Judge Grants Project Veritas Request To Insert Special Master After FBI Raids https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-grants-project-veritas-request-to-insert... https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-rejects-bid-to-make-public-records-suppo... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21150654-torres-ruling-in-project-ve... A federal judge on Wednesday agreed to appoint a special master to shield certain materials from the bureau and prosecutors that the FBI seized from Project Veritas. A special master, typically a retired judge, is appointed in a small number of cases to sift through seized materials and separate out documents that are privileged, or legally protected from authorities. While a government filter team could adequately go through the materials, a special master is being appointed to “ensure ‘the perception of fairness,'” U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, an Obama nominee, wrote in the 5-page order. “In light of the potential First Amendment concerns that may be implicated by the review of the materials seized from petitioners, the court finds that the appointment of a special master will ‘help[] to protect the public’s confidence in the administration of justice,'” she added. Retired Judge Barbara Jones, a Clinton nominee, was appointed as special master. The government was ordered to finish extracting materials from the devices owned by James O’Keefe, Project Veritas’ founder, and two former Project Veritas employees and hand over the materials to Jones to go through. Jones will set aside any material not responsive to search warrants approved by a different judge last month, which allowed the FBI to raid the residences of O’Keefe, Eric Cochran, and Spencer Meads. She will hand over any materials responsive to the warrants to the filter team, which will then review the documents to determine if any should be withheld from the separate investigative team for reasons such as attorney-client privilege. Project Veritas lawyers can object to any materials cleared to go to the investigative team and Jones will rule on each objection. Torres denied another request from petitioners. They had asked the judge to order the government to search for the source of leaked information given to the New York Times related to the raids and the materials seized. She declined, asserting they did not provide a legal basis for their request or allege that the government violated any rule, law, or policy. FBI agents raided the homes searching for evidence of a conspiracy involving a diary said to belong to President Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley Biden. Project Veritas lawyers said most of the seized materials were privileged and unrelated to the Ashley Biden diary, emphasizing a need for a special master. The government opposed appointing a special master, arguing a filter team would be adequate. The ruling came one day after Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave rejected a second attempt to force the unsealing of records that convinced the judge to approve the warrants.

It's a bit ironic to defend Project Veritas by saying "Wait, that was taken out of context and misquoted". -david On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 4:28 PM jim bell wrote:

You may be quoting in a misleading fashion. I was citing a URL with that wording.

In today's world, so many people misuse the word 'anarchy'. The only kind of 'anarchy' I consider worthy of that name is the 'lets not have any government at all' version.

I DON'T like the 'lets get rid of the current government and replace it with a large, repressive government that continuously violates the NAP, the Non-Aggression Principle'.

Project Veritas is conservative, but they have been going after people who are far worse.

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 7:25 AM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 06:10:21 +0000 (UTC)

jim bell wrote:

...

Project Veritas uses hidden camera techniques to expose corruption, dishonesty, anarchy,

ANARCHY IS BAD!

The sooner a trumpofascist joke like 'project veritas' is destroyed, the better.

On 11/15/21, jim bell wrote:

You may be quoting in a misleading fashion. I was citing a URL with that wording.

There's no "may be", people know that. That Juan is a falsequoting liar nihilist sans proposition, an internet big boi, a raging troll lefty socialist commie paid agent proud destroyer of every convo and attempt to live and build a NAPful future of no force to any person from any Govt, ideology, or group, who if behaving in the real world as raged here, would be locked up for trespassing, smashing people's personal property, theft, rape, murder, disturbing the peace etc... in reality he's still dommed by Cristina, happily pays his taxes to Alberto, always afraid to speak any truth about Manzur and Massa. Juan, como la raton, es le grande faux-nap, anti-voluntary, anarcholibertad-poseur, y silent apologisto de gobierno argentine. Fortunately, everyone's shit stinks, including the trolls ;) Troll on.

NYT Reveals How Ashley Biden's 'Inappropriate Showers With Joe' Diary Made Its Way To Project Veritas

