#malicious prosecution

@EJeanCarroll👺said she forgot who paid her legal fees against @realDonaldTrump ?!? @ReidHoffman👿 funded millions as a donor to @TheDemocrats !!!🤬

Now the #DOJ has opened a

perjury probe‼️👏👏👏

This fits the clear pattern of the #Democrats' persecution & #lawfare where cases & investigations launch right after #PresidentTrump announced he was running for @POTUS. 😠

The accuser now faces an investigation herself !!!😳😆

Malicious Prosecution Motions – Eddie Gallagher Released from Pretrial Confinement

Several motions made by Defense attorneys for malicious prosecution Thursday resulted in Eddie Gallagher being released from pretrial confinement. The Defense also withdrew their request to have Captain Aaron Rugh recused from the case. But prosecutors are under the spotlight, and it’s hoped they will suffer for their attempts to suppress exculpatory evidence. More motions, including dismissal of…

DoJ released a report today, 14apr26, The Biden Administration's Weaponization of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The report is fairly brief, and the vast bulk of the document is e-mails document abuses by the Biden Justice Department.

Biden's "Attorney General Merrick Garland revived the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers (Task Force) to weaponize the FACE Act." Some of the behavior was really unethical. The numbers below are ordinarily footnotes so you can look up the documentation.

On October 3, 2022, DOJ secured a two-count indictment. It charged Gallagher, Idoni, Calvin Zastrow, Boyd, Davis, Vaughn, and Green with violating 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights). And it charged each defendant with violating the FACE Act. 126 In January 2023, one of the defense counsel contacted the AUSA requesting information about “how many FACE Act criminal prosecutions there have been in the last ten years, including both reproductive right clinics, churches etc.” 127 The counsel flagged that “[i]t is no secret that we will make a selective prosecution type argument,” and anticipated that this information would be necessary to help the judge assess the defense. 128 The Biden DOJ prosecutors had this information readily available, having compiled it before defense counsel’s request. They refused to share it. A month later, after several more requests as defendants’ filing deadline was approaching, [Task Force Director Sanjay] Patel responded, stating: As the national clinic violence coordinator, I do not keep the kind of records you requested and, as a result, I do not believe that we will provide them to you. However, I expect that much of what you seek is publicly available. For example, there are press releases on the DOJ’s public website that address FACE Act prosecutions. With those press releases, you would be able to obtain additional materials through the courts’ online databases. 129 Patel’s representation to defense counsel was false. 130 At Patel’s request, in October 2022, CRT compiled a spreadsheet of all DOJ actions under the FACE Act. 131 The FBI provided him monthly updates about the number of FACE Act investigations and prosecutions, broken down by pro-life and pro-choice valence. 132 Additionally, he had previously compiled and shared a full list of FACE Act prosecutions to NAF when that team requested similar data. 133 The First Assistant United States Attorney was inclined to provide the data, but Patel decided “we should not provide her with anything,” reasoning that “[p]roviding her with the requested information may open gates we will struggle to close later.” 134

+++

Sanjay Patel's task force also indicted Calvin Zastrow, Gallagher, Idoni, Curry, Phillips, Eva Edl, and Eva Zastrow in Michigan in March 2023 for abortion protests. Frances Carlson, a prosecutor from the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan complained that "we ended up with a very Catholic magistrate." Further

The Biden DOJ prosecutors sought to identify and screen Christian jurors from the jury pool simply because they were Christian, without imperiling pro-abortion jurors. The first effort was in May 2024, when they prepared a proposed voir dire to submit to the court. In preparing the document, the trial team struggled with what questions to ask*** The Biden DOJ trial team considered ways of asking about potential jurors’ religion, with Bernstein noting that she could not think of an “anodyne way to ask” questions about “religion, how often people go to services, etc.” 167*** The judge adopted questions into the jury questionnaire that the Biden DOJ proposed. While the final phrasing was unremarkable, internal drafts indicate what types of information the trial team hoped to glean from the answers, such as how frequently the jurors attend services 170 or whether their children attend religious schools. 171

Throughout the process, they searched for “an indirect way to get some more info about religion without directly asking it.” 172 The trial notes are consistent with this approach. The Biden DOJ prosecutors flagged several Christian jurors for peremptory and for-cause strikes from the jury pool because of their faith. 173 The trial team requested that the court limit the defendants’ ability to wear “Jesus buttons” to the trial. 174 For example, on the day that Carlson asked for a limiting instruction, C. Zastrow was wearing a button that says, “Jesus is Lord.” Doddamani raised concerns about “improper messaging” to the jury. The judge was skeptical, as the trial testimony and exhibits offered by both sides would involve the defendants’ religious views. 175***

+++

Biden's DoJ also sought the most abusive way of processing pro-life people, even when it was more complicated and more expensive for the government.

On October 13, 2021, Mark Houck, “a devoted pro-life Catholic and father of seven,” took his twelve-year son with him to speak outside of a Planned Parenthood location. 181 While speaking outside of the facility, Houck encountered a Planned Parenthood escort. When the clinic escort confronted his son with ridicule and profanity, Houck stepped in to protect his child and pushed the escort, scraping his arm. 182*** In an email chain discussing the plan to arrest Houck and prep press releases, an AUSA disparaged Houck’s defense counsel, expecting them “to be particularly . . . Unpleasant.” 189 In a separate email chain, Patel derogatorily described these attorneys—a pro-life public interest law firm—as “quite the racket.” 190 Houck’s attorneys offered to accept a summons and bring him in voluntarily if DOJ proceeded with a criminal case, 191 but DOJ and the USAO declined to pursue a summons and allow Houck to self-surrender, instead deferring to the FBI’s plan to arrest. 192 DOJ, the USAO, and the FBI coordinated in advance and approved of the plan to arrest. 193

On September 20, 2022, the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania secured a two count indictment against Houck under the FACE Act. 194 At 7:03 A.M. on September 23, 2022, sixteen FBI agents arrived at Houck’s home in seven vehicles. The officers were visibly armed. They arrested and handcuffed Houck outside his front door while his family watched from inside. 195 Shortly after the arrest, the Special Agent notified Patel and the AUSA that Houck was in custody. 196 Public outcry about the arrest and show of force was swift.*** At trial, Houck’s attorneys argued that the abortion escort was the aggressor in the encounter, and, on January 30, 2023, the “jury returned a verdict of ‘not guilty,’ acquitting Mark Houck.” 200 Houck and his wife subsequently filed lawsuits “against the FBI and DOJ for malicious and retaliatory prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest and assault.” 201 The United States recently reached a settlement agreement with Houck. 202***

+++

The report also notes multiple, egregious disparities in the way pro-abortion defendants were treated compared to anti-abortion defendants.

***

The Justice Department has fired at least four prosecutors who were involved in prosecutions under the FACE Act during the Biden administration, a government official familiar with the firings told CBS News. Among those fired Monday is Sanjay Patel, a longtime federal prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division's criminal section who was placed on administrative leave last month, sources told CBS News at the time. The terminations occurred at about the same time a report on the FACE Act and the Biden Justice Department was being finalized. ***

By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews A recent deposition in a federal lawsuit involving a long-running Maryland custody dispute is drawing new attention to the allegations that led to arrest warrants, protective orders, and years of separation between a father and his son. The February 2026 deposition of Maryland attorney Sarah Hornbeck—a defendant in the federal case Reichert v. Hornbeck—contains…

The 64-year-old, who reminisced about the experience on a podcast, was charged on Wednesday with “inciting others in the illegal use of narcotics”. If convicted he faces a prison term of at least six months and up to €500,000 (£440,000) in fines.