Norm Eisen and his two dozen allies within the various Lawfare NGO’s have again interceded and temporarily blocked the financial settlement between the IRS/DOJ and Donald Trump, the $1.776 billion anti-Weaponization Fund settlement.
The weaponization fund was established as part of a settlement agreement between Mr. Trump and the Internal Revenue Service to end a civil lawsuit he and his sons filed in January over the illegal leaking of his tax returns by the IRS. While President Trump will receive no benefit from the settlement, under the agreement the fund aims to “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of all others who suffered weaponization and lawfare.”
There is zero legal precedent for a non-participant in the settlement to interfere in the terms and conditions of the settlement itself. All outside parties have zero standing to interfere in the settlement and all reasonable legal minds will tell you exactly the same. A Lawfare challenge is futile because taxpayers do not have legal standing to stop the govt from settling lawsuits (see Pigford et al).
In 1923 the Supreme Court said that a taxpayer’s interest in money from the Treasury “is shared with millions of others” and is “comparatively minute and indeterminable.” “If we have an intersection collision with a postal truck and a settlement is negotiated to give $5 million to a family, does anybody have standing to come in and say, ‘the government paid too much in that settlement?'” The answer is no.
However, the law is really not what stands behind the Lawfare approach. Lawfare is a political strategy designed for public consumption that relies upon the media and stupidity of the American populace. Smart, intelligent and reasonable people can see through Lawfare when applied.
(VIA CBS) – Washington — A federal judge temporarily blocked the Justice Department from moving forward with work on the new $1.7+ billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, including making any payouts.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said in a brief order dated Thursday that the temporary hold allows her time to consider whether to grant longer-term relief sought by a group of plaintiffs who are challenging the new fund, which was announced by the Justice Department earlier this month. (more)
[SOURCE]
The judge knows the end of this Lawfare journey will culminate in a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the IRS/DOJ and President Trump. However, the judge needs to retain his relationships, his network, his cocktail party invitations, and therefore goes along with the Lawfare resistance group.
When Christine Blasey Ford was used to try and block the judicial appointment of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she was questioned about who wrote her letter of complaint from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Ms Ford described the network of former DOJ and FBI officials who guided her as “Beach Friends.”
It is this same group of 20 +/- ‘beach friends’ who operate this Lawfare network, NGO system, aligned law firms, and stimulate hundreds of lawsuits against President Trump with the intention of just being against anything that diminishes their political structures. Lawfare is funded by leftist billionaires and overseas money.
The establishment of a $1.776 billion fund to compensate victims of Lawfare is an afront to the ideological intentions of the ‘Beach Friends’.


I pray for prosecutions of the Beach Friends and impeachments/convictions of the judges.
We need three strikes and your out for judges. Get reversed three times, you’re off the bench.
I guarantee you the quality of judicial output would greatly improve.
That is an excellent idea!!!
When the truth is laid bare about 9/11, I wonder what the bench will do about the settlements demanded in that caper.
Norm Eisen sounds like a nose guy, I mean a nice guy.
0 standing yet they are able to actually ruin people and the country.
0 standing.
yet they have 100% real life impact on people.
There is zero legal precedent for a non-participant in the settlement to interfere in the terms and conditions of the settlement itself. All outside parties have zero standing to interfere in the settlement and all reasonable legal minds will tell you exactly the same. A Lawfare challenge is futile because taxpayers do not have legal standing to stop the govt from settling lawsuits (see Pigford et al). – Sundance
And yet during the 2020 fraudulent election no individual or State had standing to present evidence in Court but here Lawfare’s futile challenge has standing since the Court took the case!! How can that be??? We still have a banana republic two tier Judicial system with the Democrats in the top tier and the Republicans in the bottom tier!! JMO
…this “judge” and the “judge” gettin’ it on in her chambers with a boy-toy cop down in Georgia…these two “judges” are two peas from the same pod…there needs to be a hanging judge for the hanging of these crooked judges…by the neck…until dead.
Our side needs a Fairlaw group to fight against the evil lawfare group.
The RAT 🐀 party are sick corrupt and nasty! They need to spend time in the DC gulag!! 💁🏻♀️
If “The judge knows the end of this Lawfare journey will culminate in a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the IRS/DOJ and President Trump”…
*Frivolous
An action, lawsuit, or appeal that lacks basis or legitimacy and is intended more to cause annoyance or interference rather than resolve a dispute.*
Why does SCOTUS allow lesser judges to do it without consequential penalties for engaging in frivolous actions they know (or should know – 1923 Supreme Court ruling) will not only be overturned but, waste precious SCOTUS time?
Judges can impose consequential penalties on Attorneys for engaging in overtly frivolous actions…
Why can’t/won’t SCOTUS impose consequential penalties on lesser judges who do the same?
Norm Eisen is a “vexatious litigant”. There must be a process in the Federal Court that addresses actions to take against vexatious litigants.