The Week in Law: Weekly Good News Roundup from the Front Line of the Legal Battle to Save the Soul of Our Democracy - 8/14/26

Ok, on to this week’s good news!

JUST WHEN BLANCHE THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO GO BACK IN THE TRUMP V. IRS WATER...

Just when Blanche may have thought - what with having been confirmed and all - that he'd put that pesky matter of the Trump v. IRS case to rest; that the issue of him and Trump colluding and trying to pull a fast one on the Court was behind him... dun duh....dun duh... dun duh dun duh .... dun duh dun duh dun duh dun duh ... dududududududu ...

BLAM! A judge's order in the original case, followed by a new (amended) complaint in a different case that updates the case to take into account Blanche's impotent effort to get out from under the whole thing.

(Both documents are included for Notes from the Front members)

Let's deal with the order in the original Trump v. Tru..er... Trump v. Blanc... er... Trump v. "IRS" case, both because it's short, and because it's delicious.

As you know by now, the Court issued a spanking to Trump and all of the attorneys involved for their collusive shenanigans; that spanking primarily took the form of a) disciplinary referrals for the attorneys ("You get a referral, and you get a referral, and *everybody* gets a referral"), and b) monetary sanctions, which were of nominal monetary value but which made clear that Trump was the loser in this case.

So of course Trump is appealing. And he filed a request for a stay of the Court's sanctions while he appeals. AND he filed a request for an *expedited* stay.

And the Court said "No effin' way." No expedited stay for you!

And the *second* thing, the Amended Complaint in a completely different case... ah, it is a thing of beauty!

This case was originally filed in May, by Andrew Floyd, Jonathan Caravello, and a few organizational plaintiffs. It is a lawsuit against the weaponization fund. You probably wouldn't have thought that Blanche's "get into DOJ free" card - i.e. his disclaiming of the fund and his attempt to keep-but-scale-back the IRS immunity - would appease anyone but Trump, but Blanche may have thought that it would. Or, at least, I'm certain that he sure was hoping.

The thing is, Blanche absolutely cannot serve two masters here, one being Trump, and the other being, you know, everything that is decent. The people and the judiciary are part of the latter.

Instead, the plaintiffs in the Floyd case have *amended* their complaint to now *include* his Massie and Cornyn Appeasement Statement and here's what they have to say about *that*:

"After this Court preliminarily enjoined the Fund, Acting AG Blanche issued an order on August 2 purporting to rescind his May 18 Funding Order by stating that the Fund is not currently operative. This present-tense wordsmithing assuredly does not affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the Anti-Weaponization Fund will not proceed in any manner, or under any name, either now or in the future. Nor does it purport to prevent the parties to the agreement in 'Trump', including President Trump, from enforcing that agreement."

Yowch!

But wait, there's more!

"DOJ’s concurrent statement about the Immunity Order purports to narrow the scope of that Order but does not rescind it. This unsigned piece of paper, which carries no more weight than a press release, confirms that the IRS will terminate tax audits and liability at the request of the President and conscript Plaintiff NTEU members into violating their oath and the Internal Revenue Code to grant the President with an unconstitutional emolument."

Yeehah!

And some other Y-words.

Now, of course those of you who have been following me for a while will remember my saying much the same thing about Blanche's August 2 statement, including that it carries no more weight than tissue paper, and that it no more makes the claimed immunity real than would Blanche claiming the moon was made of cheese make it so. (Cue Picard.)

Floyd, by the way, was a career prosecutor with the DOJ who had actually been *promoted* under Trump I. Then days after Jan6 he was asked to lead an effort to investigate and prosecute the violent Jan6 rioters; then he was fired under Trump II. Thus goes the flying fickle finger of fate (although I have another finger in mind for some of the parties).

And Caravello is that California professor who was arrested for protesting an ICE raid in Camarillo, California. He was held for several days in jail. He was, of course, acquitted, but not before the damage was done.

Under the "Background" section of the Complaint, heading I says:

"President Trump’s $10 Billion Lawsuit Against Agencies He Controls"

I think that sums it up pretty nicely, don't you?

