Gone fishing – River Birch Plaintiffs’ opposition to Court’s ex parte, in camera review of search warrant affidavit

Catch of the day from yesterday’s docket entries in Heebe-Ward-River Birch  v USA  was the Plaintiffs’ opposition brief filed after the evidentiary hearing.  As noted in the Minute Entry for the hearing, the Government asked the Court to conduct an ex parte, in camera review of the sealed affidavit to the search warrant.

In their opposition, the Plaintiffs contend:

…the Government has not offered any legal support for its request that the search warrant application affidavit be considered by the Court while simultaneously withheld from Plaintiffs. The Government’s only justification is that disclosing it could compromise its ongoing investigation. The Government cannot have it both ways. If the Government wants to use this search warrant application affidavit as evidence in this civil case, then the affidavit must be disclosed absent some exception to the main rule that ex parte determinations on the merits are not permitted in civil cases. Eisenberg, 654 F.2d at 1112. Here, however, the Government has failed to provide any authority in support of its ex parte submission or even argue that there is an applicable exception.

A plain English reading of the Opposition suggests the Plaintiffs’ argument makes the Government’s case – particularly when the judge has the civil rights focus of Federal District Judge Ginger Berrigan. My not-a-lawyer guess is the sealed affidavit names the informant who tippped the Government to the “spoilage” of evidence taking place on the third floor of the River Birch office building – making the Plaintiffs’ Opposition a fishing expedition.

Time will tell. Meanwhile, things are clearly winding down. The docket entries also included a Notice of Removal of Exhibits with a list of exhibits attached.

One thought on “Gone fishing – River Birch Plaintiffs’ opposition to Court’s ex parte, in camera review of search warrant affidavit”

  1. To the extent that I still have a voice in the disbared, disgraced, embarrassed and humiliated body, I urge Judge Berrigan to “RULE IN FAVOR OF THE CRIMINALS”. Let’s take stock of what we’ve got: (1) On the one hand, persons who appear to be guilty of public bribery (kickbacks), honest services fraud, mail fraud and lying to Federal officers (among other things), whereas (2) On the other hand, persons who conspired to (and actually did) violate the rights of a U.S. citizen after KATRINA, and then conspired to obstruct justice and “cover-up” those crimes through the preparation of false reports, simultanelousy abusing their power to prosecute the “victim” for a “make-believe” crime calculated to “run-cover” for the physical injuries inflicted on the “victim” by their colleagues, post-KATRINA. So, HEY!, Judge Berrigan: Please RULE IN FAVOR OF THE CRIMINALS. Ashton O’Dwyer a/k/a “The WHITE Henry Glover”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *