Jack - Protected Whistleblower Disclosure of Erez Reuveni

Episode Date: June 25, 2025

Protected Whistleblower Disclosure of Erez Reuveni Regarding Violation of Laws, Rules & Regulations, Abuse of Authority, and Substantial and Specific Danger to Health and Safety at the Department of Justicehttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25982172-doj-whistleblower-letter/ Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn’t on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

MSW Media. Hey, everybody. Welcome to a bonus episode of Unjustified. Not sure if this is going to take one episode or two, but this is the audio version of Orez-Ruveni's whistleblower letter about what went on behind the scenes in the days leading up to the government disappearing, plain loads of people under the Alien Enemies Act Proclamation, the legality of which is still being litigated in court.

I'm Alison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. This is rare. This is rare to have someone at the center of kind of a legal issue like that, that's still being adjudicated, of kind of a legal issue like that, that's still being adjudicated, to just lay it all out in 27 or so pages, exactly what happened, what meetings he went to,

what he saw, what people said, what they did. It's really kind of an interesting look behind the scenes. It is, like you said, we rarely get to peel back the curtain like this. Now you and I had speculated a little bit on the Unjustified podcast about what went on behind the scenes. We were close, if not right on, to what went down. So let's take a look at this letter.

We're going to start on page one, like you do. It says, regarding protected whistleblower disclosure of Erez-Riveni regarding violation of laws, rules, and regulations, abuse of authority, and substantial and specific danger to the health and safety of the Department of Justice. Dear all, we, the Government Accountability Project and Gilbert Employment Law PC, represent Mr. Erez Reveni, formerly the Acting Deputy Director for the Office of Immigration Litigation, otherwise known as OIL, of the Department of Justice and a whistleblower. Mr. Ravini presents the following disclosures to your

attention for your respective offices to take appropriate oversight action. Now, this is going to Jim Jordan and the Honorable Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary. It's also going to Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin, a ranking member of the US House Committee on the Judiciary. It's also going to Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin, a ranking member of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. So Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Also, Michael Horowitz, Inspector General at the Department of Justice, one of two inspectors general that didn't lose their jobs in the first week

of this administration. And Jameson Greer, Acting Special Counsel, US Office of Special Counsel. So that's not like a special counsel like Jack Smith. That's what Hampton Dellinger used to do. That's right. Yeah, it's like an internal office, kind of a lawyer police within DOJ. Right. So the letter goes on to say, between March 14th, 2025 and April 5th, 2025,

Mr. Ravi, almost immediately after receiving notice of his promotion to serve as the acting deputy director of OIL, do we call that oil, Andy, or just OIL? I think we go with OIL. All right. Became aware of the plans of DOJ leadership to resist court orders that would impede potentially illegal efforts to deport non-citizens and further became aware of the details to execute those plans.

On April 4th, 2025, after raising concerns internally to his chain of command for nearly three weeks regarding the government's compliance with court orders and candor to the courts, Mr. Rouveni appeared before Judge Paula Sinis, United States District Court Judge in the District of Maryland, on behalf of the government in the case of Mr. Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. During that appearance, Mr. Rivani candidly and truthfully informed the court, based on

the evidentiary record, that Mr. Abrego-Garcia's removal from the United States was a mistake. Later that evening, Mr. Rivani refused directions from his superiors to file a brief misrepresenting those facts to the court. As a result, Mr. Riveni was put on administrative leave on April 5th, 2025, and his employment was ultimately terminated April 11th. In this letter, Mr. Riveni exercises his rights to make disclosures to Congress, the DOJ, OIG, and the OSC pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2302 and 5 U.S.C. 1213. Mr. Ravini's disclosures detail violations of law, rules, or regulations and the abuse

of authority by DOJ and White House personnel, as well as the creation of substantial and specific health and safety threats to non-citizens. These high-level government personnel knowingly and willfully defied court orders, directed their subordinate attorneys to make misrepresentations to the courts, and engaged in a scheme to withhold relevant information from the court to advance the administration's priority of deporting non-citizens. Since April 5, 2025, it has been widely reported that, according to DOJ sources, Mr. Ravini was put on administrative leave by DOJ for allegations of failure to follow a directive

from his superiors, failure to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States and for arguing against Homeland Security and the State Department when he truthfully represented to the courts that Mr. Abrego Garcia's removal was in error. These statements by Attorney General Pamela Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanch, are false and misleading. Indeed, it has since been reported that prior to the April 4 hearing, senior counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security and Trump appointee James Percival conceded that Mr. Abrego Garcia's removal was an administrative error, not that we should say publicly. Nevertheless, White

House officials have publicly disparaged Mr. Ravenny to justify their refusal to comply with the Constitution and with court orders. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller falsely stated, quote, the only mistake that was made is a lawyer put an incorrect line in a legal filing and labeled Mr. Ravenny a saboteur, a Democrat. Referring to Mr. Ravini, President Trump stated, well, the lawyer that said it was a mistake was here a long time, was not appointed by us, should not have said that,

should not have said that. What has not been reported to date are Mr. Ravini's attempts over the course of the three weeks and affecting three separate cases to secure the government's compliance with court orders and his resistance to the internal efforts of the DOJ and the White House leadership to defy them through lack of candor, deliberate delay, and disinformation, discouraging clients from engaging in illegal conduct as an important part of the role of a lawyer. Mr. Rouveni tried to do so and was thwarted, threatened, fired, and publicly disparaged for both doing his job

and telling the truth to the court. Because his clients engaged in unlawful activity, abused their authority, created substantial and specific threats to health and safety, and because the pattern of this conduct continues to this day, Mr. Ravine is exercising his rights under 5 US code 2302 and 1213 to report wrongdoing. Since his unlawful termination, six members of Congress have written to

Attorney General Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Blanche decrying the Hobbesian choice DOJ leadership has created for attorneys, quote, who may be forced to choose between their jobs and their oath of candor to the courts and calling for Mr. Ravini's reinstatement. We thank these members for their support of Mr. Ravini and urge all members of Congress committed to the rule of law, along with the DOJ inspector general

and the US office of special counsel to investigate the disclosures presented in this letter. Office of Special Counsel to investigate the disclosures presented in this letter. Section 1. Rez Revenney, nonpartisan, zealous advocate with distinguished service to DOJ. Before his unlawful removal from federal services on April 11, 2025, Mr. Revenney had an exemplary, nearly 15-year legal career at DOJ. Mr. Ravenny began his career at the Office of Immigration Litigation, OIL, District Court Section in 2010 as a trial attorney and was promoted multiple times under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Most recently, Mr. Ravenny served as the acting deputy director for the Office of Immigration Litigation, responsible for all of OIL's immigration litigation arising in U.S. district courts nationwide, overseeing over 100 attorneys handling hundreds of cases. His supervisory responsibilities included oversight of the government's defense against many significant legal challenges to multiple executive orders signed by President Trump and defending multiple immigration policy initiatives on behalf of the Departments of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Labor, and Health and Human Services. Mr. Raveny received notice of his promotion to that role on March 14, 2025,

effective Friday, March 21st, and in the following week alone, oversaw and defended the government's position in at least seven cases involving motions for temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions seeking court orders and joining Trump administration policies nationwide, including multiple emergency appeals to various courts of appeal. Prior to Mr. Ravenny's termination, following his candid and truthful representations to the court in the Abrego Garcia case, Department of Justice leadership under the Trump administration had consistently lauded Mr. Riveni's work. For example, in March of 2025 in a March 21st email announcing Mr. Riveni's recent promotion, Deputy Assistant Attorney

