[ad_1]
WOOT!! COURT SPANKS BLANCHE OVER FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EPSTEIN FILES ACT – ISSUES INJUNCTION!!
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – giving you 100% facts and truth in plain English about what’s going on with this administration and the law
Todd Blanche is having a bad week. First, as I told you yesterday, they lost the lawsuit over the executive order that was a clone of the failed SAVE Act.
Then, as we discussed in our livestream today, a court yesterday *ordered* him to respond to the Court committing to that the weaponization fund will *never* go forward, and pointing out to Blanche that he has now opened himself up to discovery (I still need to write that up for you but gosh it’s been a busy day).
And just now a court ORDERED BLANCHE PERSONALLY to produce *specific Epstein documents by name* (ok, actually by EFTA number) UNREDACTED or with a damned good explanation as to why there are redactions! (Thank you to Jordan Parker for letting me know that this had dropped!)
I told you about this lawsuit – and in fact gave you the Complaint – in April. To refresh your memory, this is the lawsuit filed by journalist Katie Phang, suing over the DOJ’s failure to produce all of the Epstein files by the deadline. You can read about that and get the Complaint here:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/wootwoot-blanche-sued-over-failure
In her lawsuit Phang mentions several specific documents that contain redactions where it would *seem* none were warranted, which is a violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA or “the Act”). Ms. Phang’s lawsuit requests that the Court order the DOJ to produce the *unredacted* documents, or explain why they are redacted.
In the course of writing this up for you I went to TESS and looked up a few of those documents.
One is an email from Epstein to someone who is redacted, and Epstein is telling them, and I quote directly from the email, which I’m looking at right now, “where are you? are you ok I loved the torture video”.
In another Epstein tells a mystery (redacted) person “Thank you for a fun night… Your littlest girl was a little naughty.”
I can’t think of any legitimate reason for the names of the recipients of these emails to be redacted – can you?
Much like the judge in the weaponization case (really, I’ll get it to you, I promise!), this judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan, is clearly not amused by the DOJ’s antics.
The Court observes “The Act required the production of the covered documents and the redaction log by December 19, 2025. The Attorney General conceded that he is in violation of the Act.”
And THEN the Court says:
“The Court Will Not Issue a Stay
The Attorney General requests a stay of seven days to determine whether to seek emergency appellate review. The Attorney General also requests a stay of sixty days to determine whether further appellate review is warranted. The Court will not issue a stay for the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion. The Attorney General has conceded that he is in violation of the Act.”
Yep, a line so good the Court has to repeat it, and I’m going to re-repeat it: “The Attorney General has conceded that he is in violation of the Act.”
Yes, the Attorney General is not having a good week.
The opinion (oh what a glorious opinion) and order (oh what a *fantastic* order) are in Notes from the Front members’ inboxes now.
If you’re not a Notes from the Front member yet, please join me. For just $5 a month you will not only be supporting my journalism for you, but you will gain instant access to all of the documents, to our livestreams, and to our members-only chat! You can join here to be taken directly to this document, and of course you can cancel any time (and easily, there’s a cancel button at the bottom of each email). Join now here:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/woot-court-spanks-blanche-over-failure
New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without joining Notes from the Front (thank you for asking! ❤️), here’s how: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word “stay”. It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about stays! ;~)
[ad_2]
Source