Category Archives: Attorneys

Julian Assange first extradition hearing June 14, 2019 after formal US extradition request, Assange attorney Jen Robinson will be “contesting and fighting”

Julian Assange first extradition hearing June 14, 2019 after formal US extradition request, Assange attorney Jen Robinson will be “contesting and fighting”

“We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site. All 500 files end in an even number—2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would be an equal probability of the time stamp ending in an odd number. The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.”…Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

“Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray May 9, 2019

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Global Research.

“Trump Regime Formally Requests Assange’s Extradition to the US

A total of 18 charges against Assange, with reportedly more to come, are all about wanting truth-telling journalism the way it should be on vital domestic and geopolitical issues silenced.

Trump regime hardliners want information about US wrongdoing suppressed. They want the official narrative alone to be reported.

Establishment media are complicit by sticking to it, operating as press agents for wealth, power and privilege — especially when the US goes to war, plans one, or wages it by other means against nations on its target list for regime change like Iran and Venezuela.

Speech, media, and academic freedoms in the US and West are threatened by Trump regime actions against Assange, what totalitarian rule is all about.

Reportedly last Thursday, the Trump regime’s Justice Department formally requested Assange’s extradition from the UK to the US.

On June 14, his first extradition hearing will be held in a London court, a likely protracted battle against it to follow.

His lawyers vowed to contest handing him over to US authorities on trumped up charges and virtual certainty of being judged guilty by accusation in rubber-stamp judicial proceedings.

What’s at stake goes way beyond his fate. It’s whether truth-telling journalism can be criminalized in the US and West.

It’s whether fundamental US constitutional rights are enforced or rendered null and void, especially First Amendment ones,  all others threatened if lost.

Assange attorney Jen Robinson said his legal team will be “contesting and fighting” extradition to the US. If unsuccessful in UK courts, his case will likely be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights and/or European Court of Justice, the highest EU court.

If extradited to the US, he’s doomed. He’ll likely face torture and abuse, mistreatment similar to whatChelsea Manning endured for nearly seven years, more of the same ongoing for invoking her constitutional rights to stay silent.

According to WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson, Trump’s Justice Department will present its so-called evidence against Assange during his extradition hearing in London, the first of more sessions to come for weeks or months.

Hrafnsson called his case a “watershed moment…in the attack on journalism.” Charges against Assange are politically motivated.”

Read more:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-regime-formally-requests-assanges-extradition-us/5680418

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Advertisements

Aaron Rich v Ed Butowsky et al update June 10, 2019, Rich Statement of Facts, “falsely accusing him of: helping Seth steal the DNC’s emails; receiving money from Wikileaks”

Aaron Rich v Ed Butowsky et al update June 10, 2019, Rich Statement of Facts, “falsely accusing him of: helping Seth steal the DNC’s emails; receiving
money from Wikileaks”

“In August 2017, Defendants Butowsky, Couch, and AFM launched
a relentless social media campaign to insert Aaron Rich into this
already baseless conspiracy theory—they have done so by falsely
accusing him of: helping Seth steal the DNC’s emails; receiving
money from Wikileaks into Aaron’s personal bank account in
exchange for the transfer of those emails”…Aaron Rich v Ed Butowsky, et al

“Mr. Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs after he was contacted by a
third party who had recently met with Mr. Assange in London. According to that third party, Mr. Assange said Seth and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. At the instigation of that third party, Mr. Butowsky contacted Joel and Mary Rich, the parents of Seth, and relayed the information. During that conversation, Mr. Rich told Mr. Butowsky that he already knew that his sons were involved in the DNC email leak. Mr. Rich said he did not have enough money to hire a private investigator, so Mr. Butowsky offered to pay for one. Mr. Rich accepted the offer and thanked Mr. Butowsky in an email.”… Ed Butowsky v Michael Gottlieb, et al

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizenwells

 

From Aaron Rich v Ed Butowsky, et al filing June 10, 2019.

PLAINTIFF’S UPDATE TO RULE 26(F)
CONFERENCE REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN

“Plaintiff Aaron Rich respectfully urges this Court to enter a Scheduling Order without further delay, and additionally to schedule a Status Conference and remove this case from the state of limbo in which it has sat for much of the past year. Mr. Rich filed this action more than a year ago and has litigated the matter in good faith against parties that have effectively opted-out of this matter in the absence of supervision from the Court. The Defendants (and their aligned
third-parties) should not be permitted to disrespect this Court’s jurisdiction. Permitting Defendants to do so is highly prejudicial to Mr. Rich, including because of the serious risk that relevant witnesses (one of whom has passed away since the filing of this case) and evidence will become unavailable to Mr. Rich.”

