Anne P. Mitchell Esq

WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT - 3/21/26 Here’s a recap of all of the good things that have happened over the past week or so in our battle to defend our country from the ravages of the current administration, and to turn this ship around! *Reminder: The full pdfs of all of the documents discussed below are permanently available to Notes from the Front members in the archives here: annepmitchell.substack.com/archive Not a member yet? Join me to access all documents, our private chat, our private dropbox including all the Epstein files (even the disappeared ones), and more.. Plus your $5 a month helps support my efforts grabbing, purchasing, explaining, and storing documents before they can be disappeared (much of which I have to pay for out of my own pocket. You can join me right here, and start accessing the assets and chatting with our amazing folks right away! annepmitchell.substack.com/subscribe JUDGE ORDERS TRUMP TO TURN OVER DOCUMENTS USED TO JUSTIFY "COMPLETE REBUILDING" OF KENNEDY CENTER! Last Saturday (yes, on the *weekend*) a Federal judge ordered Trump (the named defendant) and the administration to turn over documents that are being used to justify shutting down the Kennedy Center for two years, in order to conduct, and I quote, a "complete rebuilding" of the Kennedy Center. (Full opinion and order included for Notes from the Front members.) Here's what's going on: There are two types of trustees on the board of trustees of the Kennedy Center: those that are appointed by the president, and then those which are appointed by the statute creating the Kennedy Center (known as "ex officio" board members). The ex officio board members are designated by *position* (such as the "Mayor of D.C.", etc.), and include seats for Congressional representatives. Congresswoman Joyce Beatty is a representative from Ohio who fills one of those positions, in other words she is an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center board of trustees. For the most part, ever since the founding of the Kennedy Center (originally named the National Cultural Center and established in 1958) the ex officio board members have been considered voting members, and have in fact voted on Kennedy Center board business. That all changed when Trump appointed himself to the board, replaced certain board members, had himself voted chairman, and tried to change the name of the Kennedy Center by adding his name (only Congress can do that). At the end of a meeting in December, which Beatty was attending remotely, "to Beatty’s surprise, it was announced at the end of the meeting that the Board would vote on whether to add Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center title. Beatty tried to voice her opposition to the announcement, but found herself involuntarily muted." Unable to unmute herself, "The Board took a vote and declared the result “unanimous”: The Center would be renamed." So on December 22, 2025, Beatty filed a lawsuit challenging the renaming of the Kennedy Center. But there was another surprise in store for Beatty and others: Trump's announcement on February 1st that he would be closing the Kennedy Center for two years for "complete rebuilding". Beatty wrote to Trump asking to see the documents on which Trump was relying in order to justify the closure and rebuilding, including, for example, expert reports, contracts, a list of the performance contracts that would be impacted by the closure, etc.. The silence was deafening. At the end of February Beatty learned from another of the ex officio members that there was to be a special meeting at the White House on March 16 (so, yes, today), to discuss the proposed closure. Beatty hadn't even received an invitation (although later she found it in her spam folder - if the White House would like me to consult to them about deliverability....), and hadn't received any of the requested documents to support the closure and, in any event, had no reason to think that they would not mute her and would not allow her to vote again. So on March 6th Beatty amended her complaint to also include the proposed closure and rebuild, and the failure to produce the requested documents, and she also filed a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) regarding the same (also included for Notes from the Front members). This brings us to Saturday, when Judge Christopher Cooper issued a 37-page opinion and order requiring Trump to cough up the information related to the proposed closure, and to allow Beatty to attend the meeting *and* to be given an opportunity to speak (but *not* necessarily to vote, because the Court found that she would not suffer irreparable harm by not being allowed to vote - irreparable harm is a requirement for a TRO). That meeting, which is happening right now (or will have just happened, depending on when you read this), will *not* include the final vote, which will, by all accounts, take place behind closed doors at some point in the near future. COURT ISSUES INJUNCTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATION'S "YOU'VE GOT A NICE SNAP PROGRAM HERE, COLORADO, IT'D BE A SHAME IF ANYTHING HAPPENED TO IT" This week Federal Court for the District of Colorado issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Trump administration from forcing Colorado to take part in a "pilot project" in order to continue to receive certain SNAP funds, and to not be penalized by the withholding of SNAP funds. This lawsuit, originally filed in October of 2025, actually started out as a lawsuit fighting Trump's efforts to move Space Force out of Colorado. However in January of this year Colorado amended its complaint after receiving a letter advising it that it must comply with a new pilot project related to SNAP. That letter, dated December 17th, 2025, gave Colorado just *30 days* to recertify "all SNAP households in Arapahoe, Adams, Jefferson, Boulder, and Douglas counties," *including* "by accounting for the income and resources of any excluded household members, conducting in-person interviews, and using federal eligibility tools like the improved, cost-free Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program database." And of course Colorado had to preserve documentation of all of its efforts, and the data associated therewith, the implicit threat being that Colorado could be required to turn over all of that data to the administration. It then went on to say that "Failure to participate in this pilot project as specified by USDA will trigger noncompliance procedures," could affect Colorado's participation in SNAP, and then *had the cheek* to close with "Thank you for your continued work to help address the needs of vulnerable Americans." Fortunately, our awesome AG, Phil Weiser, was right on it, and filed an amended complaint to the original Space Force lawsuit, which was a great way to get this issue into the Court quickly, not to mention to bring to the same judge's attention what *else* the administration was pulling. In a lovely 52-page opinion and order (included for Notes from the Front members along with a copy of the administration's 'pilot project' (code name "Screw Colorado") letter), Judge Jackson snapped right back (see what I did there?) at the administration, granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting the administration from enforcing the pilot project, and also forbidding the administration from "taking any adverse action against Colorado for its refusal to comply with any of the demands of the Recertification Letter." (Recall that a preliminary injunction is different from an emergency injunction (also known as a temporary restraining order or TRO) in that a preliminary injunction means that the Court has actually held a hearing, heard arguments, and reviewed facts and evidence, prior to issuing the injunction.) You can read the handwriting on the wall from the opening words of the opinion: "On December 18, 2025, with no advance warning, Colorado Governor Jared Polis received a one-page letter from an undersecretary at the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) stating that Colorado (“the State”) was being “require[ed]” to participate in a “pilot project” related to the State’s administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”). The letter is as astonishing as it is brief. Without identifying any specific allegations, it states that, due to nationwide benefits fraud, including “multiple requests [by USDA] to [Colorado] to fulfill its administrative responsibilities,” the State is directed to recertify the eligibility of “all SNAP households” in five of its most populous counties “within 30 days of the receipt of this letter." And it only gets better from there, culminating in the order: "For the reasons stated above, Colorado’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, is hereby GRANTED, and USDA is PRELIMINIARILY ENJOINED from compelling Colorado’s participation in the pilot project or taking any adverse action against Colorado for its refusal to comply with any of the demands of the Recertification Letter. SO ORDERED this 16 th day of March, 2026." Oh snap! COURT STOPS RJK JR.'S NEW IMMUNIZATION SCHEDULE *AND* BLOCKS HIS NEW ACIP MEMBERS AND THEIR VOTES!! This week Judge Brian Murphy, of the Federal District Court of Massachusetts, *blocked* RFK Jr.'s new "immunization lite" schedule, *retroactively blocked* his appointment of 13 new members to his Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and in so doing also *blocked* every single vote they had taken, some as far back as the first appointments in September! ("The Court further STAYS all votes taken by the now-stayed ACIP" - OMG I love that *so* much!!) In a 45-page opinion and order (included for Notes from the Front members), Judge Murphy issues the opening salvo right on the very first page - *by quoting Carl Sagan*!!!! "“Science,” like law, “is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge.” Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark 29 (1997). History is littered with once-universal truths that have since come under scrutiny. Nevertheless, science is still “the best we have.” “Procedure is to law what scientific method is to science.” Although sometimes seemingly tedious, “the procedural rules which have been fashioned from the generality of due process are our best instruments for the distillation and evaluation of essential facts from the conflicting welter of data that life and our adversary methods present.” ”For our public health, Congress and the Executive have built - over decades - an apparatus that marries the rigors of science with the execution and force of the United States government." You just know that RFK Jr., or at least his legal minions, read that opening bit and thought "Oh no, here comes a spanking." He then goes on to explain that ACIP was founded in 1964, and for all those years - up until *now* - it had been a force for good, providing expert guidance on immunizations; sound advice based on scientific methods. But that was then, this is now. Says the good judge: "Unfortunately, the Government has disregarded those methods and thereby undermined the integrity of its actions. First, the Government bypassed ACIP to change the immunization schedules, which is both a technical, procedural failure itself and a strong indication of something more fundamentally problematic: an abandonment of the technical knowledge and expertise embodied by that committee. Second, the Government removed all duly appointed members of ACIP and summarily replaced them without undertaking any of the rigorous screening that had been the hallmark of ACIP member selection for decades. Again, this procedural failure highlights the very reasons why procedures exist and raises a substantial likelihood that the newly appointed ACIP fails to comport with governing law." It's amazing how well Judge Murphy can convey what he is *actually* thinking through such otherwise dry language! He then goes through the factual background of the case, including something I hadn't even known: When the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) countered the CDC's new immunization schedule by putting out a recommended immunization schedule of their own, RFK Jr. took to social media and *threatened* the AAP with the potential for legal action! (He has learned well at the knee of his president.) Somewhat humourously (at least if you have a dark sense of humour, as do I), his threat was that they would not be shielded by the Vaccine Injury Act, thus perhaps showing his hand as to part of what is behind the diminution of the recommended vaccines and immunization schedule: perhaps they are trying to *save money* by avoiding paying out compensation through the current National Vaccine Injury Compensation program, through which the Federal government pays compensation to people who are injured by vaccines. (How many of you knew about that? It's been around since 1986, it's one of the government's dirty little secrets.) Of course this is pure conjecture on my part - true, it’s conjecture based on knowledge and education, but conjecture nonetheless. This opinion is a delight - I highly recommend reading the whole thing (included for Notes from the Front members); I promise it will hearten you and elevate your mood! COURTS ALL THE WAY UP THE CHAIN TELL TRUMP TO POUND SALT IN HIS LAWSUIT AGAINST CNN! You may recall that back in 2022 Trump sued CNN for defamation, alleging that by calling his election fraud claims the "Big Lie", along with calling Trump a racist, Russian lackey, and insurrectionist, and comparing him to Hitler, CNN had defamed him. (Notes from the Front members, Trump's actual complaint is included for you and in your inbox now, along with each successive court order. The complaint makes for amusing reading, the court orders make for "Oh yeah, take that!" readings.) Well, the initial court, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida (!) was the first to tell Trump to pound salt, although Judge Raag Singhal said it in much more judicial language: "DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE" Learn a Little Law with Anne: There are two postures in which a case can be dismissed: without prejudice and with prejudice. Without prejudice means that the plaintiff can try filing the lawsuit again. With prejudice means that the plaintiff *is not allowed to try again*! With prejudice is much less common than without prejudice. Judge Singhal's 11-page order (again, included for Notes members) sums it up nicely when he says: "But bad rhetoric is not defamation when it does not include false statements of fact." And concludes: "CNN’s statements while repugnant, were not, as a matter of law, defamatory. The case will, therefore, be dismissed with prejudice." In other words, while CNN may have called Trump racist, etc., those were statements of *opinion*, not statements of fact. And, as it happens, when one is a public figure, such as is Trump, the bar for finding defamation is even higher than for defamation of a private citizen. In order for someone to be found guilty of defaming a public figure you have to prove not only that they knew that the statement purporting to be fact was actually false - but also that the statement was made intentionally *with malice*. So, Judge Singhal dismissed Trump's defamation claim against CNN *with prejudice*. That meant that he couldn't bring it again. But he *could*, and did, appeal. The Court of Appeals *also* told Trump to go pound salt, going through all of Trump's nonsense, point by point, in their 8-page opinion (included for Notes members), with the three judges who reviewed the case concluding with "For all of the above reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Trump’s complaint." So guess what Trump did? He filed a request with that Court of Appeals, asking for an "En Banc" rehearing, meaning he was basically saying "I don't agree with you three Court of Appeals judges, I want a panel of *all* the Court of Appeals judges to rehear the case." (The number of judges that make up an En Banc hearing depends on which Circuit you are in - in some Circuits it's all of the judges, in others it's a subset of all of the judges, but a greater number than the number of judges who initially reviewed the case. In the 11th Circuit it’s all the judges.) So here's the thing - in order for there to be an En Banc hearing, one or more *judges* have to request (or sponsor, if you will) the En Banc hearing. This week the Court of Appeals issued this direct, to the point, "pound salt" to Trump: "The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED, no judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing En Banc. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also treated as a Petition for Rehearing before the panel and is DENIED." "No judge". Not *one single judge* requested that En Banc rehearing for Trump. I'm guessing that the language in the White House when he got the news was plenty salty. JUDGE PUMMELS PENTAGON POLICY PROHIBITING PRESS - VIOLATES 1ST AND 5TH AMENDMENT! (WHAT A WAY TO WRAP THE WEEK!) (I'm sad that not one single person commented on my alliterative subject line when I originally posted about this. :~( ) You all remember when the Pentagon decided to bar the media from accessing sources at the Pentagon unless they signed a purity test, right? And how the media would only be allowed to quote specific talking points provide to them by the Pentagon. You remember that, right? In fact, I had found the actual memo for you, and shared it with you, complete with where a reporter was supposed to acknowledge it and sign it agreeing with it. (Re-included for Notes from the Front members, in case you missed it the first time.) Well, in December the New York Times filed a lawsuit over that policy, and today, in *record time*, the Court smacked the Pentagon for violating not one, but *two* bits of our Constitution (the 1st and 5th amendments), and issued a *summary judgement* in favour of the Plaintiffs (the Times)! (Notes from the Front members: the 40-page opinion and the 4-page order are both included for you along with the Pentagon Memo and the Times' lawsuit complaint.) In that 40-page opinion Judge Paul Friedman starts out in the very first paragraph: "A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription. Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now." ”It must not be abandoned now” - yes indeed! He then explains that the Times has brought this lawsuit to "defend these principles against overzealous actions by the Secretary of Defense and the Department he leads." Note: "overzealous actions" in this context is legal jargon for "dick move". I'm going to make this short because it's Friday evening already, and those of you who are into it will read the opinion (I *highly* recommend it, Judge Friedman is quite free with phrases like "This argument, simply put, is just plain wrong," and "if the defendants themselves equivocate on the Policy’s meaning, how can journalists possibly know what they can and cannot do under its terms?"); in short, the opinion is a treat! Remember, summary judgement means that the case is over, done with, kaput. No more arguing or introducing evidence. It means that the law and facts are *so* clear that there is *nothing to argue about.* Of course, they can appeal, but that summary judgement is quite the mark against them. And that’s the good news from the past week! Remember, if you are a Notes from the Front member *all* of the original source documents (transcripts, orders, and the like) are in the archives here. If you’re not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining us to access all documents, our private chat, our private dropbox, etc.. Plus your $5 a month helps support my efforts grabbing, purchasing, explaining, and storing documents before they can be disappeared (much of which I have to pay for out of my own pocket): You can cancel any time. Join here Until next time, this is me, reporting from the front line of the battle to save the soul of our country. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. Internet Law & Policy Attorney, Legislative Advisor Author: Section 6 of the Federal CAN-SPAM Act CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Author: Notes from the Front Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop

WOOT!! JUDGE PUMMELS PENTAGON POLICY PROHIBITING PRESS - VIOLATES 1ST AND 5TH AMENDMENT! (WHAT A WAY TO WRAP THE WEEK!) You all remember when the Pentagon decided to bar the media from accessing sources at the Pentagon unless they signed a purity test, right? And how the media would only be allowed to quote specific talking points provide to them by the Pentagon. You remember that, right? In fact, I had found the actual memo for you, and shared it with you, complete with where a reporter was supposed to acknowledge it and sign it agreeing with it. (Re-included for Notes from the Front members, in case you missed it the first time.) Well, in December the New York Times filed a lawsuit over that policy, and today, in *record time*, the Court smacked the Pentagon for violating not one, but *two* bits of our Constitution (the 1st and 5th amendments), and issued a *summary judgement* in favour of the Plaintiffs (the Times)! (Notes from the Front members: the 40-page opinion and the 4-page order are both included for you along with the Pentagon Memo and the Times' lawsuit complaint.) In that 40-page opinion Judge Paul Friedman starts out in the very first paragraph: "A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription. Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now." ”It must not be abandoned now” - yes indeed! He then explains that the Times has brought this lawsuit to "defend these principles against overzealous actions by the Secretary of Defense and the Department he leads." Note: "overzealous actions" in this context is legal jargon for "dick move". I'm going to make this short because it's Friday evening already, and those of you who are into it will read the opinion (I *highly* recommend it, Judge Friedman is quite free with phrases like "This argument, simply put, is just plain wrong," and "if the defendants themselves equivocate on the Policy’s meaning, how can journalists possibly know what they can and cannot do under its terms?"); in short, the opinion is a treat! Remember, summary judgement means that the case is over, done with, kaput. No more arguing or introducing evidence. It means that the law and facts are *so* clear that there is *nothing to argue about.* Of course, they can appeal, but that summary judgement is quite the mark against them. Notes from the Front members: The memo, order, 40-page opinion, and 41-page complaint are in your inbox for you now. Enjoy! (*Why do I only make documents available privately to Notes from the Front members? To protect myself from claims of public publication or republication, especially with this incredibly litigious administration.) Not a member? Never miss one of my legal updates by joining us below to get my posts directly in your inbox. It's free to join, $5 a month if you want access to all of the documents, the archives of all of my posts, our private chat, and our private Epstein dropbox, Plus your $5 a month helps cover my cost for purchasing transcripts, and storing documents in the private dropbox before they can be disappeared. And hey, where else can you have a lawyer explain all of these lawsuits and documents to you for just $5 a month? :~) Join now at the link below: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/woot-judge-p…

TRUMP UNREDACTED! Yesterday Congressman Dan Goldman revealed an email that Epstein forwarded from his attorney, Jack Goldberger, to Maxwell. This email was heavily redacted in the DOJ release (see first screenshot); Goldman shared the *unredacted* email, and what it reveals is a 20-minute conversation with Trump, Alan Garten (Trump's attorney at the time) and "Brad", who is likely Brad Edwards (attorney for some of the victims) but I can't be sure. Goldberger also cc:ed Robert Critton, Jr., another of Epstein's attorneys. I had wished that Congressman Goldman would have posted the text of the email, and so I figured that you might wish that as well; so here is the full text of what it says, how many of Trump's lies do you see it refuting? From: Jeffrey Epstein jevacation@gmail.com To: Gmax Subject: Fwd: Trump Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:17:08 +0000 From: Jack Goldberger <> Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM Subject: Trump To: Jeffrey Epstein jevacation@gmail.com, "Robert D. Critton Jr." Spoke to Alan Garten, Trump's attorney. Garten arranged a 20 minute phone conference with Trump and Brad in lieu of a depo. Following was discussed: Spoke to Alan Garten, Trump's attorney. 212.836.3203 Garten arranged... Following was discussed: JE ever expelled from Mar a Lago? No he was not a member. May have been a guest. Never asked to leave. Mark Epstein said Trump on JE plane, is that true? I've been on a lot of planes. May have been on his plane. No young girls on plane. What do you know about the allegations against JE? Only what I read in the paper. Trump ever at JE house? I may have been there with my wife. Any young girls there? No may have been children of guests but that's it. Trump specifically asked Garten to advise us of the interview. Brad had also previously talked to manager of Mar a Lago, Bort Kempke. Lempke confirmed JE never asked to leave Mar a Lago. Jack Goldberger 561-659-8300 Phone 561-835-6691 Fax

WOOT!! I JUST DISCOVERED A WAY TO GIVE PEOPLE A $0 TRIAL OF NOTES FROM THE FRONT MEMBERSHIP! If you've wanted to check out Notes from the Front membership but weren't sure it was worth the $5 a month, now you can try it out with no financial commitment! Sign up and get two full weeks at of all of the documents, access to the private Epstein dropbox, and to our private chat! All for $0! :~) If you don't find that you are using it just cancel before the two weeks is up (and I include a cancellation link in every email because don't you just hate when they make it easy to sign up and hard to cancel? :~( ) You can sign up for a $0 test drive of Notes from the Front membership here (and yes it's fine to share this): annepmitchell.substack.com/0payment

I HAVE A MEMO TO EPSTEIN AND KEN STARR ABOUT HOW EPSTEIN SHOULD ACT TO FINESSE THE WHOLE PREDATOR PEDOPHILE THING Right now I’m going deep into some Epstein files where, I suspect, no woman has gone before. Here’s one of the things I’ve unearthed. In 2006 Epstein was charged in the Palm Beach, Florida case. In that case he was represented by, among others, Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz (another high profile lawyer who represented him was, of course, Alan Dershowitz). Obviously the charges against him were a public relations nightmare for both Epstein and those defending him. It’s unknown who had the idea to engage public relations and political consultant Merrie Spaeth to work with Epstein, but it was likely either Epstein, Starr, or Lefkowitz, because what I’ve found is a memo from Spaeth to the three of them, detailing her coaching of Epstein as to how he should act and respond to the media in order to present himself as a fine upstanding citizen and not a pedophile at all. In the 10-page memo (included for Notes from the Front members), which references "Today's session" with Epstein, she details all of the things which they covered in that session. She starts by saying that they went through "the Spaeth method", which, she explains, is designed to "Show participants how to “respond” to questions and create the perception of responsiveness (and actually be responsive) while not being trapped by the parameters of the question or the topic." She goes on to explain that the Spaeth method "recognizes that any short phrase which “acknowledges” that the listener heard the question serves as an acceptable substitute for whatever the question’s parameters appear to demand." In other words how to give a non-answer (or, as we in the legal biz are prone to say, a non-responsive answer), and not actually answer the question at all. She then goes on to say "We also outlined some words characterizing how we hope the Dept. of Justice attorneys think of themselves and their position and some words describing the women in the litigation," and then she goes on to talk about something she calls "The BIMBO effect", which is to repeat the negative terminology in a question when answering the question (and which you apparently do *not* want to do). This, Spaeth says, "is named for the young woman caught in a tryst with a high-profile, married man. She announced, “I am not a BIMBO,” thus causing everyone to think she was." Then she talks about how to quickly dismiss a question (such as from a reporter) and to "substitute a competitive phrase." Throughout the memo she talks about how well Epstein did both in terms of seeming "authentic and spontaneous" while answering questions, and how "likeable" he appears. Of course the better he did, the more disgusted I became. :~( The last part of the memo outlines very specific questions he is likely to get from both the media, and from attorneys on the other side, and how to respond to them. Here's to what I keep coming back: No matter how much she has tried to distance herself since, he was *arrested* in 2016, and she was working with him *in 2018*, coaching him on how to finesse being seen as the pedophile and predator that he was. I mean, how could she?? Notes from the Front members: The full 10-page memo is in your inbox now. And as a bonus I also found a note that Epstein wrote to himself that is the script for a very short public apology (one of three versions); that is included for you in your inbox too. Not a member? Join us below to access all the documents, our private dropbox including all the Epstein documents (even the disappeared ones), our private chat, and our archives. Plus your $5 a month helps to cover my cost for purchasing transcripts (each court transcript runs between $35 and $250), and storing documents in the private dropbox before they can be disappeared. And hey, where else can you have a lawyer explain all of these lawsuits and documents to you for just $5 a month? :~) Join now at the link below, which will also give you immediate access to this post’s documents as soon as you join (it's fine to join and then cancel if you only want certain documents): annepmitchell.substack.com/p/i-have-a-mem…

