← UnJustified
UnJustified
Protected Whistleblower Disclosure of Erez Reuveni
01:22:52
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 Justice
Loading summary
Transcript75 lines
- [00:00]
Alison Gill
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 Arez Riveni's whistleblower letter about what went on behind the scenes in the days leading up to the government disappearing plane loads of people under the Alien Enemies act proclamation, the legality of which is still being litigated in court. I'm Alison Gill.
- [00:31]
Andy McCabe
And I'm Andy McCabe. This is rare. This is rare just to have someone at the center 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.
- [01:00]
Alison Gill
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 Arez Raveni 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. Arez 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. Raveni presents the following disclosures to your attention for your respective offices to take appropriate action, oversight action. Now this is going to Jim Jordan and the Honorable Jamie Raskin, 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 U.S. senate Committee on the so Senate and House Judiciary Committees.
- [02:12]
Andy McCabe
Yep.
- [02:13]
Alison Gill
Also Michael Horowitz.
- [02:15]
Andy McCabe
Yes.
- [02:16]
Alison Gill
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 check Jameson Greer, Acting Special Counsel, U.S. office of Special Counsel. So that's not like a special counsel like Jack Smith. That's what Hampton Dellinger used to do.
- [02:32]
Andy McCabe
That's right. Yeah. It's like an internal office kind of a lawyer, police within DOJ.
- [02:39]
Alison Gill
Right. So the letter goes on to say between March 14, 2025 and April 5, 2025, Mr. Raveni, almost immediately after receiving notice of his promotion to serve as the Acting Deputy Director of Oil became do we call that Oil Andy or just O I l?
- [02:54]
Andy McCabe
I think we go with all right.
- [02:56]
Alison Gill
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 4, 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. Raveni appeared before Judge Paula Cenis, United States District Court Judge in the District of Maryland, on behalf of the government in the case of Mr. Kilma Abrego Garcia. During that appearance, Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni refused directions from his superiors to file a brief misrepresenting those facts to the court. As a result, Mr. Reveni was put on administrative leave on April 5, 2025, and his employment was ultimately terminated in April 11.
- [03:56]
Andy McCabe
In this letter, Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni'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. Raveni 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 Blanche, 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. Raveni 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. Raveni a saboteur, a Democrat. Referring to Mr. Reveni, 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.
- [06:18]
Alison Gill
What has not been reported to date are Mr. Raveni'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 is an important part of the role of a lawyer. Mr. Buveni 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. Raveni is exercising his rights under five 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. Raveni's reinstatement. We thank these members for their support of Mr. Raveni and urge all members of Congress committed to the rule of law, along with the DOJ Inspector General and the U.S. office of Special Counsel to investigate the disclosures presented in this letter.
- [07:47]
Andy McCabe
Section 1 Erez Reveni Nonpartisan zealous advocate with distinguished service to DOJ before his unlawful removal from Federal Services on April 11, 2025, Mr. Raveni had an exemplary nearly 15 year legal career at DOJ. Mr. Raveni began his career at the Office of Immigration Litigation, District court section in 2010 as a trial attorney and was promoted multiple times under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Most recently, Mr. Raveni served as the Acting Deputy Director for the Office of Immigration Litigation, responsible for all of oil's immigration litigation arising in US 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. Raveni received notice of his promotion to that role on March 14, 2025, effective Friday, March 21, 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 in in joining Trump administration policies nationwide, including multiple emergency appeals to various courts of appeal.
- [09:31]
Alison Gill
Prior to Mr. Raveni's termination, following his candid and truthful representations to the court in the Abreco Garcia case, Department of justice leadership under the Trump administration had consistently lauded Mr. Raveni's work. For example, in March of 2025, in a March 21 email announcing Mr. Roveni's recent promotion, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign remarked that M. Raveni, quote, is a top notched litigator Spelling who has taken on some of OIs 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. Raveni's most recent performance review under the prior Trump administration was stellar. Then Deputy Director Colin Kaiser wrote, quote, assistant Director Arez Reveni continues to be one of OIS'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. Kisor further noted that, quote, Mr. Raveni routinely received accolades for his efforts from senior personnel within DOJ and the agencies he advocates for. Is an 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. Raveni 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.
