Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

[Header]
[[link removed]]


Election Integrity Update!

Trump Indictment: A Naked Threat and Act of Intimidation

[[link removed]]

The Biden administration has left the rule of law and the U.S.
Constitution behind with its latest indictment of President Trump for
daring to dispute the 2020 presidential election, as is his God-given
right as a president, a citizen, and a candidate under state, federal
and constitutional law.

This sham indictment is perfectly consistent with the partisan and
political abuse I suffered at the hands of Jack Smith’s prosecutors
for hours as they argued with me before their grand jury using
Democratic talking points on the election controversy.

Let’s be blunt: This indictment is a naked threat and act of
intimidation by the Democratic Party against any and all their
political opponents. The message from the Biden regime is: “We will
put you in jail if you dispute elections.” A free and fair 2024
election is officially impossible.

And, of course, Joe Biden and his political appointee Merrick Garland
at the Justice Department want to distract from the conclusive
evidence of Biden’s personal corruption by trying to jail and turn
Trump into a political prisoner.

It is well past time for Congress to do everything possible under the
law to undo this attempt to wreck our republican form of government.


Let’s hope the courts finally step up and shut down this
unprecedented prosecutorial abuse.

In the meantime, Judicial Watch will continue to expose and hold
accountable the criminal elements in the Biden administration seeking
to undo our republican form of government.

JUDICIAL WATCH CHALLENGES MAINE’S POLICY RESTRICTING USE OF
STATEWIDE VOTER LIST

States continue to resist the law requiring transparency (and
reasonable clean-ups) with respect to their voter rolls.

As America’s leading election law watchdog, we just filed
an _amicus curiae_ (friend of the court) brief
[[link removed]]
against Maine’s illicit secrecy supporting the sensible decision
[[link removed]]
of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, which struck down
Maine’s policy restricting the use and distribution of the state’s
voter registration list (_Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Shenna
Bellows_
[[link removed]]
(No.
23-1361).

The lawsuit, citing the National Voter Registration Act
[[link removed]]
(NVRA),
is now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. We point
out:

> In the last ten years, no organization public or private has
> obtained more statewide settlement agreements or consent decrees
> against chief state election officials for violations of the NVRA.
> As part of its list maintenance enforcement efforts, Judicial Watch
> also routinely requests public records of voter registration
> activities in various states under Section 8(i) of the NVRA, and has
> sued on its own behalf and on behalf of others to enforce it.
Our legal team explains:

> The public disclosure provision of the NVRA embodies Congress’
> intent that Americans’ right to vote “must not be sacrificed to
> administrative chicanery, oversights, or inefficiencies.” … The
> NVRA’s public disclosure provisions mandates that “State
> officials labor under a duty of accountability to the public in
> ensuring that voter lists include eligible voters and exclude
> ineligible ones in the most accurate manner possible.” … The
> NVRA provides an avenue for citizens to check that and to ensure
> that only eligible registrants remain on the rolls by providing the
> full voter registration list open to public inspection. “Without
> such transparency, public confidence in the essential workings of
> democracy will suffer.”
Judicial Watch details how Maine’s defense for their secrecy has
been rejected repeatedly by other courts:

> No court has adopted Appellant’s [State of Maine] argument here.
> Rather, all courts presented with this issue have found that the
> voter registration list is a record subject to disclosure under the
> NVRA. This Court should reject Appellant’s argument.
According to a national study
[[link removed]]
conducted
by Judicial Watch in 2020, Maine’s statewide registration rate was
101% of eligible voters.

Federal law mandates voter roll transparency. Given Maine’s refusal
to release its voter roll information, it’s reasonable to think that
cleaning up voter rolls is not a priority. Dirty voter rolls can mean
dirty elections.

We are a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As
part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly
experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory
elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio,
Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements
[[link removed]].

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads its election
law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil
Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting
rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements
in dozens of states.

We recently settled
[[link removed]]
a
federal election integrity lawsuit on behalf of the Illinois
Conservative Union against the state of Illinois, the Illinois State
Board of Elections, and its director, which grants access to the
current centralized statewide list of registered voters for the state
for the past 15 elections.

In April 2023, Pennsylvania settled
[[link removed]]
with
us and admitted in court filings that it removed 178,258 ineligible
registrations in response to communications from Judicial Watch. The
settlement commits Pennsylvania and five of its counties to extensive
public reporting of statistics regarding their ongoing voter roll
clean-up efforts for the next five years.

In March 2023, Colorado agreed
[[link removed]]
to
settle a Judicial Watch NVRA lawsuit alleging that Colorado failed to
remove ineligible voters from its rolls. The settlement agreement
requires Colorado to provide Judicial Watch with the most recent voter
roll data for each Colorado county each year for six years.

In February 2023, Los Angeles County confirmed
[[link removed]]
the
removal of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since last year,
under the terms of a settlement agreement
[[link removed]]
in
a federal lawsuit
[[link removed]]
we
filed in 2017.

We settled
[[link removed]]
a federal
election integrity lawsuit against New York City after the city
removed 441,083 ineligible names from the voter rolls and promised to
take reasonable steps going forward to clean its voter registration
lists.

Kentucky
[[link removed]]
also
removed hundreds of thousands of old registrations after it entered
into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

In February 2022, we settled
[[link removed]]
a
voter roll clean-up lawsuit against North Carolina and two of
its counties after North Carolina removed over 430,000 inactive
registrations from its voter rolls.

In March 2022, a Maryland court ruled in favor
[[link removed]]
of
our challenge to the Democratic state legislature’s “extreme”
congressional gerrymander.

As we can see in Maine, the fight for cleaner elections is far from
over and Judicial Watch will not rest in the battle to ensure
Americans have free and fair elections.

