In a stunning revelation that strikes at the heart of judicial integrity, Freedom of Information Act records obtained by We the People News prove that U.S. Marshals sent prejudicial communications about journalist Matthew Reardon to federal judges—two months before any criminal charges were filed.

The communications, sent to email addresses within the @lawd.uscourts.gov domain (the official email system for the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, used by federal judges, magistrate judges, and chambers staff), characterized Reardon’s constitutionally protected journalism as “suspicious behavior” and instructed court personnel to report any activities related to him.

Now, in what legal experts are calling an unprecedented cover-up attempt, the government has filed a motion for a “protective order” explicitly seeking to restrict “communications between the Marshal service and the Federal Judges at the John Shaw Courthouse.”

The government is trying to hide evidence of its own judicial ethics violations.

---

THE EVIDENCE: What the FOIA Records Reveal

Date: June 24, 2025 (Two months before Reardon’s arrest)

From: U.S. Marshals Service
To: Multiple recipients including addresses with @lawd.uscourts.gov domain
Subject: “1st Amendment Auditor Matthew Reardon”

Content:

“On yesterday Matthew Reardon a proclaimed 1st amendment auditor was in the lobby near the CSO screening station recording/live streaming with his cellphone. I have attached a copy CSO report and a draft my report detailing the incident. Please pass this on to your staff and remind them to report any suspicious behavior no matter how small to any USMS personnel, CSO or outside guard.”

Follow-Up Email (June 26, 2025):

From: Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal, W/LA-Lafayette and Lake Charles
Subject: FW: 1st Amendment Auditor Matthew Reardon

Content:

“I have attached reports detailing the encounter with Matthew Reardon. Feel free to pass along to your staff.”

The Smoking Gun: @lawd.uscourts.gov Email Addresses

The FOIA records show that these communications were sent to multiple recipients with @lawd.uscourts.gov email addresses. This is the official email domain for the Western District of Louisiana federal court system, used exclusively by:

• Federal District Judges
• Magistrate Judges
• Judges’ Law Clerks
• Judges’ Secretaries
• Chambers Staff
• Court Administrators

The inescapable conclusion: U.S. Marshals sent prejudicial information about Reardon to individuals within the federal judiciary—potentially including the very judges who would later preside over his case.

HERE ARE ALL 14 PAGES (Click image to view)

THE TIMELINE: A Pattern of Targeting and Cover-Up

June 24, 2025:
U.S. Marshals send email to court personnel characterizing Reardon as “proclaimed 1st amendment auditor” and describing his journalism as “suspicious behavior”

June 26, 2025:
Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal forwards reports about Reardon to additional court personnel

August 25, 2025:
Reardon arrested during peaceful protest on courthouse steps (two months after communications to judges)

September-October 2025:
Reardon files motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds, supported by video evidence

October 15, 2025:
Government files motion for protective order seeking to restrict “communications between the Marshal service and the Federal Judges”

The pattern is unmistakable: Surveil the journalist, prejudice the judges, arrest the journalist, then hide the evidence.

---

THE LEGAL VIOLATIONS: Why This Is a Scandal

1. Ex Parte Communications

What It Is:
An ex parte communication is a one-sided communication between a party (or law enforcement acting on behalf of a party) and a judge about a case, without the opposing party being present or having an opportunity to respond.

Why It’s Prohibited:
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3(A)(4), explicitly states:

“A judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers concerning a pending or impending proceeding.”

The Violation Here:
U.S. Marshals communicated with court personnel (potentially including judges) about Reardon before any charges were filed. This communication:

• Was one-sided (only the government’s perspective)
• Occurred without Reardon’s knowledge
• Gave Reardon no opportunity to respond
• Created prejudice before any legal proceeding began
• Concerned an “impending proceeding” (charges filed two months later)

This is a textbook ex parte communication violation.

2. Judicial Bias and Required Recusal

The Standard:
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) requires that “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

The Application:
Any judge or magistrate judge who received these prejudicial communications about Reardon:

• Was exposed to one-sided information from law enforcement
• Heard characterization of Reardon as “suspicious”
• Received reports about him before any charges were filed
• Formed impressions based on ex parte communications

A reasonable person would question the impartiality of any judge who received these communications.