- [11:36]
Andy McCabe
For years, Mr. Raveni oversaw the defense of immigration priorities regardless of political party. During the first Trump administration, Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni 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. Raveni 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. Raveni oversaw multiple high profile Trump administration immigration initiatives. In short, Mr. Raveni 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.
- [13:14]
Alison Gill
All right, before we get to Section two, we're going to take a really quick break, so everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Hey everybody, welcome back. We are now on page 7 of 27 and this is section 2. March 14, 2025. DOJ leadership expressed intent to ignore court orders to effectuate removal flights under the Alien Enemies act. On Friday, March 14, 2025, Mr. Raveni 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. Mr. Raveni was summoned to a meeting with by Deputy Assistant Attorney General of O Drew Ensign. @ the meeting were Principal Assistant Deputy Attorney General Pag Emil Bovey, Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General James McHenry, Associate Deputy Attorney General Paul Perkins DAAG Ensign Acting Director for Oil, and Mr. Raveni's direct supervisor Auguste Florida and other oil attorneys. Now I want to break in here and say that that August FLE 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. At the meeting, Bovee 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. Bovey did not provide further details and redacted. Redacted. Bovey indicated redacted and stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what. Bovey then made a remark concerning the possibility that a court order would enjoin those removals. Before they could be effectuated. Bovey stated, the DOJ would need to consider telling the courts you and ignore any such court order. Mr. Raveni perceived that others in the room looked stunned and he observed awkward, nervous glances among people in the room. Silence overtook the room. Mr. Raveni and others were quickly ushered out of the room. Notwithstanding Bovey's directive, Mr. Raveni left the meeting understanding that DOJ would tell the Department of Homeland Security to follow all court orders. Mr. Raveni was stunned by Bovey's statement because to Mr. Raveni'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. Raveni 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. Raveni knew that it was absurd and unlawful to do otherwise, a proposition that Mr. Raveni felt even more certain of after a brief conversation with his supervisor, August Flansche, shortly after the meeting.
- [16:32]
Andy McCabe
Section 3 Between March 14, 2025 and his unlawful suspension on April 5, 2025, Mr. Raveni refused to obey an illegal order and made protected whistleblower disclosures. Mr. Raveni's disbelief following the meeting with Beauvais is now a relic of a different time. Over the next three weeks, Mr. Raveni 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 one DOJ officials undermining the rule of law by ignoring court orders two DOJ presenting legal arguments with no basis in law, three high ranking DOJ and DHS officials misrepresenting facts presented before courts and four DOJ officials directing Mr. Raveni to misrepresent facts in one of these cases in violation of Mr. Raveni's legal and ethical duties as an officer of the court. Mr. Raveni's internal reporting and ultimately his refusal to obey this illegal order directly resulted in his suspension and termination. Part A JGG v. 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 1:12am 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. Raveni woke up that morning, he reviewed the plaintiff's motion and learned that the removals were allegedly to prisons in El Salvador known for 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 Boasberg of the US 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 4pm which the court later changed to 5pm to hear an argument on the broader TROJAN subsection.
- [19:08]
Alison Gill
1. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ensign willfully misled the court while DHS and DOS ignored Mr. Rouveni's advice. Shortly after Judge Boasberg entered the initial TRO, Mr. Rouveni informed the district court via email at 10:18am that its order had been received and disseminated to the relevant executive branch agencies at 5pm at the hearing later that day, Ensign represented the government in court while Mr. Raveni 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 Boberg 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 Boberg 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. Reveni 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 Emil Bovey 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 Boasberg 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.
- [21:37]
Andy McCabe
At that point, Judge Boasberg adjourned the hearing until 6:00pm 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, we can do that, you, Honor. The adjournment began at 5:22pm Mr. Raveni was not included in Ensign's conversations with DHS, DOS or DOJ leadership during this period. However, prior to 5:24pm DOJ attorneys, including Ensign and Mr. Raveni, 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 5:26pm and the second at 5:45pm en route to what online sources speculated was a final destination of El Salvador.
- [22:57]
Alison Gill
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.
- [23:18]
Andy McCabe
Gotta get on it. Okay. It goes on to say, yet at 6pm following the 38 minute adjournment, Daag Ensign provided Judge Boasberg 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 Boasberg 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.