“STATEMENT OF FACTS”

Aaron Rich’s younger and only brother Seth was murdered in
Washington, D.C. on July 10, 2016 in what law enforcement have
described as an armed robbery. There later emerged an unfounded
conspiracy theory that Seth was assassinated for stealing emails
from his employer, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”),
and leaking those emails to Wikileaks in the run-up to the 2016
presidential election. Until the summer 2017, this theory did not
claim that Aaron Rich played any role in the purported conspiracy.

In August 2017, Defendants Butowsky, Couch, and AFM launched
a relentless social media campaign to insert Aaron Rich into this
already baseless conspiracy theory—they have done so by falsely
accusing him of: helping Seth steal the DNC’s emails; receiving
money from Wikileaks into Aaron’s personal bank account in
exchange for the transfer of those emails; learning in advance that
Seth was going to be murdered and doing nothing to stop it; and
refusing to cooperate with law enforcement officials investigating
Seth’s murder. In essence, Defendants have accused Aaron of
treason, obstruction of justice, and complicity in his brother’s murder. These defamatory statements have reached tens of thousands of individuals, and Defendants Couch and AFM have used them to raise tens of thousands of dollars for a purported “investigation” into Seth’s murder.

In March 2018, the Washington Times repeated, amplified, and
expanded upon these defamatory statements by publishing an
article, both in print and online, stating that Aaron “downloaded
the DNC emails and was paid by Wikileaks for that information”
(which is completely false) and implying that Aaron had not “been
interviewed” by law enforcement (when in fact he had been). The
publication’s only named source was Defendant Butowsky. The
Times has since retracted the column, apologized to Mr. Rich, and
been dismissed from the case.

Aaron Rich filed this lawsuit for damages and injunctive relief to
recover for the damage done to his reputation and emotional
wellbeing by Defendants’ false campaign against him.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794.61.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Seth Rich FOIA status update, Ty Clevenger v USDOJ Dept. of Justice June 7, 2019 defendants request for extension of time granted, Clevenger request for records concerning murder of DNC employee Seth Rich

Seth Rich FOIA status update, Ty Clevenger v USDOJ Dept. of Justice June 7, 2019 defendants request for extension of time granted, Clevenger request for records concerning murder of DNC employee Seth Rich

“The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery.”…Retired Admiral James A. Lyons March 1, 2018

“Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray May 9, 2019

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

On September 1, 2017, Attorney Ty Clevenger made a FOIA request to the U.S. Department of Justice:

“I request the opportunity to view all records and correspondence pertaining to
Seth Conrad Rich (DOB: January 3, 1989), who was murdered in the District of
Columbia on or about July 10, 2016. This request includes, but is not limited to, any records or correspondence resulting from any investigation of his murder.”

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017.09.01-Seth-Rich-FOIA-request.pdf

On March 14, 2018 Attorney Clevenger filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

“This morning I filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that asks a federal judge in Brooklyn to order the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice to release records concerning the murder of former Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich.

Back in October, I wrote about the U.S. Department of Justice ordering the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. to release records about the murder, but since that time not a single record has been produced.  Around the same time, the FBI refused to search for records in its Washington Field Office, even though that is where the records are most likely to be found.  The lawsuit notes that the FBI has a history of trying to hide records from FOIA requestors and Congress.”

http://lawflog.com/?p=1912

From the lawsuit:

“The Plaintiff submitted the FOIA request electronically and/or via facsimile to the following specific components of DOJ: the FBI, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys(“EOUSA”),the Criminal Division,and the Office ofInformation Policy(“OIP”).

7. In a September 13, 2017 letter, the EOUSA indicated that it would not release records without proof of Mr. Rich’s death. The Plaintiff immediately filed an administrative appeal, and OIP reversed EOUSA’s decision on October 2, 2017, directing EOUSA to search for responsive records. As of the date of this Complaint, however, EOUSA has failed to:(1) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production; or(2) notify the Plaintiff of the scope of any responsive records EOUSA intends to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings.

8. In a September 19, 2017 letter, the FBI indicated that its search produced no responsive records: Based on the information you provided, we conducted a search of the Central Recordf System. We were unable to identify main file records responsive to the FOIA. If you have additional information pertaining to the subject that you believe was ofinvestigative interest to the Bureau, please provide us the details and we will conduct an additional search.