OMG!! COURT STOPS RJK JR.'S NEW IMMUNIZATION SCHEDULE *AND* BLOCKS HIS NEW ACIP MEMBERS AND THEIR VOTES!! You guys!! Yesterday Judge Brian Murphy, of the Federal District Court of Massachusetts, *blocked* RFK Jr.'s new "immunization lite" schedule, *retroactively blocked* his appointment of 13 new members to his Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and in so doing also *blocked* every single vote they had taken, some as far back as the first appointments in September! ("The Court further STAYS all votes taken by the now-stayed ACIP" - OMG I love that *so* much!!) In a 45-page opinion and order (included for Notes from the Front members), Judge Murphy issues the opening salvo right on the very first page - *by quoting Carl Sagan*!!!! "“Science,” like law, “is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge.” Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark 29 (1997). History is littered with once-universal truths that have since come under scrutiny. Nevertheless, science is still “the best we have.” “Procedure is to law what scientific method is to science.” Although sometimes seemingly tedious, “the procedural rules which have been fashioned from the generality of due process are our best instruments for the distillation and evaluation of essential facts from the conflicting welter of data that life and our adversary methods present.” "For our public health, Congress and the Executive have built - over decades - an apparatus that marries the rigors of science with the execution and force of the United States government." You just know that RFK Jr., or at least his legal minions, read that opening bit and thought "Oh no, here comes a spanking." He then goes on to explain that ACIP was founded in 1964, and for all those years - up until *now* - it had been a force for good, providing expert guidance on immunizations; sound advice based on scientific methods. But that was then, this is now. Says the good judge: "Unfortunately, the Government has disregarded those methods and thereby undermined the integrity of its actions. First, the Government bypassed ACIP to change the immunization schedules, which is both a technical, procedural failure itself and a strong indication of something more fundamentally problematic: an abandonment of the technical knowledge and expertise embodied by that committee. Second, the Government removed all duly appointed members of ACIP and summarily replaced them without undertaking any of the rigorous screening that had been the hallmark of ACIP member selection for decades. Again, this procedural failure highlights the very reasons why procedures exist and raises a substantial likelihood that the newly appointed ACIP fails to comport with governing law." It's amazing how well Judge Murphy can convey what he is *actually* thinking through such otherwise dry language! He then goes through the factual background of the case, including something I hadn't even known: When the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) countered the CDC's new immunization schedule by putting out a recommended immunization schedule of their own, RFK Jr. took to social media and *threatened* the AAP with the potential for legal action! (He has learned well at the knee of his president.) Somewhat humourously (at least if you have a dark sense of humour, as do I), his threat was that they would not be shielded by the Vaccine Injury Act, thus perhaps showing his hand as to part of what is behind the diminution of the recommended vaccines and immunization schedule: perhaps they are trying to *save money* by avoiding paying out compensation through the current National Vaccine Injury Compensation program, through which the Federal government pays compensation to people who are injured by vaccines. (How many of you knew about that? It's been around since 1986, it's one of the government's dirty little secrets.) Of course this is pure conjecture on my part - true, it’s conjecture based on knowledge and education, but conjecture nonetheless. This opinion is a delight - I highly recommend reading the whole thing (included for Notes from the Front members); I promise it will hearten you and elevate your mood! Notes from the Front members: This delightful 45-page opinion and order are in your inbox now! Not a member? Join us below to access all the documents, our private dropbox including all the Epstein documents (even the disappeared ones), our private chat, and our archives. Plus your $5 a month helps to cover my cost for purchasing transcripts (each court transcript runs between $35 and $250), and storing documents in the private dropbox before they can be disappeared. And hey, where else can you have a lawyer explain all of these lawsuits and documents to you for just $5 a month? :~) Join now at the link below, which will also give you immediate access to this post’s documents as soon as you join: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/omg-court-st…

WOW! THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER JUST RESIGNED IN A *STUNNING* LETTER TO TRUMP! Here is the letter from @joekent16jan19 "President Trump, After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today. I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby. I support the values and the foreign policies that you campaigned on in 2016, 2020, 2024, which you enacted in your first term. Until June of 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were trap that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation. In your first administration, you understood better than any modern President how to decisively apply military power without getting us drawn into never-ending wars. You demonstrated this by killing Qasam Solamani and by defeating ISIS. Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is a the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make this mistake again. As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives. I pray that you will reflect upon what we are doing in Iran, and who we are doing it for. The time for bold action is now. You can reverse course and chart a new path for our nation, or you can allow us to slip further toward decline and chaos. You hold the cards. It was an honor to serve in your administration and to serve our great nation. Joseph Kent Director, National Counterterrorism Center Notes from the Front members: a pdf of this letter is also in your inbox for you.

