The Fund Brief

What's in it — the eleven parts

Each section of the brief argues one piece of the eligibility case from the settlement's own text and from named primary sources — including DOJ's own “no partisan requirements” framing1.

1. Part I

   Summary of argument

   Who the Broadview Six are, what the record shows, and the four things the brief argues: the bar is low and met; the "Democrat" recital does not bar the claim; every § II.C element is met; the § V.D factors support substantial relief.

2. Part II

   Statement of facts

   The September 26, 2025 protest in Broadview, Illinois. The October 29 indictment. The seven-month prosecution. The May 21, 2026 dismissal with prejudice on the government's own motion, after Judge April M. Perry identified grand-jury misconduct on in-camera review — with the verbatim transcript quotes and the two accuracy notes the brief honors.

3. Part III

   Answers to the Democrat-qualifier objection

   The argument's central legal challenge: § II.C's illustrative examples all come from one administration. Four answers in order of strength — the operative text (§ V.C) has no party limiter; the last-antecedent reading, offered openly as rebuttable; DOJ's own "no partisan requirements" construction; and constitutional avoidance / absurdity as downstream tie-breakers.

4. Part IV

   Four legal claims, each independently sufficient

   Malicious prosecution (Thompson v. Clark / Manuel v. Joliet, bridged to the FTCA). First Amendment retaliatory prosecution (Hartman v. Moore). Selective prosecution (Armstrong / Wayte). Abuse of the grand jury (Bank of Nova Scotia, used with its double edge stated). Section V.C requires assertion, not proof.

5. Part V

   The § II.C definition, element by element

   Sustained use of government power. A covered actor. Targeting for political or ideological reasons. And the element usually hardest to carry — "improper and unlawful" — supplied here on the federal court's own record, with its limits stated.

6. Part VI

   The § V.D totality factors, applied

   Strength of the asserted claim. The claimants' own actions (protest is protected). Actual damages, including the documented mid-prosecution congressional-primary loss. Attorneys' fees already incurred. Time in custody. Prior relief (none). Panel discretion, addressed openly.

7. Part VII

   Keepseagle — the precedent DOJ named

   DOJ called Keepseagle the Fund's "legal precedent." By Keepseagle's own working principle — real claimants, neutral criteria — the Broadview Six are covered, with the limits of the analogy stated honestly: Pigford and Cobell rested on Acts of Congress the Fund lacks, and Keepseagle's individual payouts were themselves unreviewable (Labatte).

8. Part VIII

   Relief requested

   A formal apology and monetary relief for legal-defense costs, reputational and professional harm, and personal injury — noting the § V.B election that acceptance would require.

9. Part IX

   The obstacles, candidly

   Five, stated plainly: there is, today, no Fund to file with (frozen May 29; withdrawn June 2). The partisan-definition counterargument. The structurally adverse, unreviewable panel. The § V.B "file or sue" waiver — including the Hyde route's own Chapman prevailing-party threshold, confronted in the companion Hyde Brief. And the standing observation that cuts the other way.

10. Part X

    Standing caution — the Fund's provenance

    No court reviewed or approved the Fund; Trump v. IRS closed with "no settlement of record," and the only judicial action on the Fund to date has been to bar it. The argument needs no judicial endorsement — only the Fund's own stated terms.

11. Part XI

    Closing — apply the stated rule

    DOJ said the machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, under any administration, with no partisan requirements to file. The freeze changes what can be filed, not what the rule covered.