Judge Orders NYTimes To Remove Story On Project Veritas Based On Confidential Memos https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-orders-new-york-times-to-return-legal-me... https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-blocks-new-york-times-from-publishing-pr... https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/fbi-searches-home-of-project-veritas-f... https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-orders-doj-to-stop-extracting-data-from-... https://www.projectveritas.com/news/project-veritas-sues-the-new-york-times-... https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=SgQ8IEENXxhU2D4NlHEZHw==&system=prod A New York judge has ordered The New York Times to return confidential legal memos it obtained between investigative journalism organization Project Veritas and the group’s lawyer. The New York Times had obtained the memos that were prepared by Project Veritas attorney Benjamin Barr—it remains unclear how the memos were obtained. The outlet then published the documents online. It later took them down, but an article published Nov. 11 describing the memos was still available on the paper’s website. The memos, in part, contained advice from Barr as to how Project Veritas’s methods of reporting, which largely involves reporters going undercover, could avoid running into legal problems. Project Veritas sued the paper and accused it of having obtained the privileged materials without authorization. “The court finds that Project Veritas has met its burden of showing that the subject memoranda were obtained by irregular means, if not both irregular and improper means,” State Supreme Court Justice Charles D. Wood in Westchester County said in his ruling (pdf) dated Dec. 23. Wood upheld his earlier order in November that blocked the newspaper from further publishing the memos. He also ordered The New York Times to return the memos to Project Veritas, including the physical copies. The paper must destroy “all copies of the memos it has, including removing them ‘from the internet,'” and retrieve all copies of the memos that it had provided to third parties. Furthermore, The New York Times must confirm its compliance within 10 days. Wood told Project Veritas to notify the court by the end of January 2022 if the newspaper does not comply and warned The New York Times of potential sanctions in such a case. More excerpts from the opinion: pic.twitter.com/0WccBmzp7q — Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) December 24, 2021 Wood also ordered the paper not to use the memos, or any information obtained from them, in a separate lawsuit that Project Veritas filed against The New York Times in late October 2020. The defamation suit was filed after The New York Times had published an article in September 2020 calling Project Veritas’ reporting “deceptive.” A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, said the newspaper will appeal Wood’s ruling and seek a stay in the meantime. Attorney-Client Privilege The New York Times in November ran a report about how the FBI raided the home of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe, as well as homes of other current and former Project Veritas staffers. O’Keefe said in a statement at the time that the Justice Department appeared to be investigating the alleged theft of a diary of Ashley Biden, the daughter of President Joe Biden. In the report on the matter, The New York Times quoted the memos, which comprise attorney-client communications, leading Project Veritas to accuse it of having violated attorney-client privilege. Wood, in his Dec. 23, order, said the memos were not a matter of public concern, and that it is “clear” the balance “tips in favor of the attorney-client privilege.” “[T]he court rejects the [New York Times’] position that Project Veritas’ attorney-client communications are a matter of public concern. Undoubtedly, every media outlet believes that anything that it publishes is a matter of public concern,” the judge wrote, later adding, “But some things are not fodder for public consideration and consumption. These memoranda … are only between an attorney and a client, and it does not matter one bit who the attorney and client are.” “A client seeking advice from its counsel simply cannot be a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public,” he later added. “It is not the public’s business to be privy to the legal advice that this plaintiff or any other client receives from its counsel.” “That is not to say that aspects of Project Veritas and/or its journalistic methods are not of public interest,” Wood noted, adding that The New York Times “is perfectly free to investigate, uncover, research, interview, photograph, record, report, publish, opine, expose or ignore whatever aspects of Project Veritas its editors in their sole discretion deem newsworthy, without utilizing Project Veritas’ attorney-client privileged memoranda.” Sulzberger characterized Wood’s ruling as an attack of press freedoms and alarming for “anyone concerned about the dangers of government overreach into what the public can and cannot know.” He decried the ruling as “unconstitutional” and a “prior restraint,”—a term that refers to government action prohibiting speech or other expression before speech happens. Sulzberger also said the ruling “could present obvious risks to exposing sources should it be allowed to stand.” Wood addressed the matters in his ruling, writing, “Here, the court’s protective order does not act as an impermissible prior restraint on the Times. As important as the First Amendment’s protection against prior restraint is, on the present facts, the erosion of the attorney-client privilege is a far more imminent concern.” He quoted an extract from a prior ruling in 1979, Greenberg v CBS Inc., which reads, “What is also at stake in the dissemination of privileged information into the public domain is the privacy of the individuals mentioned or discussed therein and the importance of full and free communication between attorney and client. ‘Hit and run’ journalism is no more protected under the First Amendment, than speeding on a crowded sidewalk is permitted under a valid driver’s license.” Wood said his ruling is “grounded in the recognition that the First Amendment’s primary aim is the full protection of speech upon issues of public concern, as well as the practical realities involved in the administration of justice and the attorney-client privilege.” Project Veritas lawyer Elizabeth Locke praised the ruling and called it “a victory for the First Amendment for all journalists and affirms the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship.” “The New York Times has long forgotten the meaning of the journalism it claims to espouse, and has instead become a vehicle for the prosecution of a partisan political agenda,” Locke said in a statement Dec. 24. “Today’s ruling affirms that the New York Times’ behavior was irregular and outside the boundaries of law.”