#ecf
LightNews LightNews
netw3rk.bsky.social
we're going to have a black democratic senator from mississippi before a joel embiid ECF appearance
November 5, 2026 at 6:22 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Chicago U.S. Attorney's office in March: "There are no communications … with anyone outside the [U.S. attorney's office]."

Main Justice today: "Please find a privilege log asserting privileges applicable to these communications."
Accordingly, there are no communications of any nature from, to, or with anyone outside the USAO (other than the local FBI investigators assigned to the case) regarding any investigatory or charging decisions. To be crystal clear, this specifically includes anyone in the White House and all components and offices of Main Justice. 2 RE: United States v. Rabbitt, No. 1:25-cr-693 (N.D. Ill.) Dear Judge Perry: Please find the production of the United States in response to the Court’s request for information. See ECF No. 276; ECF No. 287 at 5. Specifically, the Court requested of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, “all communications between September 26, 2025 and March 30, 2026 . . . with anyone outside of the Northern District of Illinois U.S. Attorney’s Office (other than the local FBI investigators assigned to the case) regarding any investigatory or charging decisions in this case.” ECF No. 276. Enclosed please find a privilege log asserting privileges applicable to these communications. With regard to the Court’s request for, “a legal memorandum explaining what privilege is claimed and how it applies in the context of a sanctions/contempt inquiry by the Court,” ECF No. 276, the position of the United States is that the privileges it has asserted apply here the same way as they would in any other context, as explained in the accompanying memorandum. The United States also notes that this log does not include, “oral, rather than written, communications that would be responsive to the Court’s requests,” id., insofar as this request is impracticable. The United States also notes that it is in possession of emails between officials in the United States Attorney’s Office and defense counsel that may be considered responsive to the Court’s request, but is not producing these insofar as the Court’s Order does not clearly contemplate the production of the same. To the extent the Court is requesting such correspondence the United States respectfully requests that the Court issue a clarifying Order.
November 9, 2026 at 9:43 PM
rparloff.bsky.social
Judge Chutkan’s temporary restraining order (TRO) last night, blocking any “construction-related activity” on Trump’s Arch for 14 days, is restrained, iron-clad, & likely unappealable at this stage. Some thoughts …
1/7
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Memorandum & Opinion – #111 in LEMMON v. TRUMP (D.D.C., 1:26-cv-00544) – CourtListener.com
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Case No. 26-cv-3838, ECF No. 2. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/5/2026...
storage.courtlistener.com
November 6, 2026 at 2:15 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Order: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
#110 in LEMMON v. TRUMP (D.D.C., 1:26-cv-00544) – CourtListener.com
ORDER granting the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Case No. 26-cv-3838, ECF No. 2, for the reasons set forth in the forthcoming Memorand...
storage.courtlistener.com
November 6, 2026 at 5:06 AM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Main Justice says it's delivering certain "responsive, nonprivileged" records to Judge April Perry in the "Broadview Six" case.

The judge sought the records to test claims made by U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros' office.