Therefore, any such judge MUST recuse from Reardon’s case.

3. Due Process Violations

The Constitutional Right:
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The Violation:
Reardon was denied due process when:

• Law enforcement communicated with judges about him without his knowledge
• He was given no opportunity to respond to these communications
• Prejudicial information was shared before charges were filed
• He was denied the right to an impartial tribunal
• The protective order would prevent him from ever learning which judges received the communications

Without knowing which judges received these ex parte communications, Reardon cannot seek their recusal. He cannot challenge bias he doesn’t know exists.

4. First Amendment Retaliation

The ex parte communications are evidence of a coordinated campaign to target Reardon for protected First Amendment activity:

The Pattern:

1. Reardon engages in journalism documenting government conduct
2. U.S. Marshals place him under surveillance (BOLO alert)
3. U.S. Marshals send prejudicial communications to judges characterizing his journalism as “suspicious”
4. Reardon protests the surveillance
5. U.S. Marshals arrest him
6. Government prosecutes him
7. Government seeks to hide evidence of the ex parte communications

This demonstrates viewpoint-based targeting of a journalist for protected activities.

THE COVER-UP: Government’s Protective Order Motion

What the Government Admits

The government’s motion for protective order, filed October 15, 2025, explicitly seeks to restrict:

“sensitive courthouse security operational plans, and communications between the Marshal service and the Federal Judges at the John Shaw Courthouse”

This is an admission. The government is not denying that communications with judges exist. They are trying to conceal them.

The Government’s Justification: “Security”

The government claims these communications must be protected for “courthouse security” reasons. But this justification is transparently pretextual:

These Communications Are Not About Security:

• They characterize Reardon’s journalism as “suspicious”
• They create a prejudicial narrative about him
• They were sent to judges and chambers staff, not just security personnel
• They demonstrate targeting of protected First Amendment activity
• They establish grounds for judicial recusal

These Communications Are About Bias:

• They prejudiced judges against Reardon before charges were filed
• They violated ex parte communication rules
• They created the appearance (and likely the reality) of judicial bias
• They demonstrate coordination between law enforcement and the court
• They are evidence of government misconduct

The government is not protecting “security”—it is protecting itself from accountability.

What the Protective Order Would Conceal

If granted, the protective order would prevent Reardon from ever learning:

• Which judges received the ex parte communications
• What specific information was shared beyond what FOIA revealed
• When the communications occurred
• Whether any judge responded to or acted upon the communications
• Whether any judge formed opinions about Reardon based on them

Without this information, Reardon cannot:

• Challenge judicial bias
• Seek recusal of prejudiced judges
• Demonstrate the coordinated nature of the government’s targeting
• Establish First Amendment retaliation
• Receive a fair trial

The protective order would deny Reardon due process by concealing evidence of judicial bias.

REARDON’S VINDICATION: “I Have to Know”

Months ago, when the government first filed its protective order motion, Reardon stated:

“I have to know if any judge that is involved had any prior communication about me which could introduce bias and serious judicial violations.”

He was right.

The FOIA records prove that such communications occurred. The protective order motion admits they exist. And the government is desperately trying to hide them.

Reardon’s insistence on transparency was not paranoia—it was prescience. He suspected what the evidence now proves: the government communicated with judges about him before filing charges, creating bias that taints the entire proceeding.

“Textbook Ex Parte Violation”

“This is a textbook ex parte communication violation. Law enforcement cannot send prejudicial information about a defendant to judges before charges are filed. The fact that this occurred two months before the arrest makes it even more egregious—it shows premeditation and coordination.

Any judge who received these communications is biased and must recuse. The protective order motion is an attempt to prevent the defendant from discovering which judges are biased so he can’t challenge them. That’s a due process violation.”

“Unprecedented Cover-Up Attempt”

“I’ve never seen anything quite like this. The government is explicitly seeking a protective order to conceal communications with judges that violate judicial ethics rules. They’re not even trying to hide what they’re doing—they’re admitting the communications exist and asking the court to help them cover it up.

