April 7, 2019

WASHINGTON — The conservative takeover of the Supreme Court that was anticipated following President Donald Trump's two selections has been stalled by a budding bromance between the senior and junior justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, have voted in tandem on nearly every case that's come before them since Kavanaugh joined the court in October. They've been more likely to side with the court's liberal justices than its other conservatives.

Continue Reading....

---

December 21, 2018

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal judge's order blocking the Trump administration's new asylum restrictions.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four liberal justices in the 5-4 ruling.

The administration's policy, signed on November 9, would temporarily bar migrants who illegally cross into the US through the southern border from seeking asylum outside of official ports of entry. A federal judge in California quickly blocked the order, and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

Continue Reading....

---

November 16, 2018

CNN's lawsuit underscored Trump's increasingly hostile relationship with many mainstream media outlets, which he regularly decries as "fake news" and "the enemy of the people."

CNN had sought a resolution behind the scenes for several days before filing suit against the White House, according to the network.

The White House had no immediate comment on the decision, or the question of whether the administration will file an appeal of the ruling.

Continue Reading....

---

October 7, 2018

When Donald Trump was elected, scholars of American politics ferociously debated the future of the Republican Party. Optimists argued that Trump had little support in the GOP, and would slowly be reined in by movement conservatives like Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham.

Pessimists like me argued that Trump had a lot of support among the Republican base and would be able to reshape the party in his own image after a protracted civil war. He and his allies would start running primary candidates to challenge more traditional conservatives and eventually replace the current crop of officeholders.

Continue Reading....

---

September 9, 2018

On Friday, during the final day of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had an interesting exchange over recent privacy cases with the Supreme Court judicial nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

"I've talked repeatedly in this hearing about how technology will be one of the huge issues with the Fourth Amendment going forward," said Kavanaugh, who serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Continue Reading....

---

September 8, 2018

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testified Thursday night that "I don't see how I could" stand by a 2015 opinion he wrote upholding the dragnet collection of domestic call records, citing a recent ruling that limited police access to cellphone location data.

But Kavanaugh's disavowal didn't win over attorneys who challenged the National Security Agency program, who say they remain concerned about his interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and his still-murky role in post-9/11 surveillance programs.

Continue Reading....

---

September 7, 2018

Ahead of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearings next week, The Post asked legal scholars to identify an opinion that best illustrates his judicial philosophy. Here's what they had to say:

Abortion rights and executive power

Before his nomination to the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh's most prominent moment during the Trump presidency was his role in Garza v. Hargan, a case involving an undocumented teenager who was blocked by the federal government from receiving an abortion. The case brings together two of the elements in Kavanaugh's jurisprudence that have most concerned those opposed to his nomination: his view on Roe v. Wade and his deference to executive power.

Continue Reading....

---

September 7, 2018

At least one of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's concurrences reveals arguments that should concern those who value civil liberties. Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary should press Kavanaugh on these arguments at his upcoming confirmation hearing.

In 2015, Kavanaugh wrote a solo concurrence in the denial of rehearing en banc in Klayman v. Obama (full opinion below), in which the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk telephony metadata program. According to Kavanaugh, this program was "entirely consistent" with the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Continue Reading....

---

September 5, 2018

---

September 4, 2018

---

August 17, 2018

It is not unusual for judges to intervene in court proceedings from time to time — to direct the lawyers to move the case along or to admonish them that evidence is repetitive. The judge's role is to act not as a "mere moderator," as the Supreme Court noted in Herron v. Southern Pacific in 1931, but as the "governor of the trial" responsible for assuring the proper conduct of all participants.

The performance of U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III in the trial of Paul Manafort on bank fraud and tax evasion charges has been decidedly unusual.

Continue Reading....

---

August 14, 2018

A federal district judge who was appointed by President Donald Trump has upheld Robert Mueller's appointment and constitutional authority in the special counsel's case against Russian social media propagandists.

Judge Dabney Friedrich, who serves at the trial-court level in DC federal court, said Concord Management and Consulting could not have its case tossed on constitutional grounds.

[MORE_LINK]



See also:

Kavanaugh Not a True Conservative, Trump Should Withdraw Nomination, by Larry Klayman

The Judge Trump Must Not Pick for SCOTUS, by Larry Klayman

---

August 4, 2018

A federal judge on Friday said the government must restart the entire DACA deportation amnesty, including accepting brand new applications — but gave the administration a chance to appeal before his ruling takes effect.