- [24:35]
Alison Gill
That's interesting to see what happened in that in camera proceeding. Yeah, next page. And we, by the way, are on page 11. Plaintiff's counsel told the court, quote, we understand that two flights went to El Salvador this afternoon and that a third flight was scheduled for 6:23. 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 approve disseminate to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations and other relevant components. Because Mr. Raveni'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 6:14pm, as the hearing continued, Mr. Raveni, again listening on the public line, emailed attorneys with the DHS Office of General Counsel, ICE Office of the Principal Legal Adviser and the DOS Office of Legal Adviser, 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 6:44pm, Mr. Raveni 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 6:44pm Mr. Raveni texted his supervisor, Mr. Flerencing Bovee's March 14, 2025 comment that it might be necessary to tell the court, fuck you. Mr. Flenche acknowledged Bovey's comment with a joke referencing the possibility that either he or Mr. Raveni could be fired impliedly for reporting up the chain of command concerns that a court order may have been violated. Hmm. At 6:46pm Mr. Raveni emailed DHS the substance of Judge Boasberg'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 6.48pm, Mr. Raveni 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. All right, before we get to page 12, we're going to take another quick break, so everyone stick around. We'll be right back.
- [27:55]
Andy McCabe
Foreign 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 Proc. Of March 15, 2025 and its implementation. Judge Boasberg 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 7:04pm, Mr. Raveni emailed DHS and DOS as 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 8 final order. Please confirm receipt and let us know what, if anything, is happening. Thank you. DHS and DOS attorneys did not respond. Mr. Raveni followed up with DHS at 7:18pm 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 7:20pm noting that, quote, we need to address this ASAP to avoid contempt. Mr. Raveni again received no response. At 7:26pm the court issued a minute order memorializing its TRO. At 7:27pm, Mr. Raveni sent another email to DHS and DOS with a copy of the minute order. At 7:31pm Ensign emailed 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. Raveni and Flinche 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. Raveni was not copied on any response.
- [31:19]
Alison Gill
At 10:13pm after he and Mr. Flenshe had exchanged numerous emails and he had no information about any DHS compliance, Mr. Raveni 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 Emile Beauvais 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. Raveni exchanged emails with Flinche 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. Raveni that DOJ would be filing a notice with the court signed by Bovee explaining its interpretation of the court order, including that no violation of the court order had occurred because the two planes left U.S. airspace before the court's written minute order. Ensign directed Mr. Raveni to prepare Bovey's notice of appearance. While Mr. Raveni disagreed with the interpretation that there was no violation of a court order, the fact that Bovee, 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. That quickly changed. On Sunday, March 16, 2025, at 12:23am Ensign informed Mr. Reveni by phone that Bovee 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. Raveni and Flex exchanged several more emails. Mr. Raveni anticipated that the government would be held in contempt of court and for deplaning those on the flight, and communicated his belief that a notice to the court would be necessary. Ten minutes later, at 12:33am Ensign telephoned Mr. Raveni, informing him that DOJ leadership did not appear to be in a hurry to file any such notice. Mr. Raveni 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 8:07am Mr. Raveni emailed DHS and DOS asking for confirmation of their compliance with Judge Boasberg's oral and written orders, specifically asking for the status of the individuals on each of the previous day's three flights. Mr. Raveni's email included a reminder that to comply with the injunction, no one subject to AEA removal should have been deplaned and anyone who had been deplaned needed to be returned to the United States. Mr. Raveni also asked whether conversations on those issues were happening at a higher level of leadership between and among DOJ, DHS, and DOS. Mr. Raveni received no response.
- [34:39]
Andy McCabe
Given the absence of any email or notice from the agencies or DOJ leadership At that point, Mr. Raveni'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 oopsie, too late in reference to Judge Boasberg'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. As the day continued, Mr. Raveni's emails asking for confirmation of the status of the removal flights remained unanswered. Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni'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 counsel for DHS informed Mr. Raveni by telephone that DOJ leadership had advised DHS to deplane the flights in El Salvador and directed Mr. Raveni to consult DOJ leadership If he had any questions. Through the course of the events on March 16, it became clear to Mr. Ravendi that DHS and DOS were receiving contrary directions from someone else to take actions in violation of court orders. By 2pm the identity of that individual became clear. In an email from Acting Assistant Attorney General Yakov Roth to ensign Flinche and Mr. Raveni, Roth explained that Beauvais had advised DHS that under the court order, it was permissible to deplane individuals on the flights that departed US Airspace before the minute Order had issued.