BREAKING!! COURT ISSUES INJUNCTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATION'S "YOU'VE GOT A NICE SNAP PROGRAM HERE, COLORADO, IT'D BE A SHAME IF ANYTHING HAPPENED TO IT" Today the Federal Court for the District of Colorado issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Trump administration from forcing Colorado to take part in a "pilot project" in order to continue to receive certain SNAP funds, and to not be penalized by the withholding of SNAP funds. This lawsuit, originally filed in October of 2025, actually started out as a lawsuit fighting Trump's efforts to move Space Force out of Colorado. However in January of this year Colorado amended its complaint after receiving a letter advising it that it must comply with a new pilot project related to SNAP. That letter, dated December 17th, 2025, gave Colorado just *30 days* to recertify "all SNAP households in Arapahoe, Adams, Jefferson, Boulder, and Douglas counties," *including* "by accounting for the income and resources of any excluded household members, conducting in-person interviews, and using federal eligibility tools like the improved, cost-free Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program database." And of course Colorado had to preserve documentation of all of its efforts, and the data associated therewith, the implicit threat being that Colorado could be required to turn over all of that data to the administration. It then went on to say that "Failure to participate in this pilot project as specified by USDA will trigger noncompliance procedures," could affect Colorado's participation in SNAP, and then *had the cheek* to close with "Thank you for your continued work to help address the needs of vulnerable Americans." Fortunately, our awesome AG, Phil Weiser, was right on it, and filed an amended complaint to the original Space Force lawsuit, which was a great way to get this issue into the Court quickly, not to mention to bring to the same judge's attention what *else* the administration was pulling. In a lovely 52-page opinion and order (included for Notes from the Front members along with a copy of the administration's 'pilot project' (code name "Screw Colorado") letter), Judge Jackson snapped right back (see what I did there?) at the administration, granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting the administration from enforcing the pilot project, and also forbidding the administration from "taking any adverse action against Colorado for its refusal to comply with any of the demands of the Recertification Letter." (Recall that a preliminary injunction is different from an emergency injunction (also known as a temporary restraining order or TRO) in that a preliminary injunction means that the Court has actually held a hearing, heard arguments, and reviewed facts and evidence, prior to issuing the injunction.) You can read the handwriting on the wall from the opening words of the opinion: "On December 18, 2025, with no advance warning, Colorado Governor Jared Polis received a one-page letter from an undersecretary at the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) stating that Colorado (“the State”) was being “require[ed]” to participate in a “pilot project” related to the State’s administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”). The letter is as astonishing as it is brief. Without identifying any specific allegations, it states that, due to nationwide benefits fraud, including “multiple requests [by USDA] to [Colorado] to fulfill its administrative responsibilities,” the State is directed to recertify the eligibility of “all SNAP households” in five of its most populous counties “within 30 days of the receipt of this letter." And it only gets better from there, culminating in the order: "For the reasons stated above, Colorado’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, is hereby GRANTED, and USDA is PRELIMINIARILY ENJOINED from compelling Colorado’s participation in the pilot project or taking any adverse action against Colorado for its refusal to comply with any of the demands of the Recertification Letter. SO ORDERED this 16 th day of March, 2026." Oh snap! Notes from the Front members: The opinion and order, as well as the letter, are in your inbox now. Not a member yet? Join us to access all documents, our private chat, our private dropbox including all the Epstein files (even the disappeared ones), and more.. Plus your $5 a month helps support my efforts grabbing, purchasing, explaining, and storing documents before they can be disappeared - much of which I have to pay for out of my own pocket. (And hey, where else can you have a lawyer explain all of these lawsuits and documents to you for just $5 a month? :~) ) You can join by following this link, which will also give you immediate access to this post’s documents as soon as you join: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/breaking-cou…

I JUST GOT DONE RE-READING MAXWELL'S INDICTMENT AND GOT CREEPED OUT ALL OVER AGAIN Actually I should say I just got done reading the second, superceding indictment. The original sealed indictment was handed down on June 29, 2020 (and was subsequently unsealed). Then the second, superceding indictment was filed on July 8th. The second, superceding indictment articulated trafficking charges, and expanded the time frame out through 2004. As familiar as I am with it all, it just struck me all over again what a sick fnck Maxwell is. Her whole methodology is laid out in the indictment, in step-by-step descriptions. You can see how and why these girls were led down the merry path, trusting that she and Epstein had their best interests at heart. There's also that bit at the end, the sixth count: perjury. That's right, for all of you people who think that people never get in trouble for perjury, they do (except in family law, but that's another story for another day). This is also a lesson in how skilled lawyers can lay a trap for someone whom they know has given conflicting answers while under oath. During a deposition of Maxwell in 2016 (so 4 years before the indictment) Maxwell said, among other untrue things: "Q: Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? A: I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself. Q: I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you? A: That is my testimony, that is correct . Q: Is it your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage? A: I have not given anyone a massage. Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony? A . That is my testimony." Of course her pants were blazing away. I also had it brought home to me again, with the pictures of the properties that are included in the indictment, both how vast - and how *isolated* - Zorro Ranch is. While I'm sure that many of you were following this as the indictment was happening, and she was arrested, you would be forgiven if you *weren't* aware of it at the time, because it happened while something else large was in the news: massive numbers of people dying from Covid. Because... summer 2020. If you haven't already seen this superceding indictment, and if you want to, Notes from the Front members, it's in your inbox now. Not a member? Join us to access all the documents, our private dropbox including all the Epstein documents (even the disappeared ones), our private chat, and our archives. Plus your $5 a month helps to cover my cost for purchasing transcripts (each court transcript runs between $35 and $250), and storing documents in the private dropbox before they can be disappeared, and hey, where else can you have a lawyer explain all of these lawsuits and documents to you for just $5 a month? :~) Join now at the link below, which will also give you immediate access to this post’s documents as soon as you join: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/i-just-got-d…

YES!! JUDGE ORDERS TRUMP TO TURN OVER DOCUMENTS USED TO JUSTIFY "COMPLETE REBUILDING" OF KENNEDY CENTER! This past Saturday (yes, on the *weekend*) a Federal judge ordered Trump (the named defendant) and the administration to turn over documents that are being used to justify shutting down the Kennedy Center for two years, in order to conduct, and I quote, a "complete rebuilding" of the Kennedy Center. (Full opinion and order included for Notes from the Front members.) Here's what's going on: There are two types of trustees on the board of trustees of the Kennedy Center: those that are appointed by the president, and then those which are appointed by the statute creating the Kennedy Center (known as "ex officio" board members). The ex officio board members are designated by *position* (such as the "Mayor of D.C.", etc.), and include seats for Congressional representatives. Congresswoman Joyce Beatty is a representative from Ohio who fills one of those positions, in other words she is an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center board of trustees. For the most part, ever since the founding of the Kennedy Center (originally named the National Cultural Center and established in 1958) the ex officio board members have been considered voting members, and have in fact voted on Kennedy Center board business. That all changed when Trump appointed himself to the board, replaced certain board members, had himself voted chairman, and tried to change the name of the Kennedy Center by adding his name (only Congress can do that). At the end of a meeting in December, which Beatty was attending remotely, "to Beatty’s surprise, it was announced at the end of the meeting that Board would vote on whether to add Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center title. Beatty tried to voice her opposition to the announcement, but found herself involuntarily muted." Unable to unmute herself, "The Board took a vote and declared the result “unanimous”: The Center would be renamed." So on December 22, 2025, Beatty filed a lawsuit challenging the renaming of the Kennedy Center. But there was another surprise in store for Beatty and others: Trump's announcement on February 1st that he would be closing the Kennedy Center for two years for "complete rebuilding". Beatty wrote to Trump asking to see the documents on which Trump was relying in order to justify the closure and rebuilding, including, for example, expert reports, contracts, a list of the performance contracts that would be impacted by the closure, etc.. The silence was deafening. At the end of February Beatty learned from another of the ex officio members that there was to be a special meeting at the White House on March 16 (so, yes, today), to discuss the proposed closure. Beatty hadn't even received an invitation (although later she found it in her spam folder - if the White House would like me to consult to them about deliverability....), and hadn't received any of the requested documents to support the closure and, in any event, had no reason to think that they would not mute her and would not allow her to vote again. So on March 6th Beatty amended her complaint to also include the proposed closure and rebuild, and the failure to produce the requested documents, and she also filed a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) regarding the same (also included for Notes from the Front members). This brings us to Saturday, when Judge Christopher Cooper issued a 37-page opinion and order requiring Trump to cough up the information related to the proposed closure, and to allow Beatty to attend the meeting *and* to be given an opportunity to speak (but *not* necessarily to vote, because the Court found that she would not suffer irreparable harm by not being allowed to vote - irreparable harm is a requirement for a TRO). That meeting, which is happening right now (or will have just happened, depending on when you read this), will *not* include the final vote, which will, by all accounts, take place behind closed doors at some point in the near future. Notes from the Front members: Judge Cooper's 37-page opinion and order, along with Beatty's TRO request, are in your inbox now. Not a member yet? Join us to access all documents, our private chat, our private dropbox including all the Epstein files (even the disappeared ones), and more.. Plus your $5 a month helps support my efforts grabbing, purchasing, explaining, and storing documents before they can be disappeared - much of which I have to pay for out of my own pocket. (And hey, where else can you have a lawyer explain all of these lawsuits and documents to you for just $5 a month? :~) ) You can join by following this link, which will also give you immediate access to this post’s documents as soon as you join: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/yes-judge-or…