General Drew Ensign remarked that Mr. Riveni, quote, is a top-notched litigator spelling who has taken on some of OIL's most challenging cases over the past nearly 15 years, including as assistant director for over seven years and multiple stints as counsel in the Civil Division front office, having led and litigated complex cases protecting our immigration authorities, developed sanctuary city affirmative cases, and worked closely with our many excellent attorneys handling district court litigation. Additionally, Mr. Ravini's most recent performance review under the prior Trump administration was stellar. Then Deputy Director Colin Kaiser wrote, quote, Assistant Director Arez Revenney continues to be one of OIL

DSC's premier litigators and supervisors. He's an outstanding attorney, legal writer, and oral advocate. He continues to handle some of the section's most difficult and highest profile cases. Mr. Kaiser further noted that quote Mr. Ravenny routinely received accolades for his efforts from senior personnel within DOJ and the agencies he advocates for is an quote indispensable asset to OIL, the Civil Division, DOJ and the many client agencies he works closely with and quote has truly earned an excellent rating for this rating period. Indeed, Mr. Ravini has received an excellent rating for every year he's worked at the department

since 2010. On top of that, he is a recipient of nine civil division awards, including three during the prior Trump administration for helping lead the COVID-19 immigration litigation response team in 2020, leading district court litigation on behalf of the sanctuary city's litigation team in 2019, and leading defense of the protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry executive order in 2017. For years, Mr. Ravini oversaw the defense

of immigration priorities, regardless of political party. During the first Trump administration, Mr. Rav States has been responsible for the nationalities regardless of political party. During the first Trump administration, Mr. Ravini led the defense of the administration's initiatives,

including the executive orders and proclamation barring entry of certain nationalities to the United States, multiple rules barring access to asylum to migrants at the southern border, including the entry, transit, and criminal asylum bars, the migrant protection protocols, and the defense of the expedited removal statute against constitutional challenges. Mr. Rivene also led an affirmative suit challenging the state of California's laws alleged to

interfere with federal immigration enforcement efforts. During the Biden administration, Mr. Rivene defended multiple immigration matters, including several rules barring access to asylum to those arriving on the southern border. Earlier in his career, he defended multiple Obama-era labor and employment regulations, as well as detention and removal policies and procedures. Before his abrupt termination, Mr. Ravenny oversaw multiple high-profile Trump administration immigration initiatives.

In short, Mr. Ravenny has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the interests of the United States for years, with a stellar record of advocating successfully on behalf of multiple presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic. To suggest Mr. Raveni is anything but a zealous advocate for the United States, who takes his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously, is both false and outrageous. All right. Before we get to section two, we're going to take a really quick break. So everybody stick around. We'll. Welcome back. We are now on page seven of 27, and this is section two, March 14th, 2025. DOJ leadership expressed intent to ignore court orders to effectuate removal flights under the Alien Enemies Act.

On Friday, March 14th, 2025, Mr. Riveni received notice of his promotion to acting deputy director of the Office of Immigration Litigation. That same day, following news reports that the president intended to sign a presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act or the AEA, presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act or the AEA, Mr. Ravenny was summoned to a meeting by Deputy Assistant Attorney General of OIL, Drew Ensign. At the meeting were Principal Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Paydag, Emile Bovi, Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General, James McHenry, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Paul Perkins, DAAG N-Sign, Acting Director for OIL, and Mr. Ravini's Direct Supervisor Auguste Flinché and other OIL attorneys. Now, I want to break in here and say that that Auguste Flinché person, his direct supervisor, was also put on administrative

leave, I believe. I'm not sure if they cover that in the letter, but we'll continue on here. also put on administrative leave, I believe. I'm not sure if they cover that in the letter, but we'll continue on here. At the meeting, Boevi indicated to those in attendance that the AEA proclamation would soon be signed and that one or more planes containing individuals subject to the AEA would be taking off over the weekend, meaning Saturday, March 15 and Sunday, March 16. Boevi did not provide further details and redacted redacted. Boevi indicated redacted and stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what. Boevi then made a remark concerning the possibility that a court order would enjoin those removals before they could be effectuated. Boevi stated the DOJ would need to consider telling the courts, fuck you, and ignore any such court order. Mr. Riveni perceived that others in the room looked

stunned and he observed awkward nervous glances among people in the room. Silence overtook the room. Mr. Riveni and others were quickly ushered out of the room. Notwithstanding Bovey's directive, Mr. Riveni left the meeting understanding that DOJ would tell the Department of Homeland Security to follow all court orders. Mr. Reveni was stunned by Boeve's statement because, to Mr. Reveni's knowledge, no one in DOJ leadership in any administration had ever suggested the Department of Justice could blatantly ignore court orders, especially with a fuck you.

Mr. Ravini was in disbelief because, on the contrary, the Department of Justice consistently advises its clients of their obligation to follow court orders, not to ignore them. Mr. Ravini knew that it was absurd and unlawful to do otherwise, a proposition that Mr. Ravini felt even more certain of after a brief conversation with his supervisor, August Flenche, shortly after the meeting. Section three, between March 14, 2025 and his unlawful suspension on April 5, 2025, Mr.

Ravini refused to obey an illegal order and made protected whistleblower disclosures. Mr. Ravenny refused to obey an illegal order and made protected whistleblower disclosures. Mr. Ravenny's disbelief following the meeting with Beauvais is now a relic of a different time. Over the next three weeks, Mr. Ravenny was involved in three separate cases involving the legality of the administration's immigration removal operations under its newly implemented priorities, during which time he directly witnessed and reported 1. DOJ officials undermining the rule of law by ignoring court orders 2. DOJ presenting quote legal arguments with no basis in

law 3. high-rank ranking DOJ and DHS officials misrepresenting facts presented before courts, and four, DOJ officials directing Mr. Ravenney to misrepresent facts in one of these cases in violation of Mr. Ravenney's legal and ethical duties as an officer of the court. Mr. Ravenney's internal reporting and ultimately his

refusal to obey this illegal order directly resulted in his suspension and termination. Part A. JGG versus Trump. Flights departed the United States through invocation of the Alien Enemies Act during issuance of an injunction with government claiming oral injunctions are not binding. At 1 12 a.m. on Saturday, March 15, 2025, prior to publication of the Alien Enemies Act Proclamation, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit on behalf of five Venezuelan men facing imminent deportation under the AEA and moved for a temporary restraining order to prevent their removal.

When Mr. Raveny woke up that morning, he reviewed the plaintiff's motion and learned that the removals were allegedly to prisons in El Salvador, known for their torture and human rights abuses. After learning from plaintiff's counsel that at least one plaintiff was reportedly already aboard a removal flight, Judge James Boesberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered an ex parte TRO prohibiting the government from removing the five named plaintiffs and set a hearing for 4 p.m., which the court later changed to 5 p.m. to hear an argument on the broader TRO. Subsection 1, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ensign willfully misled the court

while DHS and DOS ignored Mr. Rouveni's advice. Shortly after Judge Boesberg entered the initial TRO, Mr. Rouveni informed the district court email at 1018 a.m. that its order had been received and, quote, disseminated to the relevant executive branch agencies. At 5 p.m. at the hearing later that day, NSINe represented the government in court while Mr. Raveny listened on the public line, emailing DHS and DOS agency counsel periodically. At this hearing, Judge Boasberg said, quote, the plaintiffs expected planes to be departing within the last couple of hours and asked Ensign, quote,

if any of the named plaintiffs are in fact on any plane that has departed. Ensign ensured the court that none of the named plaintiffs would be removed during the pendency of the tro. When Judge Boasberg asked if that meant the plaintiffs, quote, are either not on the planes or that they will not be removed from the planes and will be brought back once the planes land in El Salvador, Ensign asserted, quote, I don't

