Donate

Model / illustrative briefs · hypothetical claimants

Model Briefs

The Anti-Weaponization Fund's own rules apply, on their face, to anyone the rules cover. Not only the Broadview Six. These three model briefs are exemplars for other potential claimants who may want to apply. Each is built around a hypothetical fact pattern, keyed to the operative settlement sections (§ II.C recital, § V.C operative test, § V.D totality factors), and structured the same way the project's own Fund Brief is built.

The model briefs are not legal advice and the hypothetical claimants are not real people. Anyone considering a real filing should consult counsel. See the full standing disclaimer.

Tax-return leak

Fact pattern

A claimant whose confidential federal tax records were leaked from inside the IRS, then surfaced in partisan press coverage that the leaker amplified.

Settlement-section mapping

§ II.C "weaponization" framing applied to the disclosure itself. § V.C asserts at least one statutory privacy claim (e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 6103 / § 7431). § V.D walks the totality factors — strength of the statutory claim, the claimant's own (non-)actions, actual damages from the disclosure.

Notes

Keyed to a known fact pattern that ran in 2023-2024 federal coverage and presented here as illustrative. The brief shows how to construct the eligibility argument without conceding any partisan-definition reading of § II.C.

IRS ideological targeting

Fact pattern

A nonprofit organization whose tax-exempt application or audit was, on the record, processed differently based on the political tilt of its name or mission.

Settlement-section mapping

§ II.C "weaponization" framing applied to differential agency treatment. § V.C asserts a constitutional viewpoint-discrimination claim and the statutory framework where applicable. § V.D works the damages of delayed or denied tax-exempt status and attorneys' fees from the underlying litigation.

Notes

Argues from the agency's own admissions and from any congressional or IG findings on the record, not from claimant-side characterization. Pure take-them-at-their-word construction.

Politically-motivated FACE Act prosecution

Fact pattern

A defendant prosecuted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (18 U.S.C. § 248) under a charging pattern that, on the comparative record, treats similarly-situated conduct by other political affinities differently.

Settlement-section mapping

§ II.C frames the selective enforcement as weaponization. § V.C asserts Armstrong-pattern selective-prosecution and Wayte-pattern protected-activity-targeting claims. § V.D weighs strength, the claimant's own actions, damages from prosecution itself, and the seventh "other factors" discretionary category.

Notes

Demonstrates that the framework cuts across political alignments. The Fund's stated standards, applied honestly, cover prosecutions of the Right and the Left alike. That symmetry is the brief's hardest argument and its strongest.

Where the full text lives

The full model briefs are kept in the project repository at webapp-build-kit/Justice4Kat-Copy/AntiWeaponizationFund_ModelBriefs.docx. Pulling them into the public document set is a queued improvement. The repository is the canonical source until then.

Want to apply yourself?

If you or someone you know may have a claim under the Fund, the project's own Fund Brief on /documents/fund-brief is the worked example. The Fund itself is explained on /the-fund. The obstacles are on /the-catch. None of this is legal advice; consult counsel.

Sources on this page