Dangerous D.C. Court Reappointment System Usurps President’s Authority
Law and order in the District of Columbia is a disgrace, in no small part because of its activist local judges chosen and reappointed through an unconstitutional process.Law and order in the District of Columbia is a disgrace, in no small part because of its activist local judges chosen and reappointed through an unconstitutional process.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.Here's how Trump intends to deport criminals by legally using military
President-elect Donald Trump confirmed on Monday his plan to declare a national emergency and use military assets to implement his sweeping mass deportation plan.
Earlier this month, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told his X followers, "Reports are the incoming @RealDonaldTrump administration prepared to declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the [President Joe] Biden invasion through a mass deportation program."
'Game on.'
On Monday, Trump responded to Fitton's post on Truth Social, writing, "TRUE!!!"
Trump has repeatedly stated that sealing the border and putting an end to the current administration's migrant invasion is one of his highest priorities. He has pledged to "carry out the largest deportation operation in American history."
As part of that mass deportation strategy, Trump plans to complete the border wall and move "massive portions of Federal Law Enforcement to Immigration Enforcement," which includes shifting thousands of troops from their current overseas stations to the southern border.
The Republican Party platform on Trump's website reads, "We will deploy the U.S. Navy to impose a full Fentanyl Blockade on the waters of our Region—boarding and inspecting ships to look for fentanyl and fentanyl precursors."
Trump also plans to bring back his "Remain in Mexico" policy, end sanctuary jurisdictions, and increase penalties for illegal crossings and overstaying visas.
Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.) stated Friday that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is gearing up to challenge Trump's mass deportation plans, claiming that it would "have a negative impact on the U.S. economy."
Tom Homan, tapped as Trump's incoming "border czar," responded to Barragán's declaration during a "Fox News Live" Saturday interview.
"Game on," he replied. "Shame on her. She ought to resign her seat at the House because [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is enforcing laws that Congress enacted."
Homan has vowed to send more ICE officers to sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
"If they're not gonna help us, then we'll just double the manpower in those cities. They don't want ICE agents in their neighborhoods, but they don't let ICE agents in the jail. They don't understand, if you let us in the jail, that'd be less agents in your neighborhood," Homan told the news outlet.
"I wish they'd sit down and talk and help with us. But if they don't help, get the hell out of the way, because we're going to do this job with or without you," Homan added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Michigan Secretary of State Spreads False Data While Accusing Elon Musk Of Sharing ‘Disinformation’
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson apparently cited incorrect numbers while accusing Elon Musk of 'disinformation.'BOMBSHELL: The CIA was at the Capitol on January 6 — doing what?
Judicial Watch has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to force the CIA to disclose any involvement in the January 6 Capitol riot — and President Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch isn’t giving up.
After coming across documents that showed that the CIA had teams present at the Capitol and responding to the alleged pipe bombs found near the RNC and DNC, as well as other agents on standby, Fitton believes there’s a lot more to the story than the public is being told.
“This was astonishing news to us,” Fitton tells BlazeTV hosts Jill Savage of “Blaze News Tonight” and James Poulos of “Zero Hour."
“We didn’t know the CIA had operators deployed on January 6 at the U.S. Capitol, and I’m sure it’s a surprise to Americans that the CIA was conducting law enforcement activities here in America,” he continues.
When Judicial Watch followed up with the comprehensive FOIA request for records explaining what the CIA was doing at the Capitol on January 6, Fitton tells Savage and Poulos they “got the proverbial hand to the face.”
“We’ve sued in federal court for the records,” he says. “Law enforcement personnel working for the CIA on the ground on January 6, certainly that ought to be disclosable or disclosed to the American people.”
Savage then notes the “six different areas involved” in the lawsuit. “Shots fired inside the Capitol, a person shot inside the Capitol, requests for CIA support or assistance to the Capitol, bomb technicians, and accelerating or explosive canine devices in any after-action reports about January 6 events in Washington, D.C.”