If this protective order is granted, it will set a dangerous precedent: the government can prejudice judges against defendants through ex parte communications, then use protective orders to prevent defendants from ever learning about it. That would be the end of judicial impartiality.”

“First Amendment Implications”

“This case demonstrates why transparency is so essential. The government surveilled a journalist for protected activities, sent prejudicial communications to judges about him, arrested him when he protested, and now seeks to hide evidence of all of it.

If they succeed, the message to journalists is clear: document government misconduct and you’ll be targeted, prosecuted, and denied a fair trial. And you’ll never even know which judges were prejudiced against you. That’s a chilling effect on steroids.”THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS: What This Means for Justice

If the Protective Order Is Granted

The Consequences:

• Defendants will never know if judges received ex parte communications about them
• Judicial bias can persist unchecked
• Government can coordinate with courts to target critics
• Ex parte communication rules become meaningless
• Due process becomes a fiction
• Fair trials become impossible

The Precedent:
Any prosecutor could:

1. Send prejudicial information to judges before filing charges
2. Create bias against defendants
3. Seek protective orders to conceal the communications
4. Prevent defendants from challenging biased judges
5. Obtain convictions from prejudiced tribunals

This would fundamentally undermine judicial integrity.

If the Protective Order Is Denied

The Requirements:

• Government must disclose which judges received communications
• Reardon can seek recusal of biased judges
• Ex parte communication rules are enforced
• Judicial ethics violations are exposed
• Government accountability is maintained
• Due process is protected

The Message:

• Courts will not be complicit in concealing government misconduct
• Judicial impartiality is non-negotiable
• Transparency is essential to justice
• Ex parte communications will not be tolerated
• Defendants have a right to challenge bias

This would reaffirm the integrity of the judicial system.

THE GOVERNMENT’S PROVOCATION: They Created This Problem

The Causal Chain

The government initiated every step of this scandal:

Step 1: Surveillance
Government places journalist under surveillance (BOLO alert) for protected activities

Step 2: Ex Parte Communications
Government sends prejudicial information to judges before filing charges

Step 3: Arrest
Government arrests journalist when he protests the surveillance

Step 4: Prosecution
Government charges journalist for constitutionally protected expression

Step 5: Cover-Up
Government seeks protective order to hide evidence of ex parte communications

The government provoked this entire situation. It cannot now hide behind “security” to conceal its own misconduct.

The Government’s Choice

The government had options:

Option 1: Transparency

• Proceed with prosecution
• Comply with discovery obligations
• Accept public scrutiny of its conduct
• Face accountability if misconduct is revealed

Option 2: Concealment

• Dismiss the prosecution
• Avoid discovery obligations
• Prevent public scrutiny
• Maintain secrecy about its conduct

What the government cannot do:

• Proceed with prosecution AND
• Avoid discovery obligations AND
• Prevent public scrutiny AND
• Escape accountability

Yet this is exactly what the protective order seeks to accomplish.

REARDON’S RESPONSE: “Transparency Is a Requirement”

In a statement to We the People News, Reardon explained why the protective order must be denied:

“The motion even states: ‘Certain discoverable materials are sensitive courthouse security operational plans, and communications between the Marshal service and the Federal Judges at the John Shaw Courthouse.’

This is all the more reason why transparency is a requirement in this. A requirement. Because something that shouldn’t have happened happened and I caught this awhile back.

I have to know if any judge that is involved had any prior communication about me which could introduce bias and serious judicial violations.

The government cannot run and hide and usurp my rights in the free exercise of its power to cover up and shield itself from its own wrongful actions. The public has a right to know. Transparency is a disinfectant and it must be transparency on this issue that the government is desperately trying to cover up.

But once again, they were the ones that decided if they wanted to go this route.”