This landed an hour after her 2 p.m. deadline, btw.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL RABBITT, KATHERINE MARIE ABUGHAZALEH, ANDRE MARTIN, BRIAN STRAW, AND CATHERINE SHARP, Defendants No. 25 CR 693 Hon. April M. Perry NOTICE OF SUBMISSION REGARDING COURT’S REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE The United States submits this filing to the Court in response to the Court’s request for evidence. See ECF No. 276; ECF No. 285 at 5. Attached to this filing, the Court will find (1) a transmittal letter and (2) a memorandum addressing the United States’ privilege assertions. The United States will also submit, via email to the Court’s chambers, responsive, nonprivileged documents and a privilege log. Respectfully submitted, Dated: November 9, 2026 /s/ Henrique Carneiro Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. Associate Attorney General Henrique Carneiro Counsel to the Associate Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Counsel for the United States of America November 9, 2026 VIA Email The Hon. April M. Perry United States District Judge United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse 219 S Dearborn St Chicago, IL 60604 RE: United States v. Rabbitt, No. 1:25-cr-693 (N.D. Ill.) Dear Judge Perry: Please find the production of the United States in response to the Court’s request for information. See ECF No. 276; ECF No. 287 at 5. Specifically, the Court requested of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, “all communications between September 26, 2025 and March 30, 2026 . . . with anyone outside of the Northern District of Illinois U.S. Attorney’s Office (other than the local FBI investigators assigned to the case) regarding any investigatory or charging decisions in this case.” ECF No. 276. Enclosed please find a privilege log asserting privileges applicable to these communications. With regard to the Court’s request for, “a legal memorandum explaining what privilege is claimed and how it applies in the context of a sanctions/contempt inquiry by the Court,” ECF No. 276, the position of the United States is that the privileges it has asserted apply here the same way as they would in any other context, as explained in the accompanying memorandum. The United States also notes that this log does not include, “oral, rather than written, communications that would be responsive to the Court’s requests,” id., insofar as this request is impracticable. The United States also notes that it is in possession of emails between officials in the United States Attorney’s Office and defense counsel that may be considered responsive to the Court’s request, but is not producing these insofar as the Court’s Order does not clearly contemplate the production of the same. To the extent the Court is requesting such correspondence the United States respectfully requests that the Court issue a clarifying Order. The Court also requested “the October 14, 202… November 9, 2026 VIA Email The Hon. April M. Perry United States District Judge United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse 219 S Dearborn St Chicago, IL 60604 RE: United States v. Rabbitt, No. 1:25-cr-693 (N.D. Ill.) Dear Judge Perry: The Court requested that “[a]ny claims of privilege may be made in a privilege log accompanied by a legal memorandum explaining what privilege is claimed and how it applies in the context of a sanctions / contempt inquiry by the Court.” ECF No. 276. The United States’ position is that the privileges it has asserted do not apply any differently in this inquiry than they would in ordinary litigation. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 218 F. Supp. 2d 544, 553, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (applying balancing of interests analysis in case involving alleged government misconduct). To illustrate, the Seventh Circuit noted that a judge’s inquiry regarding purported irregular conduct by prosecutors, which would entail examination of “deliberations” among prosecutors, concerned “intra-office conversations and memoranda that . . . are covered by multiple privileges.” In re United States, 398 F.3d 615, 61 (7th Cir. 2005). “[F]ederal judges may not insist that prosecutors reveal deliberative or pre-decisional materials.” Id. The necessary implication is that ordinary privilege rules apply in this context. A contrary result—where privileges suddenly disappear whenever a judge decides to conduct an inquiry—would seriously undermine the separation of powers. The United States has asserted the deliberative process privilege to withhold communications in which officials deliberate over: the strength of the evidence as to particular suspects; whether to proceed with an unsealed or sealed indictment; strategy relating to publicization of the indictment; the timing of arrests; and other strategic litigation decisions. The United States has also asserted the attorney work product doctrine to wit… The deliberative process privilege applies to “documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” Fish & Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc., 592 U.S. 261, 267 (2021) (quoting NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975)). “To encourage candor, which improves decisionmaking, the privilege blunts the chilling effect that accompanies the prospect of disclosure.” Id. “The ‘ultimate purpose’ of the deliberative process privilege is ‘to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions.’ It reflects the view that if agencies were “to operate in a fishbowl, the frank exchange of ideas and opinions would cease and the quality of administrative decisions would consequently suffer.” Waterman v. Internal Revenue Serv., 61 F.4th 152, 157 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (internal citations omitted). Here, the deliberative process privilege applies to all the withheld documents, which concern deliberations comprising part of a process by which government decisions were made in and relating to this case. To give one example, communications related to how to respond to press or media coverage of an ongoing criminal matter, or whether an indictment would be filed under seal or not, are prototypical communications that the deliberative process privilege protects. The attorney work product doctrine “protects” from disclosure the “mental processes of the attorney.” Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975)). It also protects materials prepared by an attorney for use in litigation. F.T.C. v. Groier Inc., 462 U.S. 19, 24 (1983) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). Here, a discussion of evidence and the charges it supports by any attorney is the exact type of information shielded by the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, the United States has asserted the Law Enforceme…
November 9, 2026 at 9:29 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
JUST IN: The Justice Department asks Judge April Perry to give them until Monday, Nov. 9, to comply with her request for records in the "Broadview Six" case.

The records are currently due Thursday.