know the status of the planes. If there are removal flights, the five would not be on them. When Judge Boasberg asked whether any deportations or removals were imminent, as in in the next 24 or 48 hours, Ensign answered, I don't know the answer to that question. Mr. Rouveni reasonably believes Ensign's statements to the court that he did not know whether AEA removals would take place in the next 24 or 48 hours was false. Ensign had been present in the previous day's meeting when Emile Bovi stated clearly that one or more planes containing individuals subject to the AEA would be taking off over

the weekend no matter what. Ensign then added, quote, we can certainly investigate that and report that back to you. When Judge Boesberg asked how soon he could get that information, Ensign said that the government could certainly include the information in a document they were planning to file tomorrow night. The plaintiff's lawyer stressed the urgency of the situation, noting his, quote, understanding from people on the ground, from different sources, that the planes are going right now, taking Venezuelans to El Salvador, that two flights may have already taken off during this hearing and

urged the court to issue a class TRO to avoid any more harm. At that point, Judge Boesberg adjourned the hearing until 6 p.m. to, quote, let Mr. Ensign do some digging. The court specified quote, Mr. Ensign, I will want to know have planes in fact, is deportation of people under the proclamation pursuant to the AEA in motion now, and will it be for the next 48 hours? Ensign responded, quote, we can do that, your honor.

The adjournment began at 522 p.m. Mr. Ravini was not included in Ensign's conversations with DHS, DOS, or DOJ leadership during this period. However, prior to 524 p.m., DOJ attorneys, including Ensign and Mr. Ravini, received an email from plaintiff's attorney citing public reporting of flight information and stating that they had reason to believe

that people were on planes for imminent deportation. According to public reports and various websites that track the whereabouts of airplanes in real time, at least two planes took off from Texas after the start of the hearing, the first at 5.26 p.m. and the second at 5.45 p.m. in route to what online sources speculated was a final destination of El Salvador. I'd like to just interject here that I shared those flight trackers on social media when I was at the airport flying from somewhere to somewhere. I don't remember where.

But that hearing, I remember Judge Boasberg, it was on a weekend, showed up in civvies. He didn't have any robes with him. He said, but this is an emergency. We have to do this. Got to get on it. Okay. That goes on to say, yet at 6 p.m., following the 38-minute adjournment, DAAG Ensign provided Judge Boesberg with no information regarding flight departures.

Specifically, Ensign told the court, quote, I don't have many details to share, explaining that his, quote, clients said that the, quote, operational details raised potential national security issues, particularly ones if discussed with a public line. When Ensign said that his clients raised that we may be able to provide, Your Honor, additional details in an in-camera hearing, Judge Boesberg quickly arranged, quote, to disconnect the public phone line

and start an in-camera proceeding. But even after the court accommodated the request for an in-camera proceeding, Ensign failed to provide information about the flights. He explained that we would have to sort out what can still be provided in-camera. They suggested that as a way to potentially provide some details, but I do not personally have those right now. Once it became clear that Ensign would not provide information even in camera, the court ended the in-camera proceeding and reconnected the public line. That's interesting to see what happened in that in-camera proceeding.

Next page, and we by the way are on page. Plaintiffs' counsel told the court, quote, "'We understand that two flights went to El Salvador "'this afternoon and that a third flight "'was scheduled for 623, so only in a matter of minutes.' "'After several minutes of legal argument, "'the court found that the class certification was warranted. "'When a court issues an injunction "'against the federal government,

"'the normal practice is for the Justice Department lawyers "'to work with agency counsel in developing guidance explaining what the government must do to comply with the injunction. The relevant agencies then disseminate that guidance to their components. For example, when a court order impacts DHS immigration removal operations, in normal practice, DOJ and DHS lawyers create guidance that DHS would then, once approved, disseminate to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, and other relevant components. Because Mr. Ravini's name was on the court papers the government filed in the three cases

at issue, and because of his role as Acting Deputy Director for OIL, he had the responsibility to confirm that the government was abiding by the court orders in those cases. With this in mind, at 6.14 p.m., as the hearing continued, Mr. Ravini, again listening on the public line, emailed attorneys with the DHS Office of General Counsel, ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor,

and the DOS Office of Legal Advisor, informing them, along with the other DOJ attorneys, that, quote, the judge is certifying a nationwide class as we speak. It is likely a class-wide TRO is imminent. At 6.44 p.m., Mr. Ravini sent a follow-up email, quote, the judge is presently issuing a class-wide TRO. Can folks confirm for us if at the moment any individuals subject to the AEA are being staged for removal or are presently in the air as part of removal but not yet having landed and disembarked? At 644 p.m. Mr. Ravini texted his supervisor, Mr. Flensche, referencing Boevi's March 14th

2025 comment that it might be necessary to tell the court, fuck you. Mr. Flenche acknowledged Boevi's comment with a joke, referencing the possibility that either he or Mr. Riveni could be fired, impliedly for reporting up the chain of command, concerns that a court order may have been violated. At 6.46 PM, Mr Mr. Ravenney emailed DHS,

the substance of Judge Boesberg's oral order concerning class certification and TRO. Quote, this class is all non-citizens in US custody subject to the AEA. A minute order with more specifics will issue. Please confirm receipt of this email and let us know ASAP on the questions below concerning removals not yet effectuated Including those involving folks in the air at 6 48 p.m. Mr.

Ravini sent another email. Sorry for all the emails. It said last email the judge specifically ordered us not to remove anyone in the class and To return anyone in the air of anyone in the class and to return anyone in the air. All right, before we get to page 12, we're gonna take another quick break. So everyone stick around, we'll be right back. ["The Last Supper"] Welcome back, everyone. So we resume reading of the letter on page 12.

After additional legal argument, Judge Boasberg stated that, quote, a TRO is appropriate for the class members, prohibiting removal of class members with the class consisting of, quote, all non-citizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the pro consisting of quote all non-citizens in US custody who are subject to the proclamation of March 15 2025 and its implementation. Judge Boesberg explained that the court was quote required to act immediately and could not quote wait any longer particularly in light of the plaintiff's information unrebutted by the government that flights are actively departing and plan to depart Instructing ensign he said

you shall inform your clients of this immediately and That any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States However, that's accomplished whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately. At 7.04 p.m. Mr. Ravenney emailed DHS and DOS as follows. As we await the written order, clarifying our understanding of the injunction as clarified at the end, no one subject to AEA in our custody can be removed, and anyone in the air should be returned unless they have a Title VIII final order.

Please confirm receipt and let us know what, if anything, is happening. Thank you. DHS and DOS attorneys did not respond. Mr. Ravini followed up with DHS at 7 18 p.m. requesting confirmation that no one without a final order of removal under Title 8 would be removed from the planes as they landed, including one scheduled to land at 7.20 p.m., noting that, quote, we need to address this ASAP to avoid contempt. Mr. Ravini again received no response. At 7.26 p.m., the court issued a minute order memorializing its TRO. At 7.27 p.m., Mr. Riveni sent another email to DHS and DOS with a copy of the minute order. At 731 p.m. and signed email James Percival, senior

counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security and Joseph Mazzara, Acting General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, informing them of the injunction and two minutes later emailed DOS counsel. Both of these emails, on which Mr. Riveni and Flentje were copied, informed the recipients of both the oral and written injunctions, informed the agency counsel that their clients were required to not remove anyone within the class definition and reflected that Ensign understood the judge to be requiring that DHS not deplane any planes that had departed US airspace. Mr. Ravini was not copied on any response.