As does:

IV. DOJ’s August 2 Actions Two Days Before Acting AG Blanche’s Committee Vote

And, of that statement issued on August 2:

"This non-binding statement does not even purport to rescind the Immunity Order."

I'm pretty sure they meant "pretend", but "purport" is a bit more appropriate in a legal pleading. 😂

This is another document that if you read it all the way through, and I really hope that you do, you will *definitely* come away with a very clear understanding of *exactly* where all of the moving parts in the Trump / IRS / Slush Fund / IRS Immunity / Blanche's Tissue Paper / Blanche's Confirmation all fit together.

FEDERAL COURT BLOCKS USPS' MAIL-IN BALLOT SHENANIGANS - NEITHER RAIN NOR SNOW NOR SLIME NOR TRUMP

Judge Talwani (ooh we love her for so many reasons and decisions) dropped a fierce order in the case involving the post office's attempt to put into effect Trump's executive order requiring states to *upload their mail-in voter rolls* to the post office.

You may recall that there have been other challenges to this on which I've reported, the challenges mostly being met with issues because the matter was not yet "ripe" - meaning that the rule hadn't actually been implemented, it was a "this may happen" situation, and so the issues and potential damages were speculative.

As I observed to you then, the proposed USPS rule was announced in the Federal Register for public comment, and the comment period was open until the end of July. At the end of the comment period I figured the ripeness issue would be, well, less of an issue.

It turns out that's how Judge Talwani saw it too.

But there was more. Explains Judge Talwani, in her opinion and order (included for Notes from the Front members):

"As discussed in its prior decisions and expanded upon below, the court finds it prudent to review the EO *now*, where less than 90 days pend before the midterms and the millions of citizens who rely on mail voting require clarity as to how or whether they will vote in November."

She then goes on to explain that the EO itself says that "any final USPS rule with respect to the mail-in ballot thing 'shall be issued no later than 120 days from the date of' the EO, i.e., by July 29, 2026."

But guess what? No final rule. In fact no anything has issued from the post office. In fact, observes Judge Talwani, "despite the EO’s directive to the Post Office to issue a rule by July 29, 2026, no final rule has been announced."

And THIS, I submit, is the post office's and Trump's slimy attempt to keep the issue from being ripe. No rule? No ripeness.

No dice.

In a searing 27-page decision, Judge Talwani lets Trump and the USPS have it.

And then she says the three little words that the Plaintiffs (the League of Women Voters - you'd think by now Trump would have learned to not tick off the women - and others) longed to hear:

"Have an injunction"

(Ok, she didn't really say that, but she *did* issue an injunction!)

ALL the defendants (and there are a lot of them) "are preliminarily enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order No. 14399, with respect to the November 3, 2026 or any earlier federal election, including refusing to transmit mail-in or absentee ballots; or otherwise initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate the specific regulations outlined in Section 3(b)(i)(v) or (d) of the EO for the November 3, 2026 or any earlier election."

I urge you, I beg you, I beseech you to not only read and *save* this decision - which is one for the history books (as will be the decisions on appeal) - but to start a scrapbook or other collection of these decisions which I and other attorney commentators earmark as for the history books. Because we have been witnessing history in the making - so many of these decisions since January 2025 are going to end up in history and law school textbooks.

PROOF THAT THE DOJ BROKE THE LAW BY REDACTING 30 NAMES THAT ARE NEITHER VICTIMS NOR VICTIMS FAMILY MEMBERS

Ok, I don't usually include my own discoveries in the Weekly Good News, but I think that this merits inclusion:

Last year Todd Blanche pinky-swore that the only names that were being redacted in the Epstein drops were the names of victims (and they sure botched that, didn't they?)

Specifically, on December 19, 2025, Todd Blanche said - and the Justice Department X account quoted Blanche as saying - "The only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law - full stop. Consistent with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim."

But in a document that Epstein sent to himself, containing no fewer than *30* names that the DOJ redacted - not a single one of them is a victim. But there are plenty of politicians, heads of state, and famous individuals. In other words, lots of redacted "names of individuals or politicians" who are very clearly not victims.

