WOOT!! JUDGE PUMMELS PENTAGON POLICY PROHIBITING PRESS – VIOLATES 1ST AND 5TH AMENDMENT! (WHAT A WAY TO WRAP THE WEEK!)
You all remember when the Pentagon decided to bar the media from accessing sources at the Pentagon unless they signed a purity test, right? And how the media would only be allowed to quote specific talking points provide to them by the Pentagon. You remember that, right? In fact, I had found the actual memo for you, and shared it with you, complete with where a reporter was supposed to acknowledge it and sign it agreeing with it. (Re-included for Notes from the Front members, in case you missed it the first time.)
Well, in December the New York Times filed a lawsuit over that policy, and today, in *record time*, the Court smacked the Pentagon for violating not one, but *two* bits of our Constitution (the 1st and 5th amendments), and issued a *summary judgement* in favour of the Plaintiffs (the Times)!
(Notes from the Front members: the 40-page opinion and the 4-page order are both included for you along with the Pentagon Memo and the Times’ lawsuit complaint.)
In that 40-page opinion Judge Paul Friedman starts out in the very first paragraph:
“A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription. Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”
”It must not be abandoned now” – yes indeed!
He then explains that the Times has brought this lawsuit to “defend these principles against overzealous actions by the Secretary of Defense and the Department he leads.”
Note: “overzealous actions” in this context is legal jargon for “dick move”.
I’m going to make this short because it’s Friday evening already, and those of you who are into it will read the opinion (I *highly* recommend it, Judge Friedman is quite free with phrases like “This argument, simply put, is just plain wrong,” and “if the defendants themselves equivocate on the Policy’s meaning, how can journalists possibly know what they can and cannot do under its terms?”); in short, the opinion is a treat!
Remember, summary judgement means that the case is over, done with, kaput. No more arguing or introducing evidence. It means that the law and facts are *so* clear that there is *nothing to argue about.* Of course, they can appeal, but that summary judgement is quite the mark against them.
Notes from the Front members: The memo, order, 40-page opinion, and 41-page complaint are in your inbox for you now. Enjoy!
(*Why do I only make documents available privately to Notes from the Front members? To protect myself from claims of public publication or republication, especially with this incredibly litigious administration.)
Not a member? Never miss one of my legal updates by joining us below to get my posts directly in your inbox. It’s free to join, $5 a month if you want access to all of the documents, the archives of all of my posts, our private chat, and our private Epstein dropbox, Plus your $5 a month helps cover my cost for purchasing transcripts, and storing documents in the private dropbox before they can be disappeared. And hey, where else can you have a lawyer explain all of these lawsuits and documents to you for just $5 a month? :~) Join now at the link below:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/woot-judge-pummels-pentagon-policy
Source