The ruling by Judge John D. Bates is a major blow to President Trump, and creates even more confusion about his immigration policy.

Continue Reading....

---

August 2, 2018

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday that they'll move forward with the confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's pick to the Supreme Court, even if they will not have time to review documents pertaining to his work in the George W. Bush administration.

Republicans asked the National Archives and Records Administration last week if it could release thousands of documents relating to Kavanaugh's time in the White House Counsel's Office for Bush by Aug. 15. That would give Senate Judiciary Committee members enough time to review the documents ahead of a likely hearing in September and allow for a final confirmation vote by the start of the new Supreme Court term on Oct. 1.

Continue Reading....

---

July 30, 2018

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced on Monday he will support the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court.

The Kentucky Republican had previously expressed concerns about Kavanaugh's stance on the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which bans "unreasonable" searches and seizures by government officials. In 2015, for example, Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion to a District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruling affirming the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's warrantless phone records collection program, which allowed the government to track Americans' metadata.

Continue Reading....

---

July 26, 2018

President Trump's proceeds from his business empire are "emoluments" under the Constitution, so a lawsuit challenging the president's refusal to distance himself from his hotels can move forward, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

District Judge Peter J. Messitte said Maryland and the District of Columbia have "convincingly argued" that Mr. Trump may be enriching himself from his hotels while serving as president.

Continue Reading....

---

April 18, 2018

A federal appeals court said this week it will appoint a lawyer to argue that former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio's contempt of court conviction should remain on his record despite President Trump's pardon.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that since the federal Justice Department is supporting both the pardon and Mr. Arpaio's request to have his conviction stricken, someone else needs to argue the other side.

Continue Reading....

---

April 12, 2018

0:00
Good afternoon, my name is Larry Klayman. You know me as the founder of both Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch. I'm currently the chairman and general counsel of Freedom Watch.

0:09
We saw what happened in the last few days with regard to the raid on the president's lawyer Michael Cohen, unprecedented in American history. No privacy rights, nothing. And in fact attorney-client privileges were violated.

0:21
I went through this when I sued the NSA under Obama for violating my attorney-client privilege with the mass surveillance which they were conducting against nearly everyone in the American populous and it continues to this day.

0:34
But how do these things happen when we have a federal judiciary who our founding fathers put in place to protect us? The reason that this happens, and in fact the warrant that was obviously signed by a federal judge to raid the office and the home of Michael Cohen, the president's lawyer, the court rubber-stamped that.

0:53
We need to do something about these federal judges. They're chosen on the basis of political patronage, of contributions by large law firms, labor unions, and other special interests to get them their job. They then become beholden to the people who put them in power, including the President of the United States.

1:11
About 90 percent of the federal judiciary today are Obama and Clinton appointees. Freedom Watch is going to hold these federal judges accountable and we have a plan to make sure that they're impeached or disciplined, so they have to obey the rule of law and they have to obey the Constitution.

1:30
I want you to go to FreedomWatchUSA.org. Sign up. Become part of our citizen army. We have a Judicial Selection Strike Force and we're also taking action to clean out the infestation of dishonest and unethical judges on the federal bench who are furthering this jihad by special counsel Robert Mueller to remove the President of the United States, Donald Trump.

1:53
And if he gets removed, this country is in even more serious trouble, because the next president is going to be worse than even Clinton or Obama.

2:01
Go to FreedomWatchUSA.org. God bless you, God bless your family, and God save America.

---

April 5, 2018

On July 29, 1994, I founded Judicial Watch to police judges, after 17 years of toiling in the legal profession, having spent a few years as an associate with a prestigious Miami, Florida, litigation law firm, moving after that to the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice as a trial attorney serving on the team which broke up AT&T and creating competition in the telecommunications industry, and then as a senior lawyer with an international trade law firm. In 1983, I left to start my own legal practice in Washington, D.C.

Throughout my time as a trial lawyer, I had encountered judges, particularly on the federal bench, who were neither the best nor the brightest the profession had to offer, and were either not emotionally or intellectually suited for the job. This sad state of judicial affairs was primarily the result of the way federal judges are chosen, nominated, and confirmed.

Continue Reading....

---

February 4, 2018

The memos James Comey made of conversations he had with President Donald Trump when he was FBI director will remain private as releasing them, "could reveal sensitive nonpublic information and compromise" Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, a federal judge ruled Saturday according to a report in Politico.