- [36:50]
Alison Gill
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 7:26pm 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 17, 2025. At some point prior to the March 17 hearing, Ensign informed Mr. Raveni that Ensign would not be handling the hearing, given concerns that the court would likely interrogate ensign concerning March 15 events. Subsection 3 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, Flinchet and Ensign told Mr. Raveni 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 7:26pm on March 15 and so not to provide information about when the flights took off.
- [38:50]
Andy McCabe
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 vs DHS Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni exercised his right to make protected disclosures, unfolded over the weekend of March 28 through 30, 2025 DVD v. U.S. department of Homeland Security. This case involved allegations 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 2:30pm 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 that is a country other than the country designated for removal in the immigration proceedings, without providing the individual and their counsel with written notice of 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 1 Friday, March 28 Senior leadership took the position that the injunction did not have nationwide applicability. Despite Dojoil'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 the operational effects of the order is sic 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. Raveni learned that DHS was directed by someone within the administration unknown to Mr. Raveni not to issue guidance to its officers concerning the facts of and terms of the injunction. This was despite the fact that DHS Agency counsel had drafted guidance concerning the injunction that noted the nationwide applicability of the Trojan, which Mr. Raveni and others at oil had agreed was appropriate. Mr. Raveni sent multiple emails to DHS Council requesting updates regarding when the guidance would be disseminated. Multiple line attorneys at DHS alerted Mr. Raveni that the guidance was Never distributed. Ensign eventually told Mr. Raveni that the Office of Deputy Attorney General had had directed a hold on dissemination of the guidance as they were reviewing it. An unusual but not unheard of level of review.
- [42:58]
Alison Gill
Hmm. 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 11:28pm Mr. Raveni sent an email to DHS counsel 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. So this is the deja vu all over again from Mr. Reveni. Mr. Reveni 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 12:34am Senior Counselor, 12:34am 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. Raveni 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. Raveni that DHS had received direction contrary to the guidance Oil had provided concerning the scope of the injunction. Mr. Raveni had attempted to contact Ensign and Flinche multiple times by phone between 10:40pm and midnight and Roth via email, but no one answered. Subsection two, night of March 28, morning of March 29, White House directed Mr. Raveni to file brief asking for emergency stay with assurances of understanding of nationwide applicability. Mr. Rouveni, 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 12:42am on Saturday, March 29. One minute later, at 12:50am Mr. Raveni received frantic emails from multiple senior DOJ and DHS officials, ultimately including McHenry, Perkins and Counselor to the Attorney General, Henry Whitaker and Percival. Asking him to call them. Mr. Raveni first called Perkins, and he and McHenry were on the line. They asked Mr. Raveni why the brief had not been filed. Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni 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.
- [46:38]
Andy McCabe
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 are still stuck in Djibouti because they were supposed to be deported to third countries. Around 1:18am Whitaker and Percival emailed Mr. Raveni, asking him to call them. Mr. Raveni called Whitaker, who immediately patched in Percival. Similar to McHenry and Perkins, Whitaker and Percival asked Mr. Ravenney why the brief had not been filed. They stated that the White House wanted the brief filed by midnight. Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni 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. Ravini also shared his understanding that no guidance had been disseminated to DHS regarding the position in the brief. Mr. Raveni 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 weird. Just seems wildly inappropriate.
- [48:27]
Alison Gill
Hell yeah, bro. Hell yeah, nationwide.
- [48:30]
Andy McCabe
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. Raveni directed his staff to file the brief. Later that day, Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni to stop asking about injunction compliance and guidance. On the morning of March 29, Mr. Raveni learned that individuals were again being staged in Texas by DHS, possibly for removal. Against that backdrop, Mr. Raveni heard from DHS that DHS was again working on disseminating guidance to ICE. Relieved, Mr. Raveni briefly turned to other matters. However, by early afternoon, it again became clear no guidance would be forthcoming. Mr. Raveni heard from agency counsel that no guidance had been disseminated and instead was stuck somewhere within 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. Raveni called DHS agency counsel around 3:20pm and confirmed directly that no guidance had been issued. He immediately sent an email to DHS Agency counsel, in addition to Percival and Acting General Counsel for dhs, Mazara, again requesting an update on the status of the guidance.