9. On September 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an electronic appeal of the FBI’s decision with OPI, writing as follows: The September 19, 2017 letter that I received from the FBI indicates that it only searched the “Central Records System” and that it was unable to identify “main file records” responsive to the FOIA. My request was not limited to the Central Records System nor to main file records. Any responsive records likely would be found in emails, hard copy documents, and other files in the FBI’s Washington Field Office. In my experience, the FBI often does not search email accounts in response to FOIA requests, and it appears that it did not search email records in this instance. The FBI should be directed to conduct a thorough search, to include emails and other records in the Washington Field Office. The administrative appeal was denied on November 9, 2017. As of the date of this Complaint, other DOJ components have not responded to the Plaintiffs FOIA request.

10. In response to an unrelated FOIA request submitted by the Plaintiff, the FBI produced documents on January 12, 2018 indicating that Peter Baker, the former general counsel for the FBI, attempted to hide certain records from FOIA requestors. In that request, the Plainiiff sought records concerning laptop computers examined by the FBI as part of its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. According to the records produced on January 12, 2018, the FBI agreed to take custody of the laptops from two lawyers for purposes of the investigation, but it further agreed to deny that it had custody of the devices for purposes of FOIA requests. See Ty Clevenger, January 12, 2018,”Document dump provides more evidence that FBI was playing politics,” http://lawflog.com/?p=l832. Also during Mr. Baker’s tenure, the FBI withheld records sought by another agency until that agency signed a non-disclosure agreement to prevent the records from being released to Congress. See September 25,2017 Letter from Senator Charles Grassley to FBI Director Christopher Wray, https://www.grasslev.senate.gov/news/news-releases/watchdog-agencv-made-sign-nQn- i disclosure-agreements-get-information-fbi.

11. With respect to Mr. Rich’s murder, the Plaintiff is reliably informed that FBI agents assisted the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department in its investigation, specifically assisting the local police as they sought information from Mr. Rich’s electronic devices. Given the FBI’s history of trying to conceal information from FOIA requestors and Congress, the Plaintiff must wonder whether the FBI entered an agreement with the Metropolitan Police to withhold records related to Mr. Rich’s murder.

12. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a FOIA request with NSA that sought, among other things, the following: All correspondence received from or sent to any member of Congress (or anyone representing a member of Congress or Congressional committee) regarding Seth Rich, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Kim Dotcom, Aaron Rich, Shawn Lucas, Kelsey Mulka, Imran Awan, Abid Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina Alvi, and/or Rao Abbas.

13. In a letter dated February 14, 2018, the NSA indicated that it searched for responsive records but was still reviewing the records to determine whether to release them. As of the date of this Complaint, NSA has failed to:(1) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production; or(2) notify the Plaintiff of the scope of any responsive records EOUSA intends to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings.”

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018.03.14-FOIA-lawsuit.pdf

The last court record in the lawsuit was Friday, June 7, 2019.

“ORDER: Defendants’ counsel writes, with plaintiff’s consent to request an extension of time for service of defendants’ summary judgment motion. ECF No.24 . This is defendants’ second request. The request is granted. The Court adopts the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. Defendants’ counsel shall serve their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff by July 22, 2019. Plaintiff shall serve his response on defendants’ counsel by August 22, 2019. Defendants’ counsel shall serve their reply on plaintiff and file the fully briefed motion for summary judgment by September 12, 2019. A courtesy copy of the fully briefed motion for summary judgment shall be delivered to chambers by that same date. Defendant is reminded that Local Rule 56.2 requires special notice to a pro se litigant regarding a motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 6/7/2019. ”

You can view the lawsuit’s progress through the court and status here:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23965120/Clevenger_v_US_Department_Of_Justice_et_al

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Aaron Rich worked with Seth Rich to steal DNC data and give it to Wikileaks allegation maintained by Ed Butowsky in May 28, 2019 answer to Rich legal complaint

Aaron Rich worked with Seth Rich to steal DNC data and give it to Wikileaks allegation maintained by Ed Butowsky in May 28, 2019 answer to Rich legal complaint

“The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery.”…Retired Admiral James A. Lyons March 1, 2018

“Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray May 9, 2019

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Ed Butowsky answer to the Aaron Rich complaint.

Filed May 28, 2019.

