynthia Vargas, Evanston's communications and community engagement manager, told the Chicago Tribune that payments to the 44 individuals are intended to cover housing expenses.
The city has allocated over $270,000 to its Reparations Program, funds that it collected from the real estate transfer tax. The program also receives funding from the city's 3% Cannabis Retailers Occupation Tax, though it is unclear how much.
The Reparations Committee has proposed providing additional funding to the program through a potential tax on Delta-8 THC products, a psychoactive substance found in cannabis that is sold in vapes and gummies.
RELATED: Chicago suburb starts disbursing $10 million reparations package to black residents
"Delta-8 products tend to be rather inexpensive, so the tax on them, it likely won't be a huge revenue stream, but it is revenue," Alexandra Ruggie, the city's corporation counsel, stated. "The other thing that we will have to work out with our finance team is how to go about collecting those taxes, whether we tax it when there's a point of sale at an Evanston business, or whether or not we tax it when those businesses buy it from the supplier."
RELATED: Trump pulls US out of 'racist' UN forum pushing 'global reparations agendas'
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog, filed a lawsuit against Evanston last year, arguing that the Reparations Program used race as an eligibility requirement and therefore violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.
"There's a right way and a wrong way to do them," Michael Bekesha, a senior attorney at Judicial Watch, told Fox News Digital. "So reparations are to repair. And so we have provided in this country reparations in the past when somebody has been wronged by the government, and we try to make that person whole."
"The reparations programs that you're seeing around the country that are being talked about aren't that. They are just entirely giving money, usually to black residents solely on the basis of race. And I mean, that's just problematic," Bekesha added.
A spokesperson for the city told Fox News Digital that it cannot respond to ongoing litigation.
According to 2020 census data, more than 46,000 of Evanston's 78,000 residents identify as "white alone." Just 12,500 identify as "black or African-American alone."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Attorneys ‘Very Optimistic’ SCOTUS Will Make It Easier To Challenge Bad Election Laws
'You have, as a candidate, a unique interest that's recognizable under the law to make sure that your election is run with legal ballots or legal votes.'FBI Settles Lawsuit Over Biden Era Cover-Up Of Trans Killer Manifesto
The FOIA settlement agreement is a victory for transparency and open government, but it’s personal for this reporter.SCOTUS Agrees To Decide Case On Candidates’ Standing To Challenge Election Laws
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a case involving questions surrounding federal candidate litigation of state election regulations. Known as Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the case offers the nation’s highest court with the opportunity to provide a definitive ruling on the issue of whether a federal candidate who has […]SCOTUS Quietly Weighs Major Case On Candidates’ Standing To Challenge Election Rules
'It's bad if courts are not hearing well-plead claims [and] good-faith questions about conflicts between state and federal law.'Fee-hungry ex-lawyer puts settlement of $30 million Ashli Babbitt lawsuit at risk, court filing says
The Maryland attorney who three years ago dropped Aaron Babbitt as a client in the shooting death of his wife on Jan. 6 is endangering a final settlement of the $30 million wrongful-death lawsuit between Judicial Watch Inc. and the U.S. Department of Justice, an attorney told a District of Columbia federal court on May 19.
Terrell N. Roberts III, who walked away from the case in February 2022, rejected an offer to set aside 25% of any financial settlement in a dedicated trust account while the issue of what fees, if any, Roberts is owed is determined in arbitration by the Attorney Client Arbitration Board of the District of Columbia Bar.
'We are representing Ashli’s family pro bono!'
“Plaintiffs are concerned by Mr. Roberts’ role in this case, which is frustrating completion of the settlement,” said Judicial Watch attorney Robert Sticht, who represents Aaron Babbitt of San Diego and the estate of his late wife, Ashli Babbitt.
Roberts wants U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes to decide the issue of attorney fees, arguing that arbitration could take six months. He also wants the judge to revisit her rejection of a charging lien against the settlement.
The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, claimed May 19 that the settlement agreement is for less than $5 million. Parties in the suit would not comment on the news story or the alleged amount. The Post reported incorrectly that Judicial Watch and Washington, D.C., attorney Richard Driscoll would take one-third of any settlement.
“I can say, contrary to initial WPOST report, @JudicialWatch is not getting a third (or any portion) of any settlement,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton posted on X. “We are representing Ashli’s family pro bono!”
Sticht now looks prophetic, as he tried to caution the news media against reporting that Judicial Watch would reap a windfall in the case.
Sticht was chastised and silenced by Judge Reyes at a May 12 hearing when he tried to announce to the press listening on the court’s audio feed that Judicial Watch will take no fees from the Babbitt lawsuit.
“This is crazy, and it is costing a lot of money,” Sticht said of the delays caused by the fee dispute. “And just so the court knows, for the record and all the press who may be on the telephone, Judicial Watch does not a get fee out of this settlement.”
RELATED: Federal judge explodes in Ashli Babbitt court hearing as wrongful-death case slows
Judge Reyes talked over Sticht and chastised him for speaking directly to the media.
“Mr. Sticht, did I not just tell you that when I start talking, you stop?” Reyes snapped.
Roberts represented Babbitt from shortly after Babbitt’s wife was shot to death Jan. 6 by U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd. Roberts abandoned the case in late February 2022 but has still been seeking up to 40% of the financial settlement being negotiated by Judicial Watch. Babbitt was left to find new legal counsel after Roberts fired him as a client “for cause.”