At 10 13 p.m. after he and Mr. Flensche had exchanged numerous emails and he had no information about any DHS compliance, Mr. Ruveni again emailed DHS to ask about whether guidance had been disseminated with direction for DHS to turn any planes around if not yet landed or to not deplane the people on board if already landed. Shortly thereafter, DHS responded via email that they were holding issuance of guidance pending a decision from the attorney general. Subsection 2, entitled Emil Bovy, advised the Department of Homeland Security that it may take actions that violate the court's injunction because the injunction was not

yet issued in writing. For the next few hours, on the night of March 15, Mr. Ravini exchanged emails with Flinché and engaged in multiple phone calls with Ensign. He was concerned about two things. One, that deplaning any passengers would violate the court's orders. And two, the need to notify the court of the government's compliance with those orders or its interpretation of the orders. Sometime around midnight, Ensign informed Mr.

Rivani that DOJ would be filing a notice with the court signed by Boeve explaining its interpretation of the court order, including that no violation of the court order had occurred because the two planes left US airspace before the court's written minute order. Ensign directed Mr. Ravenny to prepare Boeve's notice of appearance. While Mr. Ravenny disagreed with the interpretation that there was no violation of a court order, the fact that Bo V, a senior DOJ official, was willing to enter an appearance in the case and make this representation to the court somewhat lessened his concerns because he believed he and his staff would not be put in the untenable position of defending this argument.

put in the untenable position of defending this argument. That quickly changed. On Sunday, March 16, 2025, at 1223 a.m., Ensign informed Mr. Riveni by phone that Bovi would no longer be filing either a notice of appearance or a notice to the court explaining the government's interpretation of the court orders. Thereafter, Mr. Riveni and Flensche exchanged several more emails. Mr. Riveni anticipated that the government would be held in contempt of court for deplaning those on the flight

and communicated his belief that a notice to the court would be necessary. 10 minutes later at 12.33 a.m., Ensign telephoned Mr. Riveni, informing him that DOJ leadership did not appear to be in a hurry to file any such notice. Mr. Ravenny responded that the government would likely face a show cause motion, seeking an explanation as to why the government should not be held in contempt of court. The same morning at 8.07 a.m., Mr. Ravenny emailed DHS and DOS, asking for confirmation

of their compliance with Judge Boesberg's oral and written orders, specifically asking for the status of the individuals on each of the previous day's three flights. Mr. Ravenny's email included a reminder that to comply with the injunction, no one subject to AEA removal should have been deplained and anyone who had been deplained needed to be returned to the United States. Mr. Ravenny also asked whether conversations on those issues were happening at a higher level of leadership between and among DOJ, DHS, and DOS. Mr. Ravenny received no response. Given the absence of any email or notice from the agencies or DOJ leadership at that point, email or notice from the agencies or DOJ leadership at that point. Mr. Ravenny's concerns from the prior night that DHS had been directed to violate the court orders began to escalate.

Early in the morning of Sunday, March 16, President Bukele of El Salvador posted a comment on social media stating, quote, oopsie, too late, in reference to Judge Boesberg's order, and Secretary of State Rubio reposted the comment soon after. Soon after Bukele's initial comment, Bukele posted a video of men being escorted from planes into the Terrorism Confinement Center, Seacoat Prison. As the day continued, Mr. Ravini's emails asking for confirmation of the status of the removal flights remained unanswered. Mr. Ravenny reported his concerns to August Flinche that based on public reporting, social media posts of the Secretary of State and the President of El Salvador,

and the failure of DHS to answer any of Mr. Ravenny's questions concerning the three flights that had taken off on the previous day, it appeared the government had violated the court's order and removed individuals to El Salvador. Eventually, Agency Council for DHS informed Mr. Ravini by telephone that DOJ leadership had advised DHS to deplane the flights in El Salvador and directed Mr. R Rivendi to consult DOJ leadership if he had any questions. Through the course of the events on March 16, it became clear to Mr. Rivendi that DHS and DOS were receiving contrary directions from someone else to take actions in violation of court orders.

By 2 o'clock p.m., the identity of that individual became clear. In an email from acting Assistant Attorney General Yakov Roth to Ensign Flinchay and Mr. Raveni, Roth explained that Bovet had advised DHS that under the court order, it was permissible to deplane individuals on the flights that departed U.S. airspace before the minute order had issued on the docket. That afternoon the Department of Justice filed a notice indicating that defendants, quote,

were promptly notified of the court's temporary restraining order issued in the morning and the 7.26 p.m. Eastern Time minute order that temporarily enjoined any removals pursuant to the presidential proclamation. The notice also asserted that quote some gang members subject to removal under the proclamation had already been removed from the United States territory under the proclamation before the issuance of the court's second written order. By day's end, multiple media reports and postings from senior government officials

in both the United States and El Salvador on social media confirmed that all individuals on two of the three planes that had taken off March 15 had been detained in Seacote Prison in El Salvador. The next hearing in the case occurred Monday, March 17th, 2025. At some point prior to the March 17 hearing, Ensign informed Mr. Riveni that Ensign would not

be handling the hearing given concerns that the court would likely interrogate Ensign concerning March 15th events. Subsection three, government refused to comply with the court's reporting order. On March 17, the court held a hearing to determine whether the government complied with its orders.

The court issued a minute order demanding the government state, quote, whether and in what form it would provide answers to the court's questions regarding the particulars of the flights. The order further stated that, quote, if the government takes the position that it will not provide the information to the court under any circumstances, it must support such position,

including with classified authorities if necessary. Following this order, Flensche and Ensign told Mr. Riveni that leadership at DOJ were reporting quote, down the chain, that the government was not going to answer the court's questions about anything that happened before 7.26 p.m. on March 15. And so not to provide information about when the flights took off Okay now we're moving from the three planes C code case over to DVD versus DHS which is the case

Involving the individuals who are currently stuck in Djibouti, the deportees to third party countries. Subsection B, DVD versus DHS. Mr. Ravini advised that injunction against third country removals without torture screenings applied nationwide, but government removed people in violation of the injunction nonetheless. The second case in which Mr. Ravini exercised his right to make the investigation, the court ruled that the investigation was not a violation of the injunction, nonetheless. The second case in which Mr. Riveni exercised his right to

make protected disclosures unfolded over the weekend of March 28-30, 2025, DVD versus U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This case involved that DHS had begun to remove individuals with final orders of removal to third countries without first ascertaining whether such individuals would be safe in those countries or potentially tortured as required by the Convention Against Torture. On the afternoon of Friday, March 28, 2025, around 2.30 p.m. Judge Brian Murphy, United States District Court judge in the District of Massachusetts, issued a nationwide TRO. The order enjoined the government from removing the three named plaintiffs and, quote, any individual

subject to a final order of removal from the United States to a third country, i.e. a country other than the country designated for removal in the immigration proceedings, without providing the individual and their counsel with written notice of the third country to where they may be removed and a meaningful opportunity for that individual to submit an application for convention against torture protection to the immigration court, and if any such application is filed, until that individual receives a final agency decision on any such application.

Subsection one, Friday, March 28, senior leadership took the position that the injunction did not have nationwide applicability despite DOJ OIL's instruction. DOJ leadership determined to seek an immediate appeal and stay of the order. The argument for the emergency stay in the appellate brief was that the TRO, which by its terms applied nationwide, was impermissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act INA and in any event had to be limited to the named plaintiffs.