Mueller is investigating whether there was any coordination between Trump's campaign team and the Russian government as part of the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Continue Reading....

---

January 10, 2018

A federal judge in California blocked President Trump's planned phaseout of the Obama-era DACA deportation amnesty in a ruling late Tuesday that could upend the negotiations on Capitol Hill over "Dreamers" future.

Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee to the bench, ruled the DACA program legal — the first court to do so — and said the administration illegally cut corners in canceling it.

Continue Reading....

---

November 17, 2017

"President Trump will choose a nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, from this updated list of 25 individuals," the White House said in a statement. "The president remains deeply committed to identifying and selecting outstanding jurists in the mold of Justice Gorsuch. These additions, like those on the original list released more than a year ago, were selected with input from respected conservative leaders."

As the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Trump initially released a list of 11 potential justices in May 2016. He added 10 names during the general election in September, including Neil Gorsuch, the man Trump successfully tapped in January to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the high court.

Continue Reading....

---

August 1, 2017

Yesterday, much to the pleasure of the left, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the former chief law enforcement officer of Maricopa County, Arizona, was predictably found guilty of criminal contempt for allegedly profiling illegal immigrant Latinos at day workers sites — where else can you mostly find them — in violation of a prior court order, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, before a politicized judge, G. Murray Snow. I say predictably, because the federal judge who gleefully made the ruling holding "America's Sheriff" in criminal contempt, a buddy of Judge Snow, Susan Bolton, is — you guessed it — an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.

Regrettably, as the founder of both Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, and as a former candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida, I have fought my entire career to restore ethics, morality, and honesty to the legal system. I truly believe in the legal system and continue to fight for it tooth and nail. But sadly, this country, which falsely prides itself on being the most just in the world, is far from that.

Continue Reading....

---

June 26, 2017

---

May 25, 2017

A federal appeals court on Thursday left in place the freeze on President Trump's revised entry ban, handing the administration another legal setback in its efforts to block the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries.

The broad, decisive ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit means the Trump administration still cannot enforce its travel order that the government says is urgently needed for national security.

Continue Reading....

---

April 27, 2017

---

April 26, 2017

Go to www.freedomwatchusa.org or www.judicialselectionstrikeforce.org

---

(Washington, D.C., March 15, 2017). Today, ironically the Ides of March, a federal judge in Hawaii, perhaps the most corrupt state in the United States, and who not coincidentally was appointed by former President Barack Hussein Obama, temporarily enjoined the latest executive order issued by President Donald J. Trump, on purely political grounds, citing as his rationale irrelevant statements Mr. Trump made during his presidential campaign. Larry Klayman, the founder of both Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, issued this statement:

"The ruling of this ultra-leftist renegade judge, which liberal constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz has found to be illegal, will fail on appeal even before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which oversees Hawaii. Freedom Watch, as it did with the first Trump immigration executive order, will be filing amicus curiae 'friend of the court' briefs supporting President Trump. This totally political ruling is an outrage but unfortunately typical of the current state of the judiciary, which is currently dominated by an overwhelming number of Clinton and Obama appointed leftist judges, who have little to no respect for the Constitution. For this reason, Freedom Watch's Judicial Selection Strike Force (see www.freedomwatchusa.org or www.judicialselectionstrikeforce.org) will be working with the president to identify and select judges for appointment and confirmation who respect the Constitution and the rule of law. There is much work to do, as there are over 100 vacancies on the lower federal courts that need to be filled. Please go to our websites and donate to this worthy cause, as our judicial and legal systems are severely broken."

For more information or an interview, contact daj142182@gmail.com or (424) 274 2579.

---

(San Francisco, Ca. February 14, 2017). Today Larry Klayman, founder of both Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, filed a new amicus curiae brief seeking en banc review. This brief is embedded below and can also be found at www.freedomwatchusa.org.

Klayman had this to say upon filing the amicus brief:

"President Trump and his Justice Department should not only join us in seeking en banc review of the outrageous and lawless TRO issued by leftist federal judge James Robart and effectively affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, but also quickly redraft its executive order to implement the president's temporary ban on immigration from 7 "terrorist" Middle Eastern nations. This battle against corruption in the federal judiciary, as well as to further national security in the face of leftist opposition, can thus be fought on two fronts. In addition this whole sordid legal affair underscores the need for President Trump to appoint non-political federal judges, who obey the law and Constitution as written. Freedom Watch's Judicial Selection Strike Force, composed of various conservative and other responsible interests, seeks to vet and recommend these would-be jurists to President Trump, as there are over 100 federal vacancies on the federal bench that can now be filled." See www.judicialselectionstrikeforce.org.