Judicial Watch agreed to be bound by the decision of the arbitration board. Driscoll, who represents Aaron Babbitt for the narrow issue of the fee dispute with Roberts, filed for D.C. Bar arbitration May 9. He said now that Babbitt has asked for arbitration, both parties are required to take part under bar association rules.
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 25% is the maximum fee allowed for all plaintiff attorneys combined.
Sticht said because “the likelihood of Mr. Roberts recovering such a fee is minimal, at best, given his admittedly brief and limited involvement in the legal matter,” the 25% set-aside “protects Mr. Roberts for an inability to recover an award.”
“Mr. Roberts rejected plaintiffs’ offer,” Sticht wrote in the court filing.
Roberts sought a charging lien from the court against the gross amount of any settlement. Judge Reyes rejected the idea, but allowed Roberts to be an intervenor in the case for the limited purpose of keeping tabs on settlement developments.
Roberts said if he is compelled to participate in arbitration, he will ask Judge Reyes to issue a stay in the lawsuit until the issue of attorney’s fees is settled.
RELATED: Ashli Babbitt stood up to him — now J6er 'Helmet Boy' faces new charges
“As a fundamental matter, arbitration is not an efficient option at this juncture,” Roberts wrote to the court. “The process could take up to six months (if not more). That is too long given that we are a hair’s breadth from a settlement. The court could more practically handle the matter of attorney’s fees in a fraction of the time it would take to arbitrate the case.”
Sticht said that idea “goes well beyond the limited intervention the court permitted.”
“Mr. Roberts presents no justification for why the court should reconsider these issues,” Sticht wrote.
Roberts’ attempts to cash in on the lawsuit have added drama and frustration to an already tense courtroom atmosphere. Since the first hearing on the lawsuit on Aug. 6, 2024, Judge Reyes has repeatedly lost her temper with Sticht, shouting at him to “stop talking” and accusing him of giving “snide” answers to her questions.
Brian Boyd, a DOJ trial attorney, said in the filing that the government supports the proposed 25% set-aside because it “is sufficient to protect Mr. Roberts’ interests.”
Boyd said Judicial Watch’s agreement to abide by the arbitration panel’s decision “and disperse [sic] to Mr. Roberts that portion of the set-aside funds that ACAB determines Mr. Roberts is owed, if any, should eliminate Mr. Roberts’ concern regarding his ability to collect fees to which he is entitled.”
Trial in the $30 million lawsuit is set for July 2026. The election of President Donald J. Trump last November vastly changed the DOJ’s demeanor toward the case and pushed the government toward a settlement.
In the years since Babbitt was killed, President Trump has expressed support and sympathy for the Babbitt family while ripping Lt. Byrd as a “thug” and a “coward.” The president expressed his belief that Ashli Babbitt “was murdered.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Legal Watchdog: D.C. Police Demand $1.57 Million To Release Jan. 6 Bodycam Footage
The non-profit published a press release outlining the department's demands in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.Fani Willis ordered to pay $22K for ignoring records request and hiding communications
Last week, a Georgia court ordered Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to pay Judicial Watch nearly $22,000, finding that she ignored the organization's open records request and hid communications.
In August 2023, Judicial Watch submitted an Open Records Act request for communications Willis' office had with the Department of Justice's special counsel Jack Smith's office and the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, protest at the United States Capitol.
'The District Attorney's Office flatly ignored Plaintiff's original ORA request, conducting no search and simply (and falsely) informing the County's Open Records Custodian that no responsive records existed.'
The DA's office claimed it did "not have the responsive records."
"This response was perplexing and eventually suspicious to [Judicial Watch], given that Plaintiff subsequently uncovered through own effort at least one document that should have been in the District Attorney's Office's possession that was patently responsive to the request," Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney wrote.
In March 2024, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Willis, arguing that she had "falsely denied" having any related communications to its open records request.
The judge found that Willis' office repeatedly denied the existence of such records. However, in a later memo, her office "announced that there still were no records responsive to one set of Plaintiff's requests (communications with former Special Counsel Jack Smith) but that there were in fact records responsive to Plaintiff's second set of requests (communications with the United States House January 6th Committee) -- but those were exempt from disclosure."
McBurney stated that an open records request "is not hortatory; it is mandatory."
"Non-compliance has consequences," he wrote.
"Per her Records Custodian's own admission, the District Attorney's Office flatly ignored Plaintiff's original ORA request, conducting no search and simply (and falsely) informing the County's Open Records Custodian that no responsive records existed," McBurney continued. "We know now that that is simply incorrect: once pressed by a Court order, Defendant managed to identify responsive records, but has categorized them as exempt."
McBurney called the "late revelation" of the allegedly exempt communications "a patent violation" of Judicial Watch's open records request.
The judge ordered Willis to pay the organization's $21,578 in legal fees within two weeks.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton responded to the McBurney's decision.
"Fani Willis flouted the law, and the court is right to slam her and require, at a minimum, the payment of nearly $22,000 to Judicial Watch," Fitton said. "But in the end, Judicial Watch wants the full truth on what she was hiding – her office's political collusion with the Pelosi January 6 committee to 'get Trump.'"
The DA's office did not respond to a request for comment from the New York Post.
Willis and her office have faced several misconduct allegations over the past year.
In December, Willis was disqualified from the Georgia case against President-elect Donald Trump due to her affair with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
Willis also faced an investigation into her office's alleged misuse of federal grants worth $488,000. According to a staff whistleblower, the funds, which were earmarked for establishing a youth gang prevention center, were spent on ineligible and unrelated expenses.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com