JUDICIAL WATCH SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW FOR GROUP EXPOSING ABORTION
BUSINESS

The selling fetal parts and organs from human beings killed by
abortion is a practice that many don’t want you to know about.

And those who expose the truth face punishment from the extremists
benefitting from this monstrous activity. Judicial Watch was forced
filed two _amicus curiae_ (friend of the court) briefs in the
U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of The Center for Medical Progress
[[link removed]]
(CMP) and its
founder David Daleiden. CMP and David have been targeted by the
pro-abortion movement for exposing their marketing of the fetal organs
and body parts.

One brief asks for review of the Ninth Circuit Court’s affirmation
of a monetary award against CMP (_Center for Medical Progress et al. v
Planned Parent Hood et al._
[[link removed]]
(22-1168)).
The other asks for review of an injunction granted to the National
Abortion Federation that prevents CMP from publishing more
abortion-related videos (_Center for Medical Progress et al. v
National Abortion Federation_
[[link removed]]
(22-1135)).


In 2015, The Center for Medical Progress released videos
[[link removed]]
that
exposed employees of Planned Parenthood engaging in negotiations for
the sale of fetal tissue and body parts for use in medical research.

On October 21, 2022, the United States Ninth Circuit affirmed
[[link removed]]
most
of a 2019 lower court jury verdict that declared that a series of
undercover videos produced by The Center for Medical Progress harmed
Planned Parenthood, and that CMP was not protected by the First
Amendment, requiring CMP to pay millions in damages to Planned
Parenthood.

The Judicial Watch brief
[[link removed]]
highlights
how the lower court’s awarding of monetary damages for these
accurate videos is a fundamental threat to First Amendment
protections.

Separately, in August 2022, the Ninth Circuit affirmed
[[link removed]]
the
ruling of a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California that granted
[[link removed]]
National
Abortion Federation a permanent injunction barring The Center for
Medical Progress from releasing recordings and materials obtained at
National Abortion Federation’s meetings. The injunction also forbids
CMP from talking about the videos or using them in the defense of
CMP’s Founder and President David Daleiden in his criminal case.

In our brief
[[link removed]]
we
state:

> The ability to inform the public on matters of genuine and profound
> public interest is an essential aspect of free speech rights. The
> Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision upholding the lower court’s
> permanent injunction amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint
> discrimination that must be corrected. In addition to the
> constitutional injuries Petitioners will continue to suffer, the
> public continues to suffer as well, by being purposefully prevented
> from learning the facts regarding an exceptionally important issue.
> Abortion affects not only personal choices, but national choices
> like elections, federal funding, and agency regulations. It is
> absolutely essential that the public have the full story of what
> transpired on Petitioners’ videos.
Judicial Watch argues that upholding the Ninth Circuit decision would
have a “chilling” effect on the First Amendment:

> The Ninth Circuit’s decision to uphold the district court is a
> blow to First Amendment rights that rises to the level of
> significant public importance. The Ninth Circuit’s decision to
> rubberstamp viewpoint discrimination has caused substantial adverse
> consequences for the Petitioners in this case, including an
> especially unjust and onerous monetary award, the inability to use
> the videotapes as evidence in their criminal trial, and a chilling
> of their First Amendment rights. But the damage of the Ninth
> Circuit’s decision goes far beyond the Petitioners. The decision
> has also caused substantial adverse consequences for the public in
> general. The freedom of speech logically incorporates the right to
> receive the speech as well. The right to speak is rendered
> meaningless without an audience free to listen.
Our attorneys also argue these videos and what they exposed are a
matter of public interest:

> By permanently silencing the Petitioners’ speech, the general
> public is subsequently harmed by not being able to receive the
> information contained on the videotapes. The importance of the
> information on the videotapes being suppressed by the Ninth Circuit
> cannot be overstated. As Amicus will demonstrate, the videotapes
> that were released changed the national and state landscape in
> dramatic ways. The general public was largely unaware of the
> shocking underbelly of the abortion lobby which Petitioners exposed
> through the release of the videotapes. Petitioners videos changed
> federal and state laws, spurred federal and state investigations,
> changed private business changes, and led to severe public backlash.
> By suppressing the further release of information, the Ninth Circuit
> effectively blocked access to information the public had a right to
> know. Absent this Court’s intervention, the Petitioners and public
> are left with no avenue for legal relief for the adverse
> consequences they have suffered and will continue to suffer.
We have repeatedly fought to expose the sale of human fetal tissue
obtained by killing unborn human beings through abortion.

In March 2021, we filed two separate FOIA lawsuits
[[link removed]]
against
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for grant applications
related to the use of human fetal tissue.

In August 2021, we and The Center for Medical Progress (CMP)
received records
[[link removed]]
from
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that revealed nearly
$3 million in federal funds were spent on the University of
Pittsburgh’s quest to become a “Tissue Hub” for human fetal
tissue ranging from 6 to 42 weeks gestation.

Through a separate lawsuit, in September 2021, we exposed records and
communications
[[link removed]]
from
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involving “humanized
mice
[[link removed]
research with human fetal heads, organs and tissue, including
communications and contracts with human fetal tissue provider Advanced
Bioscience Resources (ABR).

The Center for Medical Progress exposed the horrors of the sales of
fetal body parts, and the courts effectively joined the abortion
industry in trying to destroy the Center for telling the truth about
this nightmarish conduct. The Supreme Court should step in and protect
the First Amendment right of citizens to expose and criticize the dark
secrets of the abortion industrial complex.

Until next week,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]



Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024

Privacy Policy
[[link removed]]
|
Terms
[[link removed]]




©2023, All Rights Reserved

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions
are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are
tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]