For more information or an interview, contact daj142182@gmail.com or (424) 274 2579.


View Documents

Motion to File Amicus Rehearing

Amicus Brief Rehearing

---

February 10, 2017

---

(Washington, D.C., February 4, 2017). Today, Larry Klayman, the founder of both Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor issued this statement in the wake of the outrageous and patently illegal decision of a federal judge in Seattle to place a temporary restraining order on the recent executive action by President Donald Trump to put a 90-day hold on immigration from 7 Middle Eastern countries, all of which harbor huge numbers of Muslim terrorists bent on harming the United States. Klayman had this to say:

"The ruling is regrettably not surprising, as this judge not only disobeyed and flouted the law but apparently was more intent on making a name for himself in a very leftist state, Washington, and around the nation. While he was nominated by former President George W. Bush, this means little to nothing. The Bush family and many of its Republican establishment officials, after the unsuccessful presidential campaign of Jeb Bush, not only harbor an animus against President Trump, but W.'s appointed federal judges during his failed administration were generally not strict constructionists of the Constitution, or the rule of law. In addition to this renegade Seattle judge, James Robart, who also has taken over control of the Seattle Police Department, I am reminded of another W. appointee, federal judge Murray Snow who presides in the federal court in Phoenix, Arizona, who not only also has taken control of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, but unethically persecuted former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, boasting to his wife that he was bent on destroying Arpaio while presiding over a contempt trial sparked by the ultra-leftist and itself unethical ACLU.

Continue Reading....

---

(WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 25, 2017)

Without question, President Trump has assembled an excellent list of potential Supreme Court nominees but one stands out and gets the Judicial Selection Strike Force Coalition's (JSSFC) highest rating: William Pryor. Among other attributes and accomplishments, he has correctly identified Roe v. Wade as the raw act of judicial tyranny that it is and properly described the decision as an "abomination." Ironically, this also squares with the assessment of liberal constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Pryor currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and is an exceptional candidate for proponents of a restrained judiciary, which enforces the rule of law rather than legislates it from the bench. He's a committed member of the Federalist Society, and, in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, believes that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning not the meaning created in the mind of judges and in the illegitimate "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution.

"I am a conservative, and I believe in the strict separation of governmental powers," Pryor wrote in 1997 when he was attorney general of Alabama. "Courts should not resolve political problems" and the JSSFC wholeheartedly agrees.

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate should not hesitate to use the 'nuclear option,' if necessary, to confirm Pryor or any nominee, because a restrained and law abiding judiciary is an essential component of self-government and to the liberty of the American people. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to block any Trump appointment, and thus it's time to pay hardball," said Larry Klayman, the founder of both Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch and the chairman of this Judicial Selection Strike Force Coalition.

William Pryor would be an extraordinary nominee and JSSFC gives him our highest rating and recommendation.

Contact leklayman@gmail.com or mlp7595@aol.com or call (909) 560-7585. See also www.judicialselectionstrikeforce.org

---

---

Dear Colleague,

Much has been said and written recently, particularly in the lead up and aftermath of the 2016 presidential and congressional elections, about the need to identify, nominate and confirm conservative strict constructionist Supreme Court justices during the new Trump administration. Indeed, this is a priority and finding and having confirmed Justices true to this cause is a priority, particularly since in the past presidents have been deceived by appointees, who later go soft on the Constitution and conservative values. Chief Justice John Roberts is just the latest example.

However, from our experience, the selection of lower court federal district judges and appellate judges is just as important. As Democrats have controlled The White House and thus effectively judicial selection under the Clinton and Obama administrations over the last 16 of 24 years, the lower courts are now infested with scores of leftist judges who defy the law to impose their leftist, socialist, atheist, anti-Judeo-Christian, pro-feminist, pro-radical gay, lesbian and transgender and pro-illegal immigration agendas, to name just a few, on the nation. These judges not only could largely care less about the vision of our Founding Fathers, embodied into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but on many occasions intentionally misconstrue facts and twist the law to suit their "ends justifies the means" approach to legal governance.