Note that the motion is again signed only by DOJ officials in Washington, not by anyone in Chicago.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL RABBITT, KATHERINE MARIE ABUGHAZALEH, ANDRE MARTIN, BRIAN STRAW, AND CATHERINE SHARP, Defendants No. 25 CR 693 Hon. April M. Perry MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ADDRESS COURT’S REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE The Court previously allowed the United States an additional three days to respond to the Court’s October 9, 2026, request. See ECF No. 287 at 5; ECF No. 276. The United States respectfully requests an additional extension, until November 9, 2026, to comply with the Court’s request. Attorneys in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois have diligently collected and reviewed documents for responsiveness. But typically, the subjects of an inquiry do not bear the burden of discovery without assistance from counsel that is further removed from the inquiry. Cf. Department of Justice Manual § 4-5.412 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 50.15, which provides for representation of federal officials by Department of Justice attorneys). The requested short extension will allow additional attorneys for the United States to complete their ongoing additional review of documents for responsiveness and applicable privileges. See, e.g., Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122, 1125 (7th Cir. 1997) (describing the law enforcement investigatory privilege); United States v. Farley, 11 F.3d 1385, 1389 (7th Cir. 1993) (describing the deliberative process privilege). Respectfully submitted, Dated: November 4, 2026 /s/ Henrique Carneiro Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. Associate Attorney General Henrique Carneiro Counsel to the Associate Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Counsel for the United States of America
November 5, 2026 at 2:59 AM
chasmat.bsky.social
Let me withdraw that last part. Seems like an OCR error and I happened to see it, at least once, in the papers. ECF 558 at 14:7.
November 8, 2026 at 10:18 PM
nydailynews.com
Jalen Brunson, Karl-Anthony Towns lead Knicks past Cavs in ECF rematch
Jalen Brunson, Karl-Anthony Towns lead Knicks past Cavs in ECF rematch
www.nydailynews.com
November 8, 2026 at 4:10 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Here is Judge Chutkan's 33-page opinion: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
#111 in LEMMON v. TRUMP (D.D.C., 1:26-cv-00544) – CourtListener.com
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Case No. 26-cv-3838, ECF No. 2. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/5/2026...
storage.courtlistener.com
November 6, 2026 at 5:10 AM
thatjoshkail.bsky.social
Knicks keep spamming the same action from the ECF against the Cavs of getting Harden to switch onto Brunson defensively and they still can’t figure it out
November 8, 2026 at 3:07 AM
emptywheel.bsky.social
Stan Woodward, after getting scolded in Broadview 6 case by Judge April Perry for insolence and being given a deadline of TODAY, asks for an extension TODAY so that he can become familiar with the documents he needs to withhold under claims of privilege.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ADDRESS COURT’S REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE The Court previously allowed the United States an additional three days to respond to the Court’s October 9, 2026, request. See ECF No. 287 at 5; ECF No. 276. The United States respectfully requests an additional extension, until November 9, 2026, to comply with the Court’s request. Attorneys in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois have diligently collected and reviewed documents for responsiveness. But typically, the subjects of an inquiry do not bear the burden of discovery without assistance from counsel that is further removed from the inquiry. Cf. Department of Justice Manual § 4-5.412 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 50.15, which provides for representation of federal officials by Department of Justice attorneys). The requested short extension will allow additional attorneys for the United States to complete their ongoing additional review of documents for responsiveness and applicable privileges. See, e.g., Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122, 1125 (7th Cir. 1997) (describing the law enforcement investigatory privilege); United States v. Farley, 11 F.3d 1385, 1389 (7th Cir. 1993) (describing the deliberative process privilege).
November 5, 2026 at 11:01 AM
sammich-blt.bsky.social
Just putting this out there #Sens

1996-97 - First playoff appearance, took the Sabres to Game 7
2006-07 - Stanley Cup Finals
2016-17 - ECF Game 7 Double OT
2026-27 - ???
November 6, 2026 at 8:37 PM
tyekc.bsky.social
This should be a public link but if not it's Fontainebleau Hotel v. Botach, No. 25-cv-20251 (SD Fla Oct. 21, 2026), ECF No. 289

app.minerva26.com/case_law/720...
Fontainebleau Fla. Hotel, LLC v. Botach No. 25-cv-20251 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2026), ECF No. 289
FONTAINEBLEAU FLORIDA HOTEL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SHMULEY BOTEACH JACOB A/K/A SHMUEL BOTACH, et al., Defendants CASE NO. 25-CV-20251-KUNTZ/Elfenbein United States District Court, S.D. Florida Entered...
app.minerva26.com
November 9, 2026 at 4:20 PM
wmiltti.bsky.social
Another night, another French. Slightly weaker opponent at just under 1900 ECF - he played a good (and difficult to predict) game up to 31.g4 which basically loses on the spot. I played mostly OK as usual…
November 9, 2026 at 11:18 PM
ohhidannye.bsky.social
He may not have done too much for us, but he might have the greatest hockey assist of all time for the Crew

Third goal, 116 minutes into the 2023 ECF
November 8, 2026 at 6:20 AM
jonseidel.bsky.social
The 10/14/25 email sent to U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros containing a grand jury transcript is being turned over to the judge, per AAG Stanley Woodward.