“So why are all those different areas mentioned here?” Savage asks Fitton.
“Those are the areas that we think the CIA was likely to be involved in, and given the prior documents we have, certainly with the explosive devices that were found, that was really specific to the CIA,” he explains.
Want more from Blaze News Tonight?
To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
‘Bidenbucks’ Make ‘Zuckbucks’ Look Like Chump Change
Election integrity watchdogs say private funds in elections pale in comparison to what Biden has wrought through the power of his pen.DC removing over 100,000 ineligible voters from 'dirty voter rolls' following Judicial Watch pressure campaign
The governmental transparency outfit Judicial Watch appears to have executed a successful pressure campaign to rid select voter lists of multitudes of ineligible voters in the District of Columbia.
Judicial Watch notified election officials in D.C., California, and Illinois that they had violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 "based on their failure to remove inactive voters from their registration rolls."
While officials in California and Illinois have time left to act before Judicial Watch makes good on its threat of legal action, D.C. has indicated it has already begun taking remedial steps.
The watchdog claimed in a Sept. 22 letter to the Monica Holman Evans, executive of the District of Columbia Board of Elections, that the board was in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA requiring it to "conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters for DC."
The letter cited D.C. data provided to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission indicating zero voter registrations had been removed from November 2020 to November 2022.
According to the watchdog, EAC data showed the number of inactive registrations in the district amounted to nearly one-quarter of the total number of Washington's registrations. Moreover, the notice stated "DC’s total registration rate — its total number of registrations divided by the most recent census estimates of its citizen voting-age population — is over 131%."
Judicial Watch wrote, "In our experience, and as a matter of common sense, there is no possible way that the DC BOE is complying with the NVRA if it remove no registrations pursuant to that provision in a two-year period."
The watchdog threatened to file a federal lawsuit unless the violations were corrected within 90 days.
Evans evidently blinked, telling Judicial Watch in a letter last month that the board had taken "several list maintenance actions," including the removal of 65,544 inactive voters on Oct. 30 who had allegedly voted in neither the 2016 nor 2020 general elections.
Evans further noted that an additional 37,962 "inactive" voters would soon be removed who had not voted in the 2018 general election, responded to address confirmation notices, or participated in the November 2022 general election.
While thousands of inactive voters were moved off the list, 73,522 voters were moved from "active to an inactive status on October 3, 2023 as a result of the 2023 biennial canvass process."
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement, "Dirty voter rolls increase the potential for voter fraud."
"As Washington, DC's, quick cleanup of tens of thousands of names in response to Judicial Watch shows, there are potentially hundreds of thousands of names on the voter rolls that should be removed by California and Illinois," added Fitton.
Although earlier this year, California saw over 1.2 million ineligible voters taken off rolls in Los Angeles County, the watchdog suggested that 46 counties in the state, containing over 14 million voters, "reported removing only a handful, or no registrations under the NVRA's change of address rules, or else failed to report any data at all."
Illinois similarly appears to have trouble dropping ineligible voters from its lists, with 15 counties indicating zero removals from November 2020 to November 2022, according to EAC reports.
Judicial Watch also noted in its letter to Bernadette Matthews, executive director of the Illinois State Board of Elections, that "15 Illinois jurisdictions have more voter registrations than citizens of voting age."
It appears this is a problem for other states as well.
The Republican National Committee demanded Friday that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson clean up her state's voter rolls, citing a recent analysis showing 55 of Michigan's 83 counties have more registered voters than adults 18 or older, reported the Detroit Free Press.
"More than 50 Michigan counties have a 100% or higher rate of voter registration," said RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.
"This is mathematically impossible and means that ineligible voters are on the rolls ahead of the upcoming 2024 election," continued the chairwoman. "The RNC is demanding that Michigan ensure only eligible voters can vote and will take legal action to ensure that outcome if necessary."
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
thefederalist.com