US District Court Blocks Mike Lindell Attempt To Evade Justice In Docs Case

U.S. District Court Judge Eric Tostrud ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had seized the phone in a rare move in connection to the warranted search of Mar-a-Lago (R) while the president was summering in New York.

The DOJ justified the search of Lindell’s phone, because it was connected to an investigation in Colorado at the time. The probe was concerned the Colorado voting system breaches shortly after the 2020 election, according to The POLITICO.

Ironically, Judge Tostrud had been appointed by former president Donald Trump. The judge was currently out of the St. Paul, Minnesota office. This was why he caught the case. The judge denied an effort by Lindell to access the affidavit justifying the seizure of his phone, too.

Lindell and the ex-president have been friends for quite some time. The MyPillow guy was in the Oval Office when decisions were being made about how to handle president’s claim of a fraudulent election of President Joe Biden. At this time Lindell has not been charged with any sort of fraud. At the same time, the judge also denied Lindell the opportunity to see the affidavit that justified the search, originally.

The affidavit by Judge Tostrud and wanted by Lindell was “extensive,” running 80 pages long. It contained confidential informant names. And it also included the names of cooperating witnesses along with the “recorded communications” information.

The judge said sharing the sensitive nature of the sealed documents could easily cause problems with an existing investigation the FBI was already conducting. The sensitive documents could not be redacted well enough to give Lindell any useful information.

Tostrud wrote in “his 36-page order:”

‘Premature disclosure of these materials would significantly undermine the Government’s ongoing criminal investigation, giving Plaintiffs (and potentially, other targets of the investigation) a window into the Government’s investigation that could compromise the investigation as a whole.’

Tostrud ruled against Lindell’s “allegations of constitutional violations:

‘Against Plaintiffs’ unsupported allegations of constitutional violations and conclusory assertions of harm, the Government has a significant interest in effective law enforcement and prompt resolution of criminal matters these interests would be harmed significantly, and criminal investigations and proceedings would be delayed, if litigants were allowed to use civil litigation to collaterally attack ongoing criminal investigations and proceedings.’

Lindell claimed seizing his phone “violated his constitutional rights.” And he had every right to see the FBI’s justification. He also said that he had a right to ask the FBI to not use his records in any other investigation.

Then, the judge harkened back to a well-established principle:

‘[T]here is ‘a sound and well-established principle that a court should not exercise its equitable powers to interfere with or enjoin an ongoing criminal investigation when the defendant will have the opportunity to challenge any defects in the prosecution in the trial court or on direct appeal.’

The judge disagreed, saying the time for him to challenge the seizure of his phone records would be after he was indicted.