(Boutros has said he didn't know about the alleged misconduct it documented until late April. He said he doesn't remember reading the transcript.)
The Court also requested “the October 14, 2025 email sent to U.S. Attorney Boutros attaching the October 9, 2025 Grand Jury transcript and any replies to or forwards of that email.” ECF No. 276. The United States is producing records responsive to that request. Sincerely, /s Stanley E. Woodward, Jr.
November 9, 2026 at 9:33 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
Judge Charlotte Sweeney has given the government 48 hours to return a habeas petitioner to Colorado, who ICE sent to Texas three days after his petition was filed. The petitioner is operating without an attorney here.
ORDER: Before the Court is Petitioner's Emergency Motion to Preserve Jurisdiction And/Or Return Petitioner to Colorado. ECF No. 6 . As explained in the motion, Petitioner filed this habeas petition on October 28, 2026, and was nonetheless removed to the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Texas on October 31, 2026. See ECF No. 6 at 1; ECF No. 1 (habeas petition docketed on October 28, 2026, and dated October 21, 2026). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's motion. As the Tenth Circuit recently explained, courts retain jurisdiction in the immigration habeas context even where petitioners are "transferred to a different detention facility elsewhere in the United States," given that "[i]t is well established that jurisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change." Abedi v. Carter, No. 25-3179, - Fundamentally, return of Petitioner to this judicial district is "'necessary or appropriate in aid of the Court's jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.'" Id. (citation modified and quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)). Moreover, other courts have granted the same relief that Petitioner seeks in the motion - i.e., an order directing respondents to return a petitioner to a specified judicial district in the habeas context. See, e.g., Molina v. Dicus, No. 5:26-CV-02280-ACCV, 2026 WL 1454998, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2026); Rosales Rosales v. Mullin, No. 1:26-CV-2262 (AJT-WEF), 2026 WL 2634131, at *4 (E.D. Va. Sept. 3, 2026); Sanchez v. Quinones, No. 6:26-CV-266-PGB-RMN, 2026 WL 322748, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2026). Thus, Respondent is ORDERED to immediately return Petitioner from Texas to the District of Colorado. The Clerk of Court is ordered to serve this motion by email to Respondent through the United States Attorney's Office. It is
November 9, 2026 at 11:53 PM
girlsreallyrule.bsky.social
In a 33-page opinion on Thursday night, Judge Chutkan halted construction of Trump’s 250-foot triumphal arch near the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery for 14 days after a Trump-friendly panel approved it.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Memorandum & Opinion – #111 in LEMMON v. TRUMP (D.D.C., 1:26-cv-00544) – CourtListener.com
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Case No. 26-cv-3838, ECF No. 2. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/5/2026...
storage.courtlistener.com
November 6, 2026 at 6:46 AM
gcgbag.com
The arc of the moral universe is ok with Bangoura drawing a stoppage-time PK that sends the ECF to extra time and then getting a hockey assist on the match-winner to reaffirm who the Yellow Soccer Team is.
November 8, 2026 at 2:33 PM
kaleyeinav14041984.bsky.social
Barbara McKay from Southampton is very unwell.

youtu.be/ecf-XtCeAVE?...
Babs claims to have watched 10mins of the Hampstead Children's disclosures.Violently sick for 3weeks
YouTube video by jake
youtu.be
November 8, 2026 at 7:56 PM
arrogantade.blacksky.app
Indeed. Gonna be an ECF preview.
November 9, 2026 at 3:44 AM
arizonalivedata.bsky.social
4:25-mj-05657/A-1 USA v. Herrera-Sanchez
CM/ECF - azd
ift.tt
November 8, 2026 at 10:52 PM
cristianfarias.com
33-page opinion: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
November 6, 2026 at 5:19 AM
edouardmorena.bsky.social
Et quand on sait que la Fondation Européenne pour le Climat (ECF) qu'elle dirige depuis 2017 finance la moitié du mouvement climat européen (j'éxagère à peine) qu'elle accuse d'être inaudible c'est encore plus déprimant.
November 7, 2026 at 7:37 PM
arizonalivedata.bsky.social
2:24-cv-02796 Saldate v. Apple Incorporated et al
CM/ECF - azd
ift.tt
November 7, 2026 at 10:52 PM