“1. Paragraph 1 is denied to the extent that it accuses me of lying about the Plaintiff or calling him a criminal. I admit that I am aware of evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff helped his brother leak emails from the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) to the Wikileaks.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794.60.0.pdf

From the Aaron Rich complaint against Ed Butowsky, et al filed March 26, 2018.

“1. For close to a year, Defendants Edward “Ed” Butowsky, Matthew “Matt” Couch, and Couch’s organization known as America First Media (“AFM”), have falsely and repeatedly alleged in public statements that Plaintiff Aaron Rich (“Aaron”) is a criminal. Specifically, Defendants have claimed to have “proof” that Aaron (i) worked with his deceased brother Seth Rich to steal data from the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”), (ii) provided that stolen data to the hostile intelligence service WikiLeaks in exchange for payment into Aaron’s bank
account, and (iii) engaged in deceit and obstruction of justice to cover his tracks after Seth was murdered. There is no proof that Aaron engaged in any of the alleged conduct—nor could there be, because none of it happened. But Defendants are not interested in the truth. Instead,
Defendants are motivated by personal notoriety, financial gain, and naked partisan aims—namely, a desire to discredit allegations that the Trump Campaign colluded with the Russian Government in the 2016 hack of the DNC and the subsequent dissemination of DNC documents on WikiLeaks. In their blind pursuit of these objectives, Defendants have willfully trampled
Aaron’s reputation and emotional wellbeing.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794.3.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Ed Butowsky v Folkenflik et al plaintiff response to defendant objection to report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Craven, May 29, 2019, Defamation in Seth Rich reports alleged

Ed Butowsky v Folkenflik et al plaintiff response to defendant objection to report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Craven, May 29, 2019, Defamation in Seth Rich reports alleged

“The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery.”…Retired Admiral James A. Lyons March 1, 2018

“Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray May 9, 2019

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From the “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE” by Magistrate Craven April 17, 2019.

“Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged conduct on the part of Defendants sufficient to constitute civil conspiracy. The Court recommends this part of Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.183024/gov.uscourts.txed.183024.58.0.pdf

From Ed Butowsky, plaintiff response to defendant objection to report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Craven, May 29, 2019.

“● Plaintiff alleges facts that plausibly show Defendants’ actual malice.
“Putting aside the Court’s above concerns as to the applicability of the common
law and statutory privileges – something Defendants must demonstrate – there are other reasons for recommending Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on the common law and statutory privileges and the third-party allegations rule be denied. First, even if the conditional privileges do apply, Plaintiff can overcome the privileges by pleading actual malice … Plaintiff alleges facts which plausibly allege actual malice (that Folkenflik knew the statements were false or did not act for the purpose of protecting the interest for which the privileges exist).”
[R&R, pp. 45-46; id., pp. 78-88 (“Even if the Court were to assume, for purposes of this Report and Recommendation only, that Plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure, the Court would agree with Plaintiff that he has sufficiently alleged actual malice …
Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient at this stage to create a ‘plausible inference’ that Folkenflik and NPR published the reports with actual malice … Plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently indicate at this stage in the litigation that Folkenflik purposefully avoided learning the truth … Plaintiff plausibly alleges when Folkenflik published the statements, he knew the statements were false, had serious doubts as to their truth, or had a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity … Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff plausibly
alleges Folkenflik and NPR published statements with actual malice.”)].

● Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Defendants’ reports were not fair,
true, or impartial. “Second, regardless of whether Defendants are seeking to establish the common law or statutory privileges or both, those conditional privileges only protect publications which are fair, true and impartial accounts … The Court finds Plaintiff has alleged facts which plausibly allege the reports were not fair, true, and impartial accounts of the Wheeler Complaint … The Court disagrees with Defendants that they have established their entitlement to dismissal under §73.002(b) (fair report and fair comment privileges) at this stage of the proceedings.”

● Plaintiff sufficiently alleges material falsity.
“Here, as will be discussed in detail below, the Court finds, at this stage of the
case and under the facts as alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged the gist of the publications was not substantially true. The Court is not
convinced the publications place Plaintiff in no worse light than the underlying
allegations contained in the Wheeler Complaint, as urged by Defendants. Thus,
the Court is not convinced the third-party allegations rule codified in Texas Civil
Practices and Remedies Code § 73.005(b) applies, and as a matter of law, bars
Plaintiff’s claims.”
[R&R, pp. 50-51, 52-53; id., p. 74, n. 28 (“At this stage of the case and under the facts as alleged in the Complaint (including that Defendants acted in concert and conspiracy with Wigdor to publish and republish false and defamatory statements), the Court also finds Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the falsity element of his defamation claim. In addition to [his] allegations that Defendants and Wigdor manufactured the false and ‘preconceived’ story, Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged the gist of the reports was not substantially true – that is, that the reports were not fair, true, and impartial accounts of the Wheeler Complaint.”)].