I know, because I have the fully-unredacted version, which I found through my investigations; to be clear this unredacted document was *not* part of any DOJ drop, I found it elsewise.

What's more, I am confident that the only reason it's not *more* than 30 is because of Epstein's now infamous inability to type straight. For example, Donald Trump would likely have been redacted if Epstein hadn't typoed it to "donalad trup".

There are several redacted names that are Hollywood royalty - and several that are genuine royalty.

Now, this is a list of names that Epstein sent to himself. The fact that the names are on his list doesn't necessarily mean anything.

But the fact that THE DOJ REDACTED THEM means a *GREAT DEAL*.

Allow me to quote from the law (the EFTA) directly:

(b) Prohibited Grounds for Withholding. -

(1) No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.

(c) Permitted Withholdings. -

(1) The Attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that -

(A) contain personally identifiable information of victims or victims’ personal and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(B) depict or contain child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 2252–2252A;

(C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;

(D) depict or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury of any person; or

(E) contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.

(2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.

---

Nevermind that the DOJ has *blatantly* violated section 2, about putting in writing on the Federal Register the reason for *any* redaction; the names that I am sharing with Notes from the Front members are *very* *clearly* *not* *victims*.

Are some of them perpetrators? Who know?? But I'll tell you what - the fact that the DOJ *redacated* their names throws shade at them.

Put another way:

WHY THE FLOCK DID THE DOJ REDACT THESE NAMES??

Let's think for a moment about the redaction process.

EITHER the DOJ had a list of names for which it searched in order to redact them, and these 30 names were on that list, OR the DOJ set AI on it telling the system to redact any names it found other than the names which it was directed to leave unredacted.

If it is the first, then *why the hell were some of these names on that list*?... hrrmmm? Because, again, they are definitely *not* victims.

If it's the second, then *that* suggests the DOJ had a "let's give the public these names and redact and protect everyone else" policy.

Either way, the DOJ has broken the law.

But let's see what Blanche has to say about it. Oh yes:

"Through the process, the Department provided clear instructions to reviewers that the redactions were to be limited to the protection of victims and their families."

As you will see, the 30 names that the DOJ *redacated* in this document are very clearly *not* "victims and their families".

THIS ONE DOCUMENT VERY CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE DOJ HAS ABSOLUTELY BROKEN THE LAW.

This is redaction gone wild.

The issue is NOT necessarily why Epstein listed these people in this document.

The issue is WHY DID THE DOJ BELIEVE THESE NAMES NEEDED TO BE REDACTED??

Why did the DOJ *blatantly break the law* by redacting these names?

What's more, by redacting these names the DOJ is *casting doubt on these people*! Throwing shade at them by shading them, if you will.

Notes from the Front members: after you review the list, please let us know in our private chat why you think these names were redacted. And remember, do *not* share the unredacted document publicly - it could lead to trouble for you as well as me. The unredacted document, as well as an accompanying list of the redacted names is in your inbox now.

Remember, the issue isn't that Epstein listed these people, the issue is that the DOJ broke the law to redact these names. And...why?

And, yes, I have brought this to the attention of "the right people".

JUDGE ABSOLUTELY SPANKS BLANCHE / DOJ / BLANCHE'S PROXY IN KATIE PHANG CASE HEARING YESTERDAY

(And Notes from the Front members received the full transcript!)

First, you'll notice that I *didn't* say the Blanche hearing, because while the case is against Blanche, Blanche himself was not there, it was another DOJ attorney, Andrew Block. I was there for the whole call, but the acoustics were so bad - especially in the beginning - that it wasn’t distinct when he said his name at the beginning. I don't feel terribly badly about not hearing it distinctly though, because as you will see in the transcript, even the judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan, talks about the bad acoustics.

Second, you will see in the transcript that it says it was Judge Nichols, but it wasn't - it was Judge Sullivan.

Third, I am the one who redacted the attorneys' email addresses from the transcript, but it is otherwise unretouched.