- [50:22]
Alison Gill
Separately, Mr. Raveni contacted Ensign by phone who informed him that the head of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations ERO and 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. Raveni by phone that it would be advisable to stop sending emails with many recipients, including Percival, concerning the injunction compliance guidance. Huh?
- [50:53]
Andy McCabe
That is literally closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.
- [50:58]
Alison Gill
Wow. All right. So subsection 4, Sunday, March 30 Mr. Raveni reported a possible violation of the injunction. On the morning of Sunday, March 30, despite Ensign's instructions to stop email correspondence on the matter, Mr. Raveni again emailed DHS to ask if any guidance on the injunction had been disseminated. Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni spoke twice with Ensign on the phone between approximately 11am and noon, during which time Ensign told Mr. Raveni that leadership had concluded and directed that no injunction compliance guidance would be issued. Ensign also again told Mr. Raveni that he should no longer contact DHS asking about guidance. Mr. Raveni informed Ensign that plaintiff's counsel had notified oil attorneys that their class members clients were being or had been prepared for removal and without further further information. This appeared to be a violation of the injunction. Ensign made comments to the effect that he agreed with. Mr. Raveni 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 5 Monday, March 31 evidence demonstrated government violated the injunction. Finally, on Monday, March 31, Secretary of State issued a press release announcing a successful counterterrorism operation with our allies in El Salvador through which, quote, the United States military transferred a group of 17 violent criminals from the Trend Aragua and Ms. 13 organizations, including murderers and rapists, unquote. Upon seeing this press release, Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni or others at oil, stating this was a DoD matter, directing Mr. Raveni to the Acting General Counsel of the DoD and instructing Mr. Raveni not to ask DHS about this matter again.
- [53:12]
Andy McCabe
Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni 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 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. Raveni that there was no plausible way these removals did not violate the court order.
- [54:17]
Alison Gill
Does I have to interrupt you, Andy? Does this sound like DOJ stop. Took DHS out of the loop, told Raveni to stop contacting DHS, and tossed it over to DoD without telling them about the injunction?
- [54:31]
Andy McCabe
I mean, yeah, I mean, that's what it sounds like.
- [54:34]
Alison Gill
Wow.
- [54:35]
Andy McCabe
It sounds like you have. I mean, it's hard to get your head around it. Like, 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.
- [54:51]
Alison Gill
Like 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. Like, it's just.
- [54:59]
Andy McCabe
Who's got a plane who can send these people out now? You know, it's just amazing. Yeah, okay. Goes on to say Mr. Raveni reported this development to Ensign and Flintier by phone and email. Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni that he had no knowledge of the removal operations. Ouch. Indeed. Over email on Monday, March 31, 2025, at around 5pm, Mr. Ravini asked Mazara 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. Mazara did not respond. During this same time, DOS attorneys expressed dismay to Mr. Raveni 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 posts suggested DOS had violated that injunction through its participation in the removals.
- [56:32]
Alison Gill
All right, so statesmade DOD's MAD and DHS isn't talking and they're saying stop emailing us. Wow. Yeah.
- [56:43]
Andy McCabe
Basically hear no evil, see no evil thing going on at DHS.
- [56:47]
Alison Gill
Right. All right, we're on page 21. On April 1st, Mr. Raveni was again told to stop asking questions. Mr. Raveni received a phone call from Acting AAG Roth in which Roth relayed that Bovey was very unhappy that Mr. Raveni had contacted counsel at various agencies to ascertain whether DOJ had violated a court order. Roth conveyed that Mr. Raveni should stop emailing agency counsel on the matter to instead communicate by phone only where possible. Mr. Raveni understood this instruction to be based on leadership's aim to avoid generating written material subject to disclosure through FOIA. Roth also informed Mr. Raveni 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 Flinche 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 DOJO, interfered with DOJOIL's efforts to ensure agency clients were informed about the requirements of the injunction, and provided contrary instructions and 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. Kilmore 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. Nome. On March 15, 2025, as part of the Alien Enemies act operation described above, DHS removed a Maryland resident, Mr. Kilmer 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.