● NPR’s statements are reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning.
“As previously noted, Plaintiff argues the ‘gist’ of the publications is that
Plaintiff, a ‘Dallas investment manager’ and ‘financial talking head,’ concocted,
spearheaded and actively participated with Fox News and the White House in a
concerted scheme to promote ‘fake news.’ … Evaluating the August 1 Report as a
whole, the Court finds because of material additions and misleading
juxtapositions, an objectively reasonable reader could conclude the report
mischaracterized Plaintiff’s role in the Seth Rich investigation and ‘thereby cast
more suspicion on [Plaintiff’s] actions than an accurate account would have
warranted.’ … The August 1 Report as a whole is reasonably capable of a
defamatory meaning because it goes ‘beyond merely reporting materially true
facts.’ … The August 1 Report also juxtaposed facts in a possibly misleading way
… The Court finds the August 1 Report, as a whole, can be reasonably understood
as stating the meaning Plaintiff proposes and is capable of defamatory meaning.””

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.183024/gov.uscourts.txed.183024.64.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Watch “Investigating the Investigators” live May 29, 2019, Judicial Watch expert panel examines politicization of DOJ and intelligence community

Watch “Investigating the Investigators” live May 29, 2019, Judicial Watch expert panel examines politicization of DOJ and intelligence community

“The Mueller report perpetuates the Russian narrative, states “Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks “implied falsely” that Mr. Rich had been the source of the emails” and did not investigate it.
The fake news NY Times participates in the charade (Lie) by regurgitating the Mueller statement.”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Judicial Watch.

“Judicial Watch Presents–an Expert Special Panel Presentation: ‘Investigating the Investigators’

Judicial Watch is hosting special educational panel on Wednesday, May 29, 2019, from 10 to 11 am ET to discuss “Investigating the Investigators.” Now that the Mueller report has exonerated President Trump of the false accusations of collusion and obstruction, it is time to look into the politicization of DOJ and the intelligence community in their effort to undermine the president. Check out the panel BELOW”

 

“Dr. Carter Page
Former Trump Campaign Advisor
Founder and Managing Partner of Global Natural Gas Ventures LLC

Victoria Toensing
Founding Partner
diGenova & Toensing LLP

Chuck Ross
Investigative Reporter
The Daily Caller News Foundation

Chris Farrell
Director of Investigations and Research
Judicial Watch

Moderator:

Tom Fitton
President
Judicial Watch”

https://www.judicialwatch.org/live/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Bauman v. Butowsky et al, Dismissed, Circumstances surrounding Seth Rich’s death remain unresolved, Bauman “Democrat crisis management person”

Bauman v. Butowsky et al, Dismissed, Circumstances surrounding Seth Rich’s death remain unresolved, Bauman “Democrat crisis management person”

“On March 1, 2017, Wheeler told Butowsky that he (Wheeler) had independently acquired some “dynamic information” from one of his sources, the “lead detective” on the Seth Rich murder case. Wheeler also claimed that he had learned and knew who was “blocking the [murder] investigation”…Butowsky Vs Folkenflik, NPR, et al

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

The ruling by judge Richard J. Leon was filed on March 29, 2019 dismissing the case against Ed Butowsky.

Heard much about this from the fake news media?

Heard much in the fake news media about the lawsuits Ed Butowsky has filed against those making false allegations against him?

Perhaps they are too busy trying to keep the false Russian Narrative alive and trying to obfuscate the Seth Rich murder story and possible link to the DNC leaks to Wikileaks.

From the ruling by judge Richard J. Leon on Bauman v. Butowsky, et al.

“While there is, of course, no real comparison to be made between the public debate over the Kennedy assassination and Seth Rich’s murder, this case does share much with Lane. Like the Kennedy assassination, the circumstances surrounding Seth Rich’s death remain unresolved. Compl. at ¶¶ 2, 29. Perhaps this would be a different case if the murderer had been caught, tried, and convicted and the motive made public; the present state of play, however, effectively precludes a factual determination as to the falsity of Butowsky’s statement. See Campbell vCitizens for an Honest Gov’tInc., 255 F.3d 560, 577(8th Cir. 2001) (“[w]hile we are not aficionados of conspiracy theories, we suppose that if [defendant’s] assertions are true, there would be inherent difficulties in verifying or refuting such a claim”). To be sure, my decision in this case in no way condones Butowsky’s conduct. But our Circuit Court has said that “where the question of truth or falsity is a close one, a court should err on the side of non-actionability.” Moldea II22 F.3d at 317. I will heed that admonition.