Curiously, James McHenry, counselor to the Deputy Attorney General, directed through Ensign that afternoon that it was necessary to include a peculiar footnote with no context stating, quote, the operational effects of the order is sick ambiguous. Over the course of the afternoon and evening of Friday, March 28, it became apparent why McHenry had insisted on including this odd footnote. First, Mr. Ravini learned that DHS was directed

by someone within the administration unknown to Mr. Revenney not to issue guidance to its officers concerning the facts of and terms of the injunction. This was despite the fact that DHS agency council had drafted guidance concerning the injunction that noted the nationwide applicability of the TRO, which Mr. Revenney and others at OIL had agreed was appropriate. Mr. Ravenny sent multiple emails to DHS Council requesting updates regarding when the guidance would be disseminated. Multiple line attorneys at DHS alerted Mr. Ravenny

that the guidance was never distributed. Ensign eventually told Mr. Riveni that the Office of Deputy Attorney General had directed a hold on dissemination of the guidance as they were reviewing it, an unusual but not unheard of level of review. All right, so again, this is the DVD case. This is the six or eight, I think there's six people in Djibouti on their way to South

Sudan, a third country. And the fact that they flew them out was in violation of a March 28th order. This is the, by the way, the stay that the Supreme Court put on recently, allowing people in the meantime to be sent to third party countries without due process. And they did it without an explanation and they did it on the emergency docket. All right, so continuing. On March 28 at 1128 PM, Mr. Ravini sent an email to DHS council noting his understanding that guidance had not yet been issued as OIL had advised and asking for confirmation whether

anyone subject to the injunction was being staged for removal. This is deja vu all over again for Mr. Ravini. Mr. Ravini noted that the government's brief argued in requesting an emergency stay that the court order applied broadly beyond the named plaintiffs. In response at 1234 a.m. senior counselor, 1234 a.m. this isn't a Denny's, senior counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security, James Percival responded for DHS saying, my take on these emails is that DOJ leadership and DOJ litigators don't agree on the strategy. Please keep DHS out of it, unquote. Wow. Mr. Ravini responded two minutes later, what is the position to which Percival responded

two minutes later, ask your leadership. With this clear disconnect, it was evident to Mr. Ravenny that DHS had received direction contrary to the guidance OIL had provided concerning the scope of the injunction. Mr. Ravenny had attempted to contact Ensign and Flenshe multiple times by phone between 10.40 p.m. and midnight, and Roth via email, but no one answered. Subsection 2, night of March 28th, morning of March 29th, White House directed Mr. Riveni to file brief asking for emergency stay with assurances of understanding of nationwide applicability. Mr. Riveni, unable to contact his chain of command,

made the decision that the brief requesting an emergency stay could not be filed, given the lack of consensus that the injunction applied nationwide, and notified DHS of the same at 1242 a.m. on Saturday, March 29th. One minute later, at 1250 a.m., Mr. Ravini received frantic emails

from multiple senior DOJ and DHS officials, ultimately including McHenry, Perkins, counselor to the Attorney General Henry Whitaker, and Percival, asking him to call them. Mr. Ravenny first called Perkins, and he and McHenry were on the line. They asked Mr. Ravenny why the brief had not been filed. Mr. Ravenny explained that per his email, there seemed to be a fundamental disconnect between the brief, which acknowledged nationwide applicability of the injunction as the basis for seeking an emergency stay, and DHS's understanding that the injunction only applied to the three

named plaintiffs. On the call, Mr. Ravenny perceived McHenry to be acting strangely, answering questions evasively and suggesting additional odd language to add to the brief. Neither Perkins nor McHenry confirmed whether Ice had even received the text of the injunction. The call ended when McHenry said that he and Perkins needed to go make a call and would be back in touch. Everybody stick around, we'll be right back. Welcome back everybody.

Okay, we continue with the story of the DVD versus DHS case, which is of course the six or so individuals who are still stuck in Djibouti because they were supposed to be deported to third countries. Around 1 a.m., Whitaker and Percival emailed Mr. Ravenny asking him to call them. Mr. Ravenny called Whitaker, who immediately patched in Percival. Similar to McHenry and Perkins, Whitaker and Percival asked Mr. Rivini why the brief had not been filed. They stated that the White House wanted the brief filed by midnight. Mr. Rivini stated that DHS seemed to be saying that DOJ leadership was giving them guidance contrary to that provided by OIL. He explained that the brief acknowledged the injunction applied nationwide,

but DHS's position was that it only applied to the three named plaintiffs. Mr. Ravini explained to Whitaker and Percival that if the brief were filed acknowledging nationwide applicability of the injunction, that would be the official position of the United States. If there were also removal flights planned for that weekend, they would have to be consistent with this injunction or risk contempt of court.

If removals inconsistent with the injunction were effectuated nonetheless, the government would have to withdraw or modify its brief and notify the court. Mr. Veney also shared his understanding that no guidance had been disseminated to DHS regarding the position in the brief. Mr. Rivini asked Whitaker and Percival if they agreed that the injunction required nationwide applicability.

Percival hurriedly responded, yeah, sure. And Whitaker said, yeah, buddy. That's what I'm. That seems wildly inappropriate. Hell yeah, bro. Hell yeah, Nushen Wyatt. Yeah, go get it. Okay, sorry. Still concerned, but relying on the assurances from Whitaker and Percival that they agreed the injunction applied to more than the three named plaintiffs, Mr. Ravenny directed his staff to file the brief. Later that day, Mr. Ravenny learned with certainty that DHS had never disseminated the injunction or guidance about its applicability within the agency.

Subpart 3 Saturday, March 29, gag order instructed Mr. Ravenny to stop asking about injunction, compliance, and guidance. On the morning of March 29, Mr. Ravenny to stop asking about injunction compliance and guidance. On the morning of March 29th, Mr. Ravenny learned that individuals were again being staged in Texas by DHS, possibly for removal. Against that backdrop, Mr. Ravenny heard from DHS that DHS was again working on disseminating guidance to ICE. Relieved, Mr. Ravini briefly turned to other matters. However, by early afternoon, it again became clear no guidance would be forthcoming. Mr. Ravini heard from agency counsel

that no guidance had been disseminated and instead was stuck somewhere within a DHS. This meant no field officer at ICE involved in deportations had yet been told how to conduct their operations consistent with the injunction and how to ensure that persons removed to third countries were given notice of their right to alert the government to claims of torture in those countries. Mr. Rivini called DHS agency council around 3.20 p.m. And confirmed directly that no guidance had been issued He immediately sent an email to DHS Agency Council in addition to Percival and Acting General Counsel for DHS Mazara again requesting an update on the status of the guidance Separately, Mr. Ravini contacted Ensign by phone who informed him that the head of ICE enforcement and removal operations, ERO, had been given quote, verbal notice of the

injunction. But again, no written guidance had been disseminated to the agency. Sometime after that call, during the mid to late afternoon, Ensign informed Mr. Ravenny by phone that it would be advisable to stop sending emails with many recipients, including Percival, concerning the injunction compliance guidance. Huh. That is literally closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. Wow.