The Transparency Imperative

Reardon’s argument is both legally sound and morally compelling:

Legally:

• Due process requires disclosure of ex parte communications
• Judicial ethics rules require recusal of biased judges
• First Amendment protects journalism about government misconduct
• Public has right to access information about judicial proceedings

Morally:

• Government cannot hide its own wrongdoing
• Judicial bias must be exposed and remedied
• Transparency is essential to accountability
• Justice requires impartial tribunals

Practically:

• Without disclosure, bias persists unchecked
• Without transparency, misconduct continues
• Without accountability, government power is unconstrained
• Without impartiality, justice is impossible

As Justice Brandeis wrote: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

The government seeks to eliminate that sunlight. Reardon demands it be preserved.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT: The Legal Battle

Immediate Actions

1. Supplemental Opposition to Protective Order

Reardon’s legal team is filing a supplemental opposition to the protective order motion, adding a new section specifically addressing the ex parte communications:

Key Arguments:

• FOIA records prove ex parte communications occurred
• Government’s motion admits communications exist
• Reardon has absolute right to know which judges received them
• Protective order would violate due process
• Transparency is essential to judicial integrity

2. Motion for Disclosure

Reardon will file a separate motion requesting:

• Identification of all judges/court personnel who received communications
• Complete, unredacted copies of all communications
• Dates, times, and any responses
• Any actions taken based on the communications

3. Judicial Recusal Motions

After disclosure, Reardon will file motions for recusal of:

• Magistrate Judge Whitehurst (if she received communications)
• Any District Judge who received communications
• Any other judicial officer who received communications

Grounds:

• Ex parte communications
• Exposure to prejudicial information
• Appearance of bias
• Violation of judicial ethics rules
• Due process concerns

4. Complaint to Judicial Council

Reardon will file a complaint with the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council regarding:

• Violation of Code of Conduct for United States Judges
• Ex parte communications
• Failure to disclose communications
• Appearance of bias

The Court’s Decision

The court must now decide:

Will it:

• Protect judicial integrity by denying the protective order?
• Require disclosure of ex parte communications?
• Enforce judicial ethics rules?
• Ensure due process?
• Maintain transparency?

Or will it:

• Grant the protective order and conceal government misconduct?
• Allow judicial bias to persist unchecked?
• Deny Reardon the right to challenge biased judges?
• Undermine due process?
• Eliminate transparency?

The decision will have implications far beyond this case.

---

PUBLIC REACTION: Outrage and Demands for AccountabilitySocial Media Erupts

News of the ex parte communications has sparked widespread outrage on social media:

Twitter/X:

• #ExParteScanal trending
• #JudicialBias gaining traction
• Legal experts expressing shock
• Calls for judicial accountability

Sample Tweets:

“BREAKING: FOIA records prove U.S. Marshals emailed federal judges about journalist BEFORE filing charges. Now government wants protective order to HIDE the evidence. This is a judicial ethics scandal.”

“If the government can prejudice judges against defendants through ex parte communications, then hide those communications behind protective orders, NO ONE can get a fair trial. This is terrifying.”

“They surveilled him. They emailed judges about him. They arrested him. Now they want to hide the emails. This is what government corruption looks like.” –

Calls for Investigation

Multiple organizations have called for investigations:

American Civil Liberties Union:
“The ex parte communications revealed in this case raise serious concerns about judicial impartiality and due process. We call on the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council to investigate these communications and take appropriate action.”

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
“The government’s attempt to use a protective order to conceal ex parte communications with judges demonstrates why transparency in judicial proceedings is so essential. This case has significant implications for press freedom and government accountability.”

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:
“Ex parte communications between law enforcement and judges strike at the heart of the adversarial system. If defendants cannot learn about such communications and challenge biased judges, the right to a fair trial becomes meaningless.”

THE STAKES: Why This Case Matters to Everyone

Not Just About One Journalist

While this case involves a journalist targeted for documenting government conduct, the implications extend to every American:

If the government can:

• Communicate with judges about defendants before filing charges
• Create prejudice through one-sided information
• Hide those communications behind protective orders
• Prevent defendants from challenging biased judges

Then no one can get a fair trial.