The remaining statements—that Bauman is a “Democrat crisis management person” “assigned” by the DNC to act as the Rich Family spokesperson, Compl. at ¶ 53—are not defamatory. To be defamatory, a statement must not only be capable of injuring the plaintiff “in his trade, profession or community standing” but also goes beyond mere offensiveness to “make the plaintiff appear odious, infamous, or ridiculous.” Competitive Enterprise150 A.3d at 1241 (internal quotation marks omitted). As with falsity, whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning is a threshold question of law for the Court. Jankovic vInt’l Crisis Grp., 494 F.3d 1080, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The pleadings in this case make clear that Bauman is a public relations specialist, see Compl. at ¶¶ 14, 22, 51, and Bauman does not appear to dispute that his work often relates to Democratic Party causes, see Def. Butowsky’s Mot. to Dismiss at 5-6 [Dkt. # 12]; Mem. in Supp. of Def. Heavin’s Mot. to Dismiss at 1 [Dkt. # 14-1]; see generally Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. Heavin’s Mot. to Dismiss; Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. Butowsky’s Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 23]. Thus, an accusation of being a “Democrat crisis management person” would hardly harm Bauman professionally. Indeed, it could be easily viewed by many as a badge of honor. Nor would the assertion that Bauman had been tasked by the DNC to handle communications on a matter of public interest that had quickly become politicized make him appear odious.

Of course, defamatory meaning need not be express. White vFraternal Order of Police909 F.2d 512, 518 (D.C. Cir. 1990). A statement may be defamatory by implication  if “a reasonable person could draw a defamatory inference” from the statement. Parnigoni vStColumba’s Nursery School681 F.Supp.2d 1, 15 (D.D.C. 2010). “In other words, defamation by implication evolves from what a statement reasonably implies.” Id. Here, the overarching defamatory inference that Bauman presents is that Butowsky’s statements form part of a larger narrative accusing him of working alongside the DNC to conceal criminality “at the highest echelons,” to cover up Seth Rich’s murder, and to impede law enforcement’s investigation into the murder. Compl. at ¶¶ 4, 59, 75, 129. But defamation by implication requires “an especially rigorous showing,” as the publication “must not only be reasonably read to impart the false innuendo, but it must also affirmatively suggest that the author intends or endorses the inference.” Guilford Transportation IndustriesInc., 760 A.2d at 596 (quoting Chapin vKnight-Ridder993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir. 1993)). In the article on which Bauman relies, Butowsky certainly states his opinion that the DNC is engaged in nefarious activities, and he suggests that Bauman appeared at the DNC’s behest and that his role is deserving of suspicion. SeeCompl. at ¶ 53. But the facts alleged are insufficient to show that Butowsky intended, or affirmatively endorsed, the implication that Bauman’s job was, as the complaint puts it, to “execute the DNC’s plan to cover up Seth Rich’s murder.” Id. at ¶ 4; see also id. at ¶ 129(b) (“assigned and paid by the DNC to serve as the Rich family spokesperson so that he could obstruct the  investigation into Seth Rich’s murder”). Accordingly, Butowsky’s statements, although clearly hyperbolic, are not actionable in defamation.

 As Bauman has not met the first element of a defamation claim, I need not address Butowsky’s argument that Bauman is a limited purpose public figure under the First Amendment. ——–

b. Remaining Causes of Action

Bauman also brings claims for defamation per se and false light against Butowsky. For the reasons stated above, Bauman has not stated a claim for defamation per se, which occurs when a defendant falsely accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime or other unlawful act. Seee.g., Guilford TranspIndus., Inc., 760 A.2d at 600. Additionally, “[w]hen a false light claim is based upon the same factual allegations as a defamation claim, the two are analyzed identically.” Parisi vSinclair845 F.Supp.2d 215, 218 n.1 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Blodgett vUnivClub930 A.2d 210, 223 (D.C. 2007)). Bauman therefore also has failed to state a false light claim.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Heavin’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Butowsky’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim are hereby GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED as to those defendants. A separate order consistent with this decision accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.196850/gov.uscourts.dcd.196850.35.0_1.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/