- [59:37]
Andy McCabe
So part one, Mr. Raveni 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 matters 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 have come up with that strategy. Indeed, it was Mr. Raveni'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. Rodrego Garcia to the United States. Accordingly, beginning on March 24th, when the case was filed through the date of the hearing on April 4, Mr. Raveni and other agency counsel from DHS and DOS continuously discussed the possibility of requesting Mr. Abrego 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 Cekote. Subpart 2. On March 31, 2025, Senior 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 counsel, 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. Raveni noted that any such factual allegations would need to be supported by evidence such as a declarant on behalf of dhs.
- [62:39]
Alison Gill
Approximately two hours after the exchange between Percival and Raveni, DHS provided a declaration. The declarant was Robert Serna, Acting Field Officer, Director for Enforcement and removal operations at ICE. Through Cerna's declaration, DHS conceded that because Mr. Abrego Garcia had obtained 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 Cerna, placed on a plane to El Salvador. CERNA stated that ICE was aware of. Of this grant of withholding of removal at the time of Brago Garcia's removal from the United States. There's a. 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.
- [63:36]
Andy McCabe
Okay, hold on one second. So they bring in CERNA to make the allegations of gang affiliation. Right, because they needed a declarant. And CERNA 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.
- [64:00]
Alison Gill
And then CERNA also could not personally confirm and declined to attest to Abrego Garcia's gang membership, let alone a status as an MS.13 leader. Instead, Cerna's declaration stated that Mr. Abrego Garcia was removed on March 15 based on his purported membership in MS.13. Emphasis added. Cerna'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 3. Raveni raised concerns about sufficiency of the evidence and urged remedial actions to address Abrego Garcia's erroneous We read that after.
- [64:44]
Andy McCabe
David was like, how does this help anything? I don't understand.
- [64:48]
Alison Gill
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.
- [64:55]
Andy McCabe
And by the way, we, we hose this whole thing knowingly. All right?
- [64:59]
Alison Gill
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 CECOAT. 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. Raveni 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. Raveni raised concerns in multiple emails to both DHS and DOS about the sufficiency of the evidence to support Mr. Abrego Garcia's alleged gang affiliation and the lack of action to correct his erroneous removal. Mr. Raveni also raised those concerns in multiple emails and phone calls to his DOJ leadership, including Raf and Ensign, on several occasions between April 1 and April 4, 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.
- [66:43]
Andy McCabe
All right, we're back. Continuing with the case of Mr. Abrego Garcia, subpart four, after Mr. Raveni repeated in court, per the record, the government's concession that Mr. Abrego Garcia was erroneously removed, Ensein 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 Assini's 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 Mazara, 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. Raveni went from the courtroom to the US 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. Raveni had already received multiple text messages sharing news headlines about his statements to the court. Mr. Roveni also received an email from Ensign directing Mr. Raveni to call him, which Mr. Raveni did. On that call, Ensign asked Mr. Raveni for the first time why Mr. Raveni had not argued that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a terrorist and that therefore his withholding of removal order was invalid. Mr. Raveni 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. 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. Raveni 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. That doesn't even make sense.
- [69:14]
Alison Gill
Right.
- [69:14]
Andy McCabe
Ensign had little reaction, but called again a few minutes later, asking similar questions and informing Mr. Raveni 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 proceeds 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. Abrego Garcia's alleged gang membership and the absence of. Of any other supporting evidence.
- [70:07]
Alison Gill
Go, Cerna. All right, we are now on page 25, subsection 5. Mr. Raveni refuses to sign an appeal brief with arguments unsupported by evidence or law, and then was put on administrative leave in 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. Raveni. Mr. Raveni understood that his name would appear on this brief. Mr. Raveni 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. Of course, you just can't. I know that, and I. Okay. That evening, Mr. Raveni received in an email, he received a draft brief that made the same legal arguments to Mitch to which Mr. Raveni had consistently objected. Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni had objected to were moved to a different section of the brief.