All right. So subsection four, Sunday, March 30th, Mr. Ravini reported a possible violation of the injunction. On the morning of Sunday, March 30th, despite N Ravenny reported a possible violation of the injunction. On the morning of Sunday, March 30th, despite NSINES instructions to stop email correspondence on the matter, Mr. Ravenny again emailed DHS to ask if any guidance on the injunction had been disseminated. Mr. Ravenny continued to press on the matter pursuant to his job responsibilities to ensure quick dissemination of guidance instructing injunction compliance, his ethical duties, and his role as an officer of the court. Thereafter, Mr. Ravini spoke twice with Ensign on the phone between approximately 11 a.m. and noon, during which time Ensign told Mr. Ravini that leadership had concluded and directed that no injunction compliance guidance would be issued. Ensign also

again told Mr. Ravini that he should no longer contact DHS asking about guidance. Mr. Ravenny informed Ensign that plaintiffs' counsel had notified OIL attorneys that their class members' clients were being or had been prepared for removal, and without further information this appeared to be a violation of the injunction. Ensign made comments to the effect that he agreed with Mr. Ravenny, acknowledged the decisions were not ideal, and would make it harder to win cases,

and he stated that he was not a decision maker in these circumstances. Wow. Subsection five, Monday, March 31st, evidence demonstrated government violated the injunction. Finally, on Monday, March 31st, Secretary of State issued a press release announcing a successful counter-terrorism operation with our allies in El Salvador, through which, quote, the United States military transferred a group of 17 violent

criminals from the Trende Aragua and MS-13 organizations, including murderers and rapists, unquote. Upon seeing this press release, Mr. Ravenny immediately contacted counsel for DOS and DHS, including Mazara, to inquire about the operation referred to in the press release. Mazara refused to discuss these events with Mr. Ravenny or others at OIL, stating this was a DOD matter, directing Mr. Ravenny to the Acting General Counsel of the DOD and instructing Mr. Ravenny not to ask DHS about this matter again. Mr. Ravenny then contacted DOD and learned through conversation with Charles Young, the Acting General Counsel for the Department of Defense, that on March 29, those 17 individuals had departed Texas on a flight to Guantanamo after the court issued its injunction in DVD. Then, on March 30, they were transferred to El Salvador. Young informed Mr. Ravini that he was not aware of the injunction and appeared upset that DHS had not communicated the existence of the injunction to DOD. The plain language of the injunction stated that it applied not only to DHS, but also

to anyone with whom they were acting in concert. These removals occurred notwithstanding the district court's TRO and absent any explanation from any agency or other party bound by the DVD injunction as to how DHS had implemented processes that comported with the injunction. It appeared to Mr. Ravini that there was no plausible way these removals did not violate the court order. I have to interrupt you, Angie. Does this sound like DOJ took DHS out of the loop, told Rveni to stop contacting DHS and tossed it over to DOD without telling them about the injunction?

Yeah, I mean, that's what it sounds like. It sounds like you have... I mean, it's hard to get your head around it. They are so, so dedicated to this political errand of pushing more people out of the country that they're just actively violating the law. We've got squeaky wheels and our squeaky wheel keeps talking to DHS. So let's take this whole thing out of DHS and send it over to DOD. Who's got a plane?

Who can send these people out now? It's just amazing. Yeah. Okay, it goes on to say, Mr. Raveny reported this development to Ensign and Flentje by phone and email. Mr. Raveny further informed Ensign that DoD's Young had explicitly referenced Mazara of DHS as a point of contact

in the removal flight operations, which was inconsistent with Mazara's representation to Mr. Ravini that he had no knowledge of the removal operations. Ouch. Indeed, over email on Monday, March 31, 2025, at around 5 o'clock p.m., Mr. Ravini asked Mazar how DHS could take the position that it had nothing to do with the removal operation when the individuals removed were in DHS ICE custody in Texas before being transferred to Guantanamo and remained in DHS ICE custody while detained at Guantanamo?

Mazzara did not respond. During this same time, DHS attorneys expressed dismay to Mr. Ravenny at the removal operation as it clearly appeared to violate the DVD injunction. As with DOD, DOS was bound by the injunction as the plain language of the order stated that it applied to all with whom DHS operated in concert. And Secretary Rubio's social media post suggested DOS had violated that injunction through its participation in the removals. Alright, so state's mad, DOD's mad, and DHS isn't talking and they're saying stop

emailing us. Wow. Basically, hear no evil, see no evil thing going on at DHS. Right. All right, we're on page 21. On April 1st, Mr. Ravenny was again told to stop asking questions. Mr. Ravenny received a phone call from Acting AAG Roth, in which Roth relayed that Bovi was very unhappy that Mr. Ravenny had contacted counsel at various agencies to ascertain whether DOJ had violated a court order. Roth conveyed that Mr. Ravenny should stop emailing agency council on the matter to instead communicate by phone only where possible. Mr. Ravenny

understood this instruction to be based on leadership's aim to avoid generating written material subject to disclosure through FOIA. Roth also informed Mr. Ravenny that he should not expect any answers from the agencies concerning whether the removal operation discussed in the Secretary of State's press release was in violation of the court order. Mr. Raveni reported this conversation to Flensche

and Ensign sometime that afternoon, with Ensign reaffirming that the DOJ position on responding to plaintiffs' inquiries concerning injunction compliance was quote, let's not respond. The evidence demonstrates that senior DOJ leadership withheld information from DOJ OIL interfered with DOJ OIL's efforts to ensure agency clients were informed about the requirements of the injunction and provided contrary instructions to DHS and DOD,

which resulted in removals in violation of a court order. This also appears to explain why McHenry insisted on the inclusion of the footnote in the brief that, quote, the operational effects of the order is ambiguous, though the injunction plainly had nationwide applicability, which leadership acknowledged. Operators at high levels of political leadership apparently planned and implemented operations that violated a court order. In retrospect, McHenry's insistence on the footnote appears to be an attempt to suggest ambiguity where there was none. The evident goal was to provide cover for leadership's knowing violation of the nationwide injunction.

All right, subsection C, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Wrongful removal with unsubstantiated gang allegations. Government made legally erroneous claims that withholding of removal can be revoked without due process. All right, so we're moving now from DVD over to Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. The third illegal order arose in connection with Abrego-Garcia v. Gnome. On March 15, 2025, as part of the Alien and Enemies Act operation described above, DHS removed a Maryland resident, Mr. Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, to the Seacoat Prison in El Salvador without

lawful basis. On March 24, Mr. Abrego Garcia's attorneys filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that this removal was in violation of an October 10th, 2019 immigration judge order prohibiting his removal to El Salvador. So part one, Mr. Reveni took on Abrego Garcia case where government's records showed Mr. Abrego Garcia was erroneously removed. Mr. Raveni learned of this complaint on the date of filing and in his new role as acting

deputy director took the case on personally so that more junior attorneys would not have to work on such a high profile and sensitive matter. It has been the prior practice going back years in situations where DHS removed someone in error to seek to resolve cases without further litigation by correcting the error. There's a thought. I know, right? Who would have come up with that strategy? Indeed, it was Mr. Ravenny's understanding that the Solicitor General of the United States had informed the Supreme Court that the policy of the United States is to return wrongfully removed migrants as a matter of course if the Supreme Court

or a U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that the migrant has the legal right to remain in the country. Therefore, despite the high profile nature of the case, Mr. Raveni initially believed the case could be resolved through a straightforward return of Mr. Rebrego Garcia to the United States. Accordingly, beginning on March 24, when the case was filed, through the date of the hearing on April 4, Mr. Revenny and other agency counsel from DHS and DOS continuously discussed the possibility of requesting Mr. Rebrego Garcia's return to U.S. custody. During this time, they also discussed the possibility that pending his return, DOS could ask the government of El Salvador for assurances of Mr. Abrego-Garcia's safety at Seacoat.