FOR EVERYONE ASKING ME ABOUT THE "ANTIFA" CASE With the caveat that I have not read the opinion yet, nor do I intend to today because Sunday is supposed to be my one day off, but y'all are insistently asking me, it's very important to understand that at the end of the day, as I understand it,  the fact that they were found guilty of "domestic terrorism" was a function of them having weapons and ammunition, and one of them using an AR-15 to shoot a guard (he lived). It was wholly predictable that they would be found guilty. Like I said, I haven't read the opinion yet, if it's even out (just a whole lot of media with misleading headlines) but I highly doubt they were found guilty of being "antifa" so much as of having weapons and using them.

Just a quick reminder that if you want to read along as I write my memoir (it's free!) you can do that here (did I mention that it's free?): thestoryofanneslife.substack.com

GOOD NEWS FROM THE FRONT WEEKLY ROUNDUP - 3/14/26 Here’s a recap of all of the good things that have happened over the past week or so in our battle to defend our country from the ravages of the current administration, and to turn this ship around! *Reminder: The full pdfs of all of the documents discussed below are permanently available to Notes from the Front members in the archives here: annepmitchell.substack.com/archive Not a member yet? Join us to access all documents, our private chat, our private dropbox including all the Epstein files (even the disappeared ones), and more.. Plus your $5 a month helps support my efforts grabbing, purchasing, explaining, and storing documents before they can be disappeared (much of which I have to pay for out of my own pocket. (And hey, where else can you have a lawyer explain all of these lawsuits and documents for you for just $5 a month? :~) ) You can join right here, which will also give you immediate access to this post’s documents as soon as you join: annepmitchell.substack.com/subscribe Ok, on to this week’s good news! Notes from the Front members: don't forget that you can * listen* to this article, just like a podcast, by hitting the play arrow in the upper right-hand corner of the Substack app! COURT GIVES GLORIOUS 130-PAGE SPANKING TO THE ADMINISTRATION! You may not have heard of Raheel Naviwala, nor Daniel Torres, but you'll *love* the big spanking that District Court Judge Matthew Brann, of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, just gave the administration on their behalf in this 130-page opinion (included for Notes from the Front members). And you've *definitely* heard of whose departure precipitated this smack-down: once-upon-a-time Assistant U.S. Attorney Alina Habba. As you may recall, this administration in general, and Pam Bondi in particula... strike that... also this administration in particular... is fond of appointing people to positions that *require* the advice and consent of Congress. Not "Run it by Congress." Not "Send Congress a text message letting them know you've done it." And definitely NOT "Getting Congressional consent is optional." The advice and CONSENT of Congress. It's right in the Constitution. And as if a finer point needed to be put on it, it's *also* codified in Federal law in the United States Attorney statute, 28 U.S.C. §541.104 which says, and I quote, "The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district." Pretty darn clear, eh? Of course, it's *so* clear that the only inference which can be drawn by this administration's repeated violation of it is that it is a willful violation. Hanlon's razor says "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Mitchell's corollary to Hanlon's razor is "Repeated acts originally attributed to stupidity, once pointed out, can be attributed to malice." Back to Habba's departure triggering this: you see, after the Court ruled that anything that Habba had done was essentially void, because she had been appointed illegally, she resigned. And Bondi *immediately* illegally appointed three new Assistant U.S. Attorneys, without the advice, let alone the consent, of Congress. Here's a taste of the case and the opinion; as you read through this don't be confused by who are the "defendants". This is an appeal of criminal prosecutions against Naviwala and Torres - they are saying that their criminal cases should be thrown out because Habba brought the prosecutions and she had no authority to do so because she was illegally appointed. "The Government explicitly concedes that “[t]he Rube Goldberg-style delegation mechanism employed” here is not necessary to keep the office running. At the time of oral argument, at least three undisputedly legal methods were immediately available to fill the United States Attorney’s position and resolve this controversy. First and second, two paths under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act permit the President to designate an individual with specific qualifications to perform the United States Attorney’s functions and duties as long as time remains... And third, the Judges of the District of New Jersey may still appoint a United States Attorney to serve indefinitely until a nominee is confirmed... An appointment under any of these provisions would give the Government the power to move prosecutions ahead and ratify past actions that have not yet been invalidated. Additionally, the President could at any time fill the office by nominating someone to be confirmed by the Senate. The Government acknowledges that these are viable methods. With all these options remaining, why does the fate of thousands of criminal prosecutions in this District potentially rest on the legitimacy of an unprecedented and byzantine leadership structure? The Government tells us: the President doesn’t like that he cannot simply appoint whomever he wants." Well, as you might imagine, Judge Brann is having none of that. "I am not fooled by the Government’s superficial arguments. The triumvirate is not exercising a distinct delegation of the Attorney General’s authority to oversee litigation. That assertion is nothing more than a rhetorical smokescreen, invented to serve this litigation, and carrying absolutely no functional effect." And: "Recognizing the novelty of these legal questions, I believe that a stay of this decision is appropriate to ensure a speedy appeal. However, my reasoning makes clear that a stay cannot validate an unlawful appointment. If the Government chooses to leave the triumvirate in place, it does so at its own risk." "At its own risk." BOOM! COURT HOLDS KARI LAKE HAD AND HAS NO AUTHORITY AND ALL HER ACTIONS ARE VOID! This week the Federal Court for the District of Columbia handed down an opinion and order (both included for Notes from the Front members) holding that *all* of the actions that Kari Lake took while ostensibly the CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) "shall have no force or effect", because, the Court found, she was improperly appointed. Holy shades of Lindsey Halligan, Batman! By now you probably know the drill: a vacancy happens, Trump appoints someone to fill the vacancy, bypassing that little thing that is *required*, known as "approval by Congress"; then the Court smacks it down, nullifying any actions taken by the someone that Trump appointed. I particularly like this footnote in the opinion: "According to public reporting, it was Lake who announced that Morales would serve as acting CEO in an email to USAGM staff. Although the defendants dispute the admissibility of the news reporting and contend it therefore should not be part of the summary judgment record, the Court has little doubt that the same facts could be presented in admissible form at a later date if needed, either as part of the administrative record or through the testimony of a party to the communication." In other words, the Court took note of what was being reported in the media; the administration said "you can't admit news reporting!" and the Court said the equivalent of "We can do it the easy way, or the hard way. We all know that she did it, if you want I can drag someone in here to testify to it, the outcome will be the same." Anyways, bottom line: Every single action that Kari Lake took at USAGM, including the Reduction in Force (RIF) notices such as at Voice of America, "and all other actions otherwise taken... shall have no force or effect." HUGE SPANKING QUASHES SUBPOENAS THAT TRUMP’S DOJ SENT TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE! AND YOU’LL NEVER GUESS WHO IS THE JUDGE! This is soooo beautiful!! This order quashing (which means "stopping them dead in their tracks") two subpoenas that Trump's DOJ sent to the Federal Reserve STARTS, at the very first sentence, quoting Trump himself, using his words against him! The two subpoenas are related to a grand jury investigation that Trump's DOJ has initiated in Trump's effort to pressure Fed Chair Jerome Powell to either do Trump's bidding or resign. We've discussed before how Trump is often his own worst enemy when it comes to his social media, as the Courts take notice of what he says! This gorgeous 27-page opinion (included for Notes from the Front members) starts out, I mean the *very first words* are: " “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS . . . . Put another way, ‘Too Late’ is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!” Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Soc. (July 31, 2025, at 7:11 AM). That is one of at least 100 statements that the President or his deputies have made attacking the Chair of the Federal Reserve and pressuring him to lower interest rates. So is this: “‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government . . . . TOO LATE’s an American Disgrace!” Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Soc. (June 19, 2025, at 10:04 AM)" Again, that is the Court's opening paragraph! The Court observes "The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will. On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts. It will therefore grant the Board’s Motion to Quash." Then there ensue many pages of Trump-spanking (you're gonna love it!) culminating in: "A mountain of evidence suggests that the Government served these subpoenas on the Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning. On the other side of the scale, the Government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual. The Court therefore finds that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose and will quash them. It will also unseal redacted versions of the Motion to Quash, related briefing, and this Opinion." Oh, and the Judge? None other than democracy hero Chief Judge James Boasberg. ___ And that’s the good news from the past week! Remember, if you are a Notes from the Front member *all* of the original source documents (transcripts, orders, and the like) are in the archives here. If you’re not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining us to access all documents, our private chat, our private dropbox, etc.. Plus your $5 a month helps support my efforts grabbing, purchasing, explaining, and storing documents before they can be disappeared (much of which I have to pay for out of my own pocket): You can cancel any time. Join here: annepmitchell.substack.com/subscribe Until next time, this is me, reporting from the front line of the battle to save the soul of our country. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. Internet Law & Policy Attorney, Legislative Advisor Author: Section 6 of the Federal CAN-SPAM Act CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Author: Notes from the Front (a Substack publication) Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop

HERE'S MY OPINION OF JEANINE PIRRO'S RESPONSE TO JUDGE BOASBERG'S QUASHING THE SUBPOENAS: She's a disgrace to the legal profession. In fact there are only two types of lawyers at the DOJ right now: those that are disgraces to the legal profession, and those that are staying there in quiet desperation hoping to offset the ridiculousness of those who are disgraces to the legal profession. As for my opinion of her temper tantrum today? Enh. It's typical bluster theater for an audience of one - Trump. They will appeal, they will lose. This is the lather, rinse, repeat cycle that has been going on since the beginning of last year. Dilute! Dilute! Ok! (For those who get that last bit, welcome, fellow hippies!)

WOOT!! WHAT A WAY TO END THE WEEK! HUGE SPANKING QUASHES SUBPOENAS THAT TRUMP'S DOJ SENT TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE! AND YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHO IS THE JUDGE! This is soooo beautiful!! This order quashing (which means "stopping them dead in their tracks") two subpoenas that Trump's DOJ sent to the Federal Reserve STARTS, at the very first sentence, quoting Trump himself, using his words against him! The two subpoenas are related to a grand jury investigation that Trump's DOJ has initiated in Trump's effort to pressure Fed Chair Jerome Powell to either do Trump's bidding or resign. We've discussed before how Trump is often his own worst enemy when it comes to his social media, as the Courts take notice of what he says! This gorgeous 27-page opinion (included for Notes from the Front members) starts out, I mean the *very first words* are: " “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS . . . . Put another way, ‘Too Late’ is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!” Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Soc. (July 31, 2025, at 7:11 AM). That is one of at least 100 statements that the President or his deputies have made attacking the Chair of the Federal Reserve and pressuring him to lower interest rates. So is this: “‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government . . . . TOO LATE’s an American Disgrace!” Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Soc. (June 19, 2025, at 10:04 AM)" Again, that is the Court's opening paragraph! The Court observes "The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will. On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts. It will therefore grant the Board’s Motion to Quash." Then there ensue many pages of Trump-spanking (you're gonna love it!) culminating in: "A mountain of evidence suggests that the Government served these subpoenas on the Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning. On the other side of the scale, the Government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual. The Court therefore finds that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose and will quash them. It will also unseal redacted versions of the Motion to Quash, related briefing, and this Opinion." Oh, and the Judge? None other than democracy hero Chief Judge James Boasberg. Notes from the Front members: Judge Boasberg's 27-page memorandum and order is in your inbox. Not a member? Join us to access all documents, our private chat, our private dropbox including all the Epstein files (even the disappeared ones), etc.. Plus your $5 a month helps support my efforts grabbing, purchasing, explaining, and storing documents before they can be disappeared (much of which I have to pay for out of my own pocket. And hey, how much would you expect to pay to have a lawyer analyze and explain even *one* document for you? :~) ) You can join by following this link, which will also give you immediate access to the document as soon as you join: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/woot-what-a-…

I know that these are stressful times, what with Trump trying to game the elections, so I am here to tell you that no matter what he tries, we will get through this. And it is not, by far, the first time that this has happened. We got through it before, and we will get through it again. So let me share a story with you. It's the story of Tilden versus Hays, two candidates for president in 1876. This is from The Miller Center, and this is the first part of it (with link to the full story at the end): "In the presidential election of 1876, Democrat Samuel Tilden ran against Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. At the end of election day, no clear winner emerged because the outcomes in South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana were unclear. Both parties claimed victory in those states, but Republican-controlled “returning” boards would determine the official electoral votes. Republicans and Democrats rushed to those three states to watch and try to influence the counting of the votes. The returning boards determined which votes to count and could throw out votes, if they deemed them fraudulent. The returning boards in all three states argued that fraud, intimidation, and violence in certain districts invalidated votes, and they threw out enough Democratic votes for Hayes to win. All three returning boards awarded their states’ electoral votes to Hayes. Meanwhile in Oregon, a strange development added that state to the uncertain mix. Hayes won the state, but one of the Republican electors, John W. Watts, was also postmaster, and the US Constitution forbids federal officeholders from being electors. Watts planned to resign from his position in order to be a Republican elector, but the governor of Oregon who was a Democrat, disqualified Watts and instead certified a Tilden elector. Electors cast their ballots in state capitals on December 6, 1876. Generally, the process went smoothly but in four capitals—Salem, Oregon; Columbia, South Carolina; Tallahassee, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana — two sets of conflicting electors met and voted so that the US Congress received two sets of conflicting electoral votes. At this point, Tilden had 184 electoral votes while Hayes had 165 with 20 votes still disputed." Keep reading: millercenter.org/the-presidency…

I FOUND ANOTHER FILE OF EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS *NOT* IN THE DOJ FILES THAT INCLUDES THE TRANSCRIPT OF MAXWELL'S SENTENCING HEARING (SO SATISFYING) AND TESTIMONY FROM ALEX ACOSTA ABOUT THE NPA! Of all the files that I have found and shared, if you read only one, make it this one. This *431* page file includes a lot of different documents, not the least of which are the full 100-page transcript of Maxwell's sentencing hearing (including a great deal of evidentiary information as well as direct victim testimony) *and* Alex Acosta's testimony before a congressional panel about that d*mned Non-Prosecution Agreement! How it happened, why it happened, why the co-conspirators were included, and how Florida pulled a fast one by granting Epstein work-release! Acosta's testimony is *very* interesting and very enlightening. In addition to those documents there are other court transcripts (including the cross-examination of Larry Visoski - Epstein's pilot), transcripts of media accounts, and more. The witness testimony from Sarah Ransome at Maxwell's sentencing hearing is at once heartbreaking and uplifting. She recounts how one time while on the island "the degradation and humiliation became so horrific that I tried to escape by attempting to jump off a cliff into shark-infested waters," and that after "lulling me and others into a false sense of security and comfort, they pounced, ensnaring us in the upside-down, twisted world". But she ends her testimony with "To Ghislaine, I say, you broke me in unfathomable ways, but you did not break my spirit, nor did you dampen my eternal flame that now burns brighter than ever before." (Excuse me, I have something in my eye.) Notes from the Front members: the full 431-page file is in your inbox now (and because I know you'll want to know, Maxwell's sentencing hearing transcript starts on page 24, and Acosta's testimony starts on page 128) Not a member? Join us to access all documents, our private chat, our private dropbox including all the Epstein files (even the disappeared ones), etc.. Plus your $5 a month helps support my efforts grabbing, purchasing, explaining, and storing documents before they can be disappeared (much of which I have to pay for out of my own pocket. And hey, how much would you expect to pay to have a lawyer analyze and explain even *one* document for you? :~) ) You can join now below: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/i-found-anot…

WOW!! 266 MORE PAGES OF MAXWELL EVIDENCE *NOT* IN THE DOJ FILES! This is the fourth installment from the mother lode of files (thousands of pages) related to Maxwell and Epstein that are *not* in the DOJ or House releases! In fact, these were filed *just 2 weeks ago*! (Links to the first three are down at the bottom.) In this 266-page batch (included for Notes from the Front members - and available immediately to new members (you can sign up at the end of this post)) there are an incredible assortment of files, including transcripts from Maxwell's trial, trial transcripts of the examination of "Shawn" (who was Carolyn Andriano's boyfriend at the time that she was being abused along with Virginia by Epstein - Carolyn is another victim who "committed suicide"), coverage about how some of the jurors at first *doubted* the victims and their testimony, and lists of names and places about which to question potential jurors. Then there is the letter to the judge from Epstein’s defense lawyers arguing that he should not be kept in custody pending trial, and which starts out saying (be sure you don’t have anything in your mouth when you read this, because you’ll likely do a spit take): “In essence, the government seeks to remand a self-made New York native and lifelong American resident based on dated allegations for which he was already convicted and punished - conduct the relitigation of which is barred by prior federal nonprosecution agreement (the “NPA”). The government makes this drastic demand even though Mr. Epstein has never once attempted to flee the United States - despite a Florida federal judge’ stated belief that he could void the NPA in appropriate circumstances… Indeed, Mr. Epstein feared the toxic political climate might tempt the government to try and end-run the NPA”. (Oh how we wish!) There are also several pages of *handwritten notes from the jury to the judge*, which is a rare view into what the jury was thinking and looking at during deliberation! For example one notes says "We would like the transcripts of Jane, Annie, and Carolyn." It is signed Juror "#26" (who was also the jury foreman). It *also* includes the jury's verdict sheet in Maxwell’s trial! That's pretty satisfying to read! And there are also communications to the judge and to and from someone at the Bureau of Prisons and Maxwell's defense lawyer, displaying quite a tiff over some legal documents and the delivery to (or not) of the documents and the possession by Maxwell (or not) of the documents. In all, this batch of documents provides a very interesting, broad and in-depth view into both the courts during trial *and* some of the workings of the prison system vis prisoners and their legal representation. It's very interesting! Notes from the Front members: the file with all 266 pages are in your inbox now. (Links to the first three batches are at the very bottom of this post.) Not a member? Join us to access all documents, our private chat, our private dropbox including all the Epstein files (even the disappeared ones), etc.. Plus your $5 a month helps support my efforts grabbing, purchasing, explaining, and storing documents before they can be disappeared (much of which I have to pay for out of my own pocket. And hey, how much would you expect to pay to have a lawyer analyze and explain even *one* document for you? :~) ) You can join now below: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/wow-266-more… Notes from the Front members, here are the links to first three batches, in case you want them all in one place: annepmitchell.substack.com/p/holy-cow-thi… annepmitchell.substack.com/p/here-is-the-… annepmitchell.substack.com/p/installment-…

EPSTEIN VICTIMS SUED FBI TO UNCOVER "THE FBI’S ROLE IN EPSTEIN’S CRIMINAL SEX TRAFFICKING RING", DISMISSED BECAUSE VICTIMS INSISTED ON ANONYMITY You may or may not have heard that in the beginning of 2024, a dozen victims (Jane Does 1-12) sued the FBI for failing in its duties in pursuing and prosecuting Epstein and his co-conspirators. The complaint 27-page complaint (included for Notes from the Front members) starts out: "For over two decades, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter “FBI”) permitted Jeffrey Epstein to sex traffic and sexually abuse scores of children and young women by failing to do the job the American people expected of it and that the FBI’s own rules and regulations required: investigate the reports, tips, and evidence it had of rampant sexual abuse and sex trafficking by Epstein and protect the young women and children who fell victim to him. As a result of the continued failures of the FBI, Jane Does 1-12 bring this lawsuit to get to the bottom-once and for all- of the FBI’s role in Epstein’s criminal sex trafficking ring." But what you may not have heard is that the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiffs, and *why* they dismissed it. Here is what may be a very hard pill to swallow for some of you: It was dismissed because they didn't meet the requirements for a lawsuit to proceed anonymously (actually pseudonymously), and so they dropped their lawsuit. The Sixth Amendment, among other things, guarantees a defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Pseudonymous lawsuits clearly aren't that. Typically the Courts only allow pseudonymous lawsuits (i.e. John Doe or Jane Doe lawsuits) if there is a compelling showing that the Plaintiffs are vulnerable *at the time of the filing of the lawsuit*. As the Court explains in its second rejection to Plaintiffs' second request to be allowed to maintain anonymity (also included for Notes from the Front members), pseudonymous lawsuits may be approved for, for example, children "because children are conceived as more vulnerable or because the child whose privacy is at stake has not chosen for himself or herself to pursue the litigation." By contrast, says the Court, the Plaintiffs are now *adults*, who can make up their own minds, and who have *chosen* to pursue litigation. This is the pill that's most hard to swallow for people, but it's the reality. For the most part, in order to get either culpable individuals or agencies into court, the victims are going to have to file lawsuits in their own names, and then not dismiss them. And this is why I keep saying that "justice for the victims" may not come in the form you are looking for, but *will* come in other forms, such as people being taken down for financial crimes, being forced to resign and then being arrested for various crimes, etc.. Notes from the Front members: the complaint against the FBI, and the Court's explanation for why the Jane Does couldn't move forward anonymously, are in your inbox now. Not a member? Join us to access all documents, our private chat, our private dropbox including all the Epstein files (even the disappeared ones), etc.. Plus your $5 a month helps support my efforts grabbing, purchasing, explaining, and storing documents before they can be disappeared (much of which I have to pay for out of my own pocket. And hey, how much would you expect to pay to have a lawyer analyze and explain even *one* document for you? :~) ) You can join now below. annepmitchell.substack.com/p/epstein-vict…