The Precedent

If the protective order is granted:

• Every prosecutor can prejudice judges through ex parte communications
• Every defendant can be denied knowledge of judicial bias
• Every trial can proceed before a prejudiced tribunal
• Every conviction can be tainted by hidden bias

If the protective order is denied:

• Ex parte communication rules are enforced
• Judicial ethics violations are exposed
• Defendants can challenge biased judges
• Fair trials are protected

The court’s decision will determine which system we have.

The Principle

At its core, this case is about a fundamental principle: government cannot hide its own misconduct.

When government:

• Violates constitutional rights
• Breaks judicial ethics rules
• Engages in ex parte communications
• Creates judicial bias
• Targets critics for protected activities

It cannot then use its power to conceal evidence of these violations.

Transparency is not optional. It is essential to justice.

CONCLUSION: The Fight for Transparency

Matthew Reardon’s case has exposed a judicial ethics scandal that threatens the integrity of the federal court system. The evidence is clear:

What We Know:

1. U.S. Marshals sent prejudicial communications about Reardon to federal judges before filing charges
2. These communications violated ex parte rules
3. Any judge who received them is biased and must recuse
4. The government is trying to hide these communications
5. The protective order would deny Reardon due process

What We Don’t Know:

• Which specific judges received the communications
• What additional information was shared
• Whether any judge acted on the communications
• The full extent of the coordination between law enforcement and the court

What We Must Demand:

• Denial of the protective order
• Full disclosure of ex parte communications
• Recusal of biased judges
• Investigation by the Judicial Council
• Accountability for ethics violations
• Protection of due process rights

The government provoked this situation. The government created the bias. The government violated the rules. And the government must now accept the consequences: transparency, accountability, and justice.

As Reardon stated: “Transparency is a disinfectant and it must be transparency on this issue that the government is desperately trying to cover up.”

The question is: Will the court allow the government to hide its misconduct, or will it require the transparency that justice demands?

The answer will determine not just the outcome of this case, but the integrity of the judicial system itself.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

1. Share This Story

• Social media: #ExParteScanal #JudicialBias
• Email to friends and family
• Post in community groups

2. Contact Officials

• Fifth Circuit Judicial Council: [Contact Info]
• Your U.S. Representative: [Find Yours]
• Your U.S. Senator: [Find Yours]

Sample Message:
“I’m writing to express serious concern about ex parte communications between U.S. Marshals and federal judges in the case of United States v. Matthew Reardon (Case No. 6:25-CR-00227-CBW-1). FOIA records prove these communications occurred before charges were filed, violating judicial ethics rules. I urge you to investigate these violations and ensure judicial accountability.”

3. Support Independent Journalism

• Subscribe to We the People News
• Share our reporting
• Donate to support continued investigation

4. Demand Transparency

• Attend public hearings (if scheduled)
• File public comments
• Organize community awareness

RELATED COVERAGE

• [EXCLUSIVE: Full FOIA Records Showing Ex Parte Communications]

UPDATES

federal judge granted protective order same day

complete FOIA record

Subscribe for updates:

• Website: WTPNews.org
• YouTube: [Subscribe]
• Email Newsletter: [Sign Up]
• Twitter: @WTPNews
• Instagram: @WTPNews

ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION

This investigation was conducted by Matthew Reardon, founder and publisher of We the People News, a Marine veteran and investigative journalist. All FOIA records are authentic and have been preserved as evidence. All legal analysis is based on established law and judicial ethics rules.

For more information:

• Email: [email protected]
• Website: WTPNews.org

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This article represents investigative journalism based on documented FOIA records, government filings, and legal analysis. All individuals and agencies named have been given opportunity to respond. We the People News stands by this reporting and welcomes any corrections or additional context.

SHARE THIS INVESTIGATION

🚨 BOMBSHELL: FOIA records expose ex parte communications between U.S. Marshals and federal judges before charges filed. Government now seeks protective order to hide evidence. This is a judicial ethics scandal. #ExParteScanal

[Share on Twitter] [Share on Facebook] [Share on Reddit] [Email this article]

---

© 2025 We the People News. All rights reserved.

We the People News | Investigative Journalism | Government Accountability
Truth. Transparency. Justice.