This has created a crisis in lawless "judicial activism" and threatens the rule of law and the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. More than 70% of sitting federal judges are Obama or Clinton appointees, many of whom are radically left leaning activist and politicized judges who pay little, if any, attention to the Constitution or its original meaning and intent, much less the law in general. Regrettably, politically motivated and contrived rulings are the norm, not the exception. This has created monumental inconsistencies, vagueness, imbalance and inequities. Each federal judge is an island unto himself and because he or she is unelected and therefore unaccountable, he or she can and do create tremendous legal chaos and thus damage.

This crisis makes the selection of ethical intellectually honest and judicially restrained nominees to the federal courts a top priority for the Trump administration and the Senate. We must ensure that nominees are committed to being a judge not a politician and that their commitment is to the principles embodied and declared in the Constitution and the law generally, and not their own personal policy preferences and prejudices or those held by the politicians who select them.

In the sphere of cases which touch upon the politicians and other elites who got them their jobs, many of these leftist Democrat appointed radical judges slow roll and cover-up the scandals of their benefactors, as occurred recently with the latest Hillary Clinton scandal over her private email server and the Clinton Foundation, which is part of a criminal enterprise encompassing much of the leftist elite. As a result, the American people have come to believe, as President Elect Trump emphasized in his campaign, that there are two systems of justice: one for the political elite and one for the rest of the citizenry. This perception, which sadly is reality at present, is extremely destructive of our body politic. It is an outrage, for example, that Wikileaks had to release many of the damaging emails concerning Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, their Clinton Foundation, and the criminals around them including John Podesta and Huma Abedin, when lower court federal judges would not order their release in a mountain of Freedom Of Information Act cases. These Clinton and Obama appointed judges "slow rolled" and obstructed these cases to protect the Clintons and their comrades, in order to further Mrs. Clinton's hoped for election as the 45th president.

Thus, our Judicial Selection Strike Force Coalition is designed to help incoming President Trump and his colleagues in the Senate identify and confirm truly ethical and honest constitutionally minded judges who do not "cook" their decisions and actions to suit their political and other agendas. As our great Founding Father and second American president John Adams advocated in convincing the colonies to agree on and then sign the Declaration of Independence on or about July 4, 1776, we were to become a nation of laws and not men. To this end, we dedicate our Judicial Selection Strike Force Coalition. We have enlisted and will continue to enlist like-minded groups from across America to sign a letter and work toward a restrained, ethical, and honest judiciary which benefits all: conservative, liberal and everyone in between. We will also work closely with the Senate Judiciary Committee to select, nominate and confirm the highest quality judges with a restrained judicial philosophy and fidelity and commitment to the original meaning of the Constitution, and a general respect for the rule of law.

The judicial branch of government was designed to be a check on the tyranny of the other two branches of government and when it becomes the source of "judicial tyranny," our republic is truly in mortal danger of survival. Currently there are about 100 combined Supreme Court and lower court vacancies and we must work together to identify, vet and recommend justices and judges who will uphold the rule of law as envisioned by our Founding Fathers and framers to the Constitution.

We would request an "authorized signer" for the organization to join in our efforts by signing the following letter. No matter the issue your organization is dealing with, this issue must take priority because like the referee who is corrupt, it destroys the "game," unethical and compromised Supreme Court justices and judges make "true justice" impossible. This contaminates and destroys the entire system of justice that we all cherish, which is the bedrock of our nation.

Please consider signing this letter:
To sign, please complete the form below. Upcoming, we will be having regular newsletters, podcasts, and communications to keep you updated on judicial selection progress.

FROM THE CHAIRMAN LARRY KLAYMAN

Finally, you know me as the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch. Working with me on this project is Michael Pendleton, Esq., who was Judicial Watch's Director of the Western Regional Office during the years that I was the Chairman and General Counsel of this organization. Before that Mike was the right hand man to Paul Weyrich, the great conservative icon who founded and headed up the Free Congress Foundation, the precursor to what our Judicial Selection Strike Force is organizing to now do with the new Trump administration. We thus, along with you and your organization, have great collective experience in successfully implementing this important project and endeavor to "Make America Great Again" with a revived and integrity driven system of justice.

Sincerely,

Larry Klayman, Esq.
Chairman and General Counsel
Judicial Selection Strike Force Coalition
A Project of Freedom Watch, Inc.

Time is of the essence, so please sign on today and contact Mike or me with any questions. We can be reached at leklayman@gmail.com or mlp7595@aol.com or call (909) 560-7585.

God bless you,

Larry Klayman, Esq.
Chairman

---

Full Name:
Organization:
Title:	ex. President
Email Address:
Phone Number:

---