Subpart 2. On March 31, 2025, Senior Counsel counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security, James Percival, asked whether the government could allege that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a, quote, leader of MS-13 without evidence to support the allegation. By at least March 27, 2025, in communications including DHS, DOS, and DOJ Council, questions were raised regarding the existence of evidence that Mr. Abrego-Garcia was a gang member and why he was included on the removal flight to Seacoat. DHS could not provide direct evidence of Mr. Abrego-Garcia's alleged MS-13 gang affiliation. Then, on Monday, March 31, 2025, the day the government's brief was due, senior counselor

to the Secretary of Homeland Security, James Percival, asked whether the brief could make a number of factual allegations, including that Mr. Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 leader. Mr. Riveni noted that any such factual allegations would need to be supported by evidence, such as a declarant on behalf of DHS. Approximately two hours after the exchange between Percival and Riveni, DHS provided a declaration. The declarant was Robert Cerna, Acting Field Officer Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations at ICE. Through Cerna's declaration, DHS conceded that

because Mr. Abrego-Garcia had obtained quote withholding of removal protection, DHS had no legal authority to remove him to his home country of El Salvador. Nevertheless, Mr. Abrego-Garcia was, according to Serna, placed on a plane to El Salvador. Serna stated that ICE was aware of this grant of withholding of removal at the time of Abrego Garcia's removal from the United States. That's what was written. It was incorrect and there's a sick there. I want you to know it wasn't me.

And that reference was made to this status on internal forms. But yet through administrative error, Abrego Garcia was removed from the United States to El Salvador. This was an oversight. Okay, hold on one second. So they bring in Serna to make the allegations of gang affiliation, right? Because they needed a declarant. And Serna goes on to confirm the mistake of the deportation and basically admits that they knew there

was an order from a federal court judge saying not to deport this guy to El Salvador and they did it anyway. And then Serna also could not personally confirm and decline to attest to Abrego Garcia's gang membership, let alone a status as an MS-13 leader. Instead, Serna's declaration stated that Mr. Abrego Garcia was removed on March 15 based on his purported membership in MS-13. Emphasis added. Serna's declaration was included as an exhibit to the brief submitted to the court on March

31, along with decisions from immigration adjudicators referencing MS-13 gang allegations, but lacking in direct supporting evidence of those allegations. Subsection three, Ravenny raised concerns about sufficiency of the evidence and urged remedial actions to address a break of Garcia's erroneous. We read that after David was like, how does this help anything? I don't understand. I thought he was supposed to attest to the fact that he was a gang member It says no, he's not and he was removed by mistake. And by the way, we we hose this whole thing knowingly All right after the brief was filed because DHS had still not presented direct evidence justifying Abrego Garcia's removal,

Mr. Raveni repeatedly and consistently requested updates on efforts to secure Mr. Abrego Garcia's return to the United States and assurances of his safety in Seacoat. Mr. Raveni was surprised that lawyers for both DHS and DOS informed him that they would only consider any such action to attempt to remedy the illegal removal of Abrego Garcia if DOJ leadership approved it. DOJ leadership never did. Instead, on several occasions, on April 2nd and 3rd, through both phone calls and email, Mr. Riveni was directed by McHenry, through Roth and Ensign, to cease making requests of DHS and DOS and to stop asking for facts supporting any possible defense of the case, that no asks of El Salvador of any sort would be made or should be made, and to rest on threshold jurisdictional arguments at the hearing."

Wow. Mr. Ravini raised concerns in multiple emails to both DHS and DOS about the sufficiency of the evidence to support Mr. Abrego-Ggo Garcia's alleged gang affiliation and the lack of action to correct his erroneous removal. Mr. Raveni also raised those concerns and multiple emails and phone calls to his DOJ leadership, including Roth and Ensign on several occasions between April 1st and April 4th. Everybody, we're going to take one last quick break and come back with the last few pages of this. I know this is a little bit long, but we didn't think we needed to

split it up into two episodes. So stick around. We'll be right back. All right, we're back continuing with the case of Mr. Abrego Garcia. So part four, after Mr. Raveni repeated in court per the record the government's concession that Mr. Abrego Garcia was erroneously removed, Ensign asked Mr. Raveni for the first time why he did not argue that Mr. Abrego-Garcia was a terrorist. At oral argument on Friday, April 4, before Judge Paul Assinis in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and in the brief he signed that was submitted to the court, which was reviewed by DOJ and DHS and agency leadership, including Ensign and Mazzara, Mr. Raveni made the threshold jurisdictional

arguments and informed the court as conceded by the ICE declarant that the removal of Mr. Abrego Garcia was in error. A few minutes after the hearing, Mr. Ravini went from the courtroom to the U.S. Attorney's office space in the court building. The press had been present at the hearing, and by the time he was leaving the courtroom, Mr. Rivini had already received multiple text messages sharing news headlines about his statements to the court. Mr. Rivini also received an email from Ensign directing Mr. Rivini to call him, which Mr.

Rivini did. On that call, Ensign asked Mr. Rivinii for the first time why Mr. Reveni had not argued that Mr. Abrego-Garcia was a terrorist and that therefore his withholding of removal order was invalid. Mr. Reveni told Ensign words to the effect of, I understand you've seen the headlines, but read the transcript. I did not say the things the headlines say that I said. Ensign asked Mr. Reveni why he did not argue that Mr. headlines say that I said. Ensign asked Mr. Ravini why he did not argue that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a member of a terrorist organization or that being a member of such organization meant that Mr. Abrego Garcia's

protection from removal to El Salvador was nullified. Mr. Ravini told Ensign he did not make those arguments because, one, those were not arguments in the government's briefs, which Ensign had reviewed, or maybe didn't review. I guess, right? Two, there was no evidence in the record to support the arguments. And three, the laws governing withholding of removal do not support a theory that declaring someone a member of a terrorist organization retroactively nullifies a grant of withholding relief. I was wondering that the whole time.

Right. I was like, that doesn't even make sense. Right. Ensign had little reaction, but called again a few minutes later, asking similar questions and informing Mr. Ravini that these inquiries were prompted by the White House. Mr. Ravini again repeated the same concerns he had on the first call. Indeed, in order to revoke

a grant of withholding of removal, binding federal regulations require the government to move to reopen the removal proceedings in the United States and make an affirmative showing that the withholding grant is no longer warranted. Further, the only evidence submitted by DHS at the time of the filing of the government's brief and by the date of oral argument, the Cerna declaration, did not support a terrorist designation given Cerna's equivocation on Mr. Obrego Garcia's alleged gang membership and the absence of any other supporting evidence. Go Serna.

All right. We are now on page 25, subsection five. Mr. Reveni refuses to sign an appeal brief with arguments unsupported by evidence or law and then was put on administrative leave and retaliation for his protected activity and refusal to obey an illegal order. That same afternoon on Friday, April 4, Roth circulated an outline of an appeal brief to multiple attorneys, including Mr. Ravenny. Mr. Ravenny understood that his name would appear on this brief. Mr. Ravenny responded to that email, including Roth and others, with the same points he had told Ensign on the phone call. Additionally,

he noted that because the government had not argued that Mr. Abrego-Garcia was a member of a terrorist organization to the court in the brief DOJ and the agency leadership cleared for filing, it could not do so on appeal for the first time. And I'm just going to interject here, that's just basic law. Even if your argument weren't weird, and even if it weren't totally blasted by CERNA's declaration You can't argue in an appeal brief something that you didn't bring up in the initial brief. Oh, of course you just can't I Know that and I okay that evening. Mr. Ravenny received in an email He received a draft brief that made the same legal arguments to Mitch to which Mr. Ravenny had consistently objected.

Mr. Ravenny responded saying that the draft brief still contained the arguments discussed earlier that were not supported by the law or the record. Then later that night, the appeal brief was again circulated. This time, the same arguments Mr. Ravenny had objected to were moved to a different section of the brief. That'll throw him off. He'll never find it in subpart four. I need you to know this is the first time I've read that sentence and I'm dying inside. Oh.

