DOJ and FBI have combined to destroy project veritas

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Sun Dec 26 01:19:44 PST 2021


> 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-memos-to-project-veritas_4177098.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-blocks-new-york-times-from-publishing-project-veritas-documents_4113511.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/fbi-searches-home-of-project-veritas-founder-james-okeefe-neighbors_4090575.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-orders-doj-to-stop-extracting-data-from-james-okeefes-phone_4100094.html

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/project-veritas-sues-the-new-york-times-for-defamation-over-labeling-our/

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.”


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list