- [71:42]
Andy McCabe
That'll. That'll throw him off. He'll never find it in subpart four.
- [71:48]
Alison Gill
I need you to know this is the first time I've read That sentence and I'm dying inside. Oh.
- [71:55]
Andy McCabe
The level of duplicity and incompetence is like. I don't know which is worse.
- [72:00]
Alison Gill
Sign it here before that section. Okay.
- [72:03]
Andy McCabe
Okay. Since you moved it to page five. Now I'm okay. We're cool.
- [72:07]
Alison Gill
Yeah, we're cool. Mr. Raveni emailed Fletcher, his direct supervisor, and said he can't. I can't sign the brief. He could not sign the brief, given the unsupported arguments. Earlier on that morning of Saturday, April 5, Flenchy emailed Mr. Raveni and asked him to call him. Mr. Raveni and Fletcher had a phone call around 1:20am in which Mr. Raveni again repeated the same objections he's been making the whole time.
- [72:29]
Andy McCabe
I'm guessing that phone call began with Flinche screaming at him, stop sending me emails. Do not send me more emails.
- [72:38]
Alison Gill
Now, Flinche told Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni 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. Raveni 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 Blanche placing Mr. Raveni 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 Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences. On April 11, Mr. Raveni was terminated without notice.
- [73:40]
Andy McCabe
Section 4, unlawful retaliation. In the weeks following the notable March 14 meeting during which Bovey stated DOJ might have to tell a federal court fuck you. To implement the administration's removal priorities. Mr. Raveni witnessed and internally reported to his DOJ leadership multiple incidents that led him to reasonable reasonably believe the government was in violation of court orders. Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni'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. Raveni made truthful representations to Judge Paul Assinis about the government's own record in the case of Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, abiding by his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Professional Conduct. The next day, Mr. Ravini refused a directive from DOJ leadership to file an emergency appeal brief in Mr. Abrego Garcia's case that Mr. Raveni reasonably believed asserted arguments that were contrary to law, frivolous and untrue. In reprisal for his whistleblowing and refusal to obey illegal orders, Mr. Reveni 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. Raveni were meant to silence Mr. Raveni and other DOJ attorneys who resist unlawful actions. Instead, Mr. Raveni will continue to tell the truth in defense of the rule of law. Mr. Raveni 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.
- [76:24]
Alison Gill
Whoever'S left at the Merit Systems Protection.
- [76:26]
Andy McCabe
There's no one there now.
- [76:27]
Alison Gill
But number five. Here's section five, page 26. The conclusion Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni 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. Mr. Raveni 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. Raveni 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 has carried out across administrations. I, Erez Reveni, 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 the leadership of the Office of Special Counsel remain 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 Erez Raveni. That is a heck of a whistleblower letter, my friends.
- [78:39]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, yeah, it really is.
- [78:40]
Alison Gill
And Andy, I think it's interesting that we gravitated on the Unjustified podcast toward the Bozberg 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. This wanting people to lie in court orders, telling people to tell the court to fuck off. It's. This is I. Everything is so, you know, hyperbolic these days that when you come across something this important, it's hard to. To catch the words.
- [79:29]
Andy McCabe
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 hand picked, preserved and saved ig by the incoming Trump administration, the only one who got asked to stick around. Now is your chance to prove whether 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 going to 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.
- [81:22]
Alison Gill
Well said, my friend. With that, we're going 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 Mueller she wrote.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 Bozberg, we'll continue to see it in Judge Polissini's courtroom where there are motions now perhaps supplemented motions to continue discussing discovery for violation of court orders. Yeah, we'll see this in Mr. Abrego's case and, and yeah, the DVD case.
- [81:58]
Andy McCabe
And, and Judge Boasberg learned more about what the government did here in those cases with those planes from, from Erez Raveni than he ever learned about from the government in that discovery. I mean, like, very true.
- [82:13]
Alison Gill
All right, everybody, we will see you on Sunday for the regular episode of Unjustified. Thanks for listening to this bonus and thanks for list us. I've been Allison Gill and I'm Andy McCabe. Unjustified is written and executive produced by Allison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design and editing is by Molly Hockey with art and web design by Joelle Reader 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. From a more information, please visit mswmedia. Com.