The level of duplicity and incompetence is like, I don't know which is worse. Sign it here before that section. Okay. Okay. Since you moved it to page five, now I'm okay with it. We're section. Okay. Okay, since you moved it to page five, now I'm okay with it. We're cool, yeah, we're cool. Mr. Ravini emailed Flensche, his direct supervisor,

and said, I can't sign the brief. He could not sign the brief given the unsupported arguments. Earlier on that morning of Saturday, April 5th, Flensche emailed Mr. Ravini and asked him to call him. Mr. Ravini and Flensche had a phone call around 1.20 a.m. in which Mr. Ravenny again repeated the same objections he's been making the whole time.

I'm guessing that phone call began with Flenche screaming at him, stop sending me emails. Do not send me more emails. Now Flenche told Mr. Ravenny that he should sign the brief and that he had signed up for the responsibility to do so when he accepted the deputy position. Mr. Ravini responded, I didn't sign up to lie. Ultimately, someone else signed that brief, making arguments contrary to law, which was filed at 1 41am on April 5.

Less than seven hours later, Mr. Ravini was placed on administrative leave for alleged failure to follow a directive from your superiors, failure to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to your client. The letter signed by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch placing Mr. Ravenny on administrative leave was leaked to the press and reported that same day. The news report included a statement from Attorney General Pam Bondi that, quote, at my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States.

Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences. On April 11th, Mr. Ravini was terminated without notice. Section 4, Unlawful Retaliation. In the weeks following the notable March 14 meeting, during which Boevi stated DOJ might have to tell a federal court, fuck you, to implement the administration's removal priorities, Mr. Ravini witnessed and internally reported to his DOJ leadership multiple incidents that led him to reasonably believe

the government was in violation of court orders. Mr. Ravini also expressed to personnel who were in contact with and who were relaying directives from the White House his unwillingness to obey an order he reasonably believed to be unlawful, namely to file a brief with misrepresentations to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Mr. Ravenny's management interfered with his ability to perform his duties in accordance with his obligations of professional responsibility to his clients and the court. Then, on April 4, 2025, Mr. Ravenny made truthful representations to Judge Paul Asinis about the government's own record in

the case of Mr. Kilmar Abrego-Garcia abiding by his obligations under the federal rules of civil procedural and the rules of professional conduct. The next day, Mr. Raveni refused a directive from DOJ leadership to file an emergency appeal brief in Mr. Abrego Garcia's case that Mr. Raveny reasonably believed asserted arguments that were contrary to law, frivolous and untrue. In reprisal for his whistleblowing and refusal to obey a legal orders, Mr. Raveny was placed on administrative leave on April 5, 2025 and removed from federal service

on April 11, 2025, both violations of 5 U.S. Code 2302. The Whistleblower Protection Act, among other protections, prohibits federal agencies from taking retaliatory personnel actions against employees who raise whistleblower concerns internally and who refuse to obey illegal orders. There is no question here, particularly based on this administration's own statements, that these actions taken against Mr. Ravini were meant to silence Mr. Ravini and other DOJ attorneys who resist unlawful actions. Instead, Mr. Ravini will continue to tell the truth in defense of the rule of law. Mr. Rivendi both exercises his rights

to make protected whistleblower disclosures and seeks a remedy for DOJ's due process violation in terminating him without notice and for DOJ's unlawful retaliation against him under the WPA with the Merit Systems Protection Board. Or whoever's left at the Merit Systems Protection Board. There's no one there now. Number five, here's section five, page 26.

The conclusion, Mr. Ravenny refuses to stay silent despite the retaliation he has already faced and the serious risk of additional retaliation for his choice to continue to exercise his rights by disclosing to Congress, the DOJ Inspector General, and the Office of Special Counsel information about Senior DOJ and White House leadership's intent and action to defy the rule of law. The consequences of the DOJ's actions, Mr. Ravini reports, have grave impact, not only for the safety of individuals removed

from the country in violation of court orders, but also for the constitutional rights and protections of all persons, citizen and non-citizen alike, who are potential victims of flagrant, deliberate disregard of due process and the rule of law by the agency charged with upholding it." Wow. Wow. Mr. Ravini does not make these disclosures lightly.

In his disclosures, he has carefully exercised his rights under the Whistleblower Protection Act to report serious illegality and abuses of power consistent with and in compliance with rules of professional conduct. Mr. Ravenny remains committed to the rule of law and to his oath as an attorney and as a nonpartisan civil servant that he swore when he joined the Department of Justice in 2010 and that he is carried out across administrations. I, Arrez-Riveni, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,

and that I will well and faithfully Discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter so help me God We ask that members of Congress the DOJ inspector general and a leadership of the office of special counsel remains similarly committed To their oaths of office and discharge their duties of oversight and accountability without fear or favor respectfully submitted Dana Gold, Kevin Owen, Andrea Meza, attorneys for Arez-Riveni. That is a heck of a whistleblower letter, my friends. Yeah, yeah, it really is. And Andy, I think it's interesting that we gravitated on the Unjustified podcast toward

the Boasberg Alien Enemies Act case, the South Sudan Djibouti case, and the Abrego Garcia case. And that they were all connected by these same players with the same subversions to law, wanting people to lie in court orders, telling people to tell the court to fuck off. Everything is so hyperbolic these days that when you come across something this important, it's hard to catch the words. It really is. I'm struggling here. I mean, I feel like what this paints

is a picture of a Department of Justice that is completely disconnected from any of the standards and the goals and the principles that the Department of Justice is supposed to protect and defend every day. This is a Department of Justice disconnected from justice, prostrating themselves to the administration, ignoring court orders, willfully violating court orders,

filing false statements to the court, all in pursuit of a political errand, a political errand to this obsession with kicking out as many people as they possibly can just because that's what's wanted down the street. And I have to say too, I mean, Michael Horowitz, now's your chance, buddy. This is your chance. You the lone survivor, the only handpicked, preserved and saved IG by the incoming Trump administration, the only one who got asked to stick around, now's your chance to prove

who you really are and do you actually stand for anything. I have my own opinions about that which I won't share here but this is your chance. If you're gonna let this one go, this letter is filled with detail, timelines, numerous emails, all of which are on DOJ systems which he has unlimited access to. Go out and do a little investigating and hold some of these people accountable or be accurately and forever characterized as the IG in the pocket of the Trump administration. Well said my friend. With that we're to close this episode. I do think it's important

to note, you know, I wondered as I wrote this up a little bit on that mulishiroad.com, I was like, this letter is going to start showing up in court filings. And indeed, it's already shown up in a plaintiff's filing at the Supreme Court. I think we'll continue to see it in Boasburg. We'll continue to see it in Judge Polisseni's courtroom where there are motions now, perhaps supplemented motions to continue discovery for violation of court orders. We'll see this in Mr. Abrego's case and the DVD case. Judge Boasberg learned more about what the government did here in those cases with those planes from, from Erez Rivendi than he ever learned from the government and that discovery.

I mean, like, very true. All right, everybody, we will see you on Sunday for the regular episode of Unjustified. Thanks for listening to this bonus and thanks for listening to us. I've been Alison Gill and I'm Andy McCabe. Unjustified is written and executive produced by Alison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design and editing is by Molly Hockey with art and web design by Joel Reeder at Moxie Design Studios.

The theme music for Unjustified is written and performed by Ben Folds and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator owned independent podcasts dedicated to news, politics, and justice. For more information, please visit MSWMedia.com.