By the way, I have to say that while Katie Phang didn’t speak much, when she did she was perfect - poised, and right on point!

As I highlighted in my live broadcast, Judge Sullivan is basically incredulous through much of the hearing because the DOJ is basically saying a whole lot of "I don't know", "I have no way of knowing" and "It's out of my control."

To which, on several occasions, Judge Sullivan responded, well, actually, to quote:

"MR. BLOCK: I don't have a date. It's a little bit out of my control in terms of who has to sign and what -- you know, what processes.

THE COURT: You knew this was going to be discussed today, though."

AND

"MR. BLOCK: I understand. I'm not in a position to give you that date, Your Honor. And I understand the Court's point, but I'm not in a position to give you that date.

THE COURT: But you knew this was going to be discussed today."

AND

"MR. BLOCK: Well, Your Honor, I'm not sure I have the number of foreign language documents.

THE COURT: But you knew this was going to be discussed today. Again, I'm not trying to give you a hard way to go, Counselor. You're at the podium, though. You're speaking on behalf of the Attorney General. These are not just questions the Court thought of. They are questions that were raised in the Court's order scheduling this hearing that we're going to discuss these issues today."

(Are you detecting a pattern here?)

I am not going to go into great detail here because a) I covered it in the live broadcast, and b) the people who want to enjoy it in all its full glory will be getting in their inbox (and trust me, you will *love* it), and c) I'm pretty much a wet noodle right now after the 3-hour call (the hearing), and back to back live broadcasts, and darn it I still haven't worked out yet.

BUT.. before I go you *know* that I have to talk about this:

Judge Sullivan didn't threaten contempt - he promised it.

First he told this story about another case he had, in which he had held the government in contempt. And the government appealed. And the appeals court upheld the contempt.

He starts out "The plaintiff has raised the issue of contempt. Relax. No one is in contempt. All right? The plaintiff has raised the issue of contempt in response to the Court's preliminary injunction order. I just needed to -- let me say this: I think now is a good opportunity to discuss that topic in very general terms with the parties. I'm not focusing on the plaintiff or the defendant, just the parties. To make sure that we're all on the same page. I am going to talk about a case that this court presided over in 2000 -- I think it was 2008. There was a trial of Senator Ted Stevens. It was a high profile case. It was a very unusual case, not because the subject matter was complicated."

He then goes on to tell the story of how this Senator was a defendant, and the prosecutors - i.e. the government - failed to produce documents, *and* it turned out that those documents were exculpatory (in other words they would have demonstrated the defendant's innocence).

"I told the attorneys: You give me no choice. I am holding each one of you in contempt of court. Was I happy to do that? Absolutely not. Was I proud of that? No. But I had to do it because that was consistent with the fair administration of justice. I knew these prosecutors. They'd been in a trial and I had known them from other cases. I didn't want to do that, but I did. I had to. I had no choice. How else was I going to ensure that justice was administered fairly? So I held them in contempt. The documents were turned over later that day."

He then goes on to explain that "So that's a very serious matter for the Court to hold attorneys in contempt. It's something that they probably have to report for the rest of their career, if they are seeking a new job, if they're being considered for a judgeship, locally, federally or maybe in a confirmation hearing where some inquiring Senator will say: Talk to us about the contempt matter some years ago before judge whoever."

Bahahahaha...

This is just a very small taste of this story and Judge Sullivan explaining how he's not holding anyone in contempt, and he sure doesn't want to - BUT if justice requires it...

And then, at the end of it:

"So that's the only reason why I'm saying that. I'm not interested in doing that at all. But I will do it to ensure that justice is administered fairly. And that's not a threat; that's a promise.

That's all I have to say. I'm not asking anyone to respond. No one is in trouble. I'm just bringing it to your attention."

Ohmygosh...and that's just a tiny taste. The whole contempt story and "promise" takes up *13 pages* of the 48 pages of the transcript, and you will *love* every word of it! Honestly, when you read the whole thing tell me if you don't think it kind of sounds like the Godfather!