[Header]
[[link removed]]


Election Lawsuit Update!

Trump Assassination

[[link removed]]
Every Judicial Watch supporter and every patriotic American is
praying for President Trump, his family, the family of the Trump
supporter
[[link removed]]
who was
murdered, and those injured on Saturday.

The radical Left has attempted to mass murder Republican congressmen,
as well as Justice Kavanaugh and his family. Recently, Democratic
Party leaders, through unhinged rhetoric, false allegations of
misconduct, proposed legislation, and sham prosecutions, have
increased the risk of assassination of President Trump, as well as
violence against his supporters.

Americans can be assured that Judicial Watch has already initiated an
independent investigation into the catastrophic Secret Service
failures that day.

JUDICIAL WATCH APPLAUDS JUDGE CANNON’S DECISION TO END ROGUE SPECIAL
COUNSEL PROSECUTION OF TRUMP

Judicial Watch applauds Judge Cannon’s principled decision to end
Jack Smith’s unconstitutional criminal proceeding that has so abused
former President Trump and the rule of law.

I am an eyewitness to these abuses, as I was harassed personally by
Jack Smith’s rogue operation.

Cannon’s decision, “based on the unlawful appointment and
funding” of Special Counsel Smith, is a victory for the U.S.
Constitution and accountable government. This case never should have
seen the light of day. We have long called out the unconstitutional
“special counsels” and their attendant abuses of former President
Donald Trump and other innocent political targets. As Judge Cannon
noted in her opinion
[[link removed]


> The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical
> constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers,
> and it gives Congress a considered role in determining the propriety
> of vesting appointment power for inferior officers. The Special
> Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative
> authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the
> process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the
> separation of powers. If the political branches wish to grant the
> Attorney General power to appoint Special Counsel Smith to
> investigate and prosecute this action with the full powers of a
> United States Attorney, there is a valid means by which to do so. He
> can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed
> in the Appointments Clause, as Congress has directed for United
> States Attorneys throughout American history … or Congress can
> authorize his appointment through enactment of positive statutory
> law consistent with the Appointments Clause.

We have several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits related to
the prosecutorial abuses targeting Trump

In February 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice asked
[[link removed]]
a
federal court to allow the agency to keep secret the names of top
staffers working in Jack Smith’s office targeting Trump and other
Americans.
(Before his appointment to investigate and prosecute Trump, Jack Smith
was at the center of several controversial issues, the IRS scandal
[[link removed]]
among them. In 2014, a Judicial Watch investigation
[[link removed]]
revealed that top IRS officials had been in communication with
Smith’s then-Public Integrity Section about a plan to launch
criminal investigations into conservative tax-exempt groups. Read more
here
[[link removed]].)

In October 2023, we sued
[[link removed]]
the DOJ for records and communications between the Office of U.S.
Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Fulton County, Georgia, District
Attorney’s office regarding requests/receipt of federal
funding/assistance in the investigation of former President Trump and
his 18 codefendants in the Fulton County indictment
[[link removed]]
of August 14, 2023. To date, the DOJ is refusing to confirm or deny
the existence of records, claiming that to do so would interfere with
enforcement proceedings. Judicial Watch’s litigation challenging
this is continuing.

This decision was a big victory for Trump and the rule of the law but
the corrupted Biden Justice Department won’t stop trying to abuse
him – so there will be much more work to be done!

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES OVER SCUFFLE INVOLVING VP HARRIS’ SECRET SERVICE
DETAIL

The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump is not
the first black mark on the Biden Secret Service.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records relating
to an incident at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland in which a Secret
Service agent assigned to protect Vice President Kamala Harris
reportedly got into a scuffle with colleagues (_Judicial Watch v.
Department of Homeland Security_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-01705)).

According to an April 24 report
[[link removed]]
in the _Washington Examiner_, a Secret Service agent was removed from
her duties after physically attacking the commanding agent in charge
and other agents who tried to subdue her.

A later report
[[link removed]]
states: “The agents involved in restraining [Michelle] Herczeg were
especially concerned because she still had her gun in the holster.
They wrestled her to the ground, took the gun from her, cuffed her,
and then removed her from the terminal.” The report also states
that, following the incident at Joint Base Andrews, which is the home
base for Air Force One and Air Force Two:

> Secret Service agents and officers are privately questioning the
> hiring process and whether the agency had adequately screened
> Herczeg’s background. Some also wonder whether her hire was part
> of a diversity, equity, and inclusion push in response to years of
> staff shortages that may have required the agency to lower its
> once-strict employment standards and physical performance to reach
> quotas for female agents and officers.
We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after
DHS failed to respond to an April 25, 2024, FOIA request for:

> All records related to a reported incident at Joint Base Andrews in
> which a Secret Service agent was involved in an altercation with
> colleagues on or about April 23, 2024, including but not limited to
> incident reports, Vice Presidential protective detail agents’
> emails and text messages, and emails and text messages of the
> following USSS officials: Director Kimberly Cheatle, Deputy Dir.
> Ronald Rowe, Chief Operating Officer Cynthia Radway, Asst. Dir.
> Michael Plati, Asst. Dir. Brian Lambert, Chief Human, Capital
> Officer Denise Walker Hall, Asst. Dir. David Smith, Asst. Dir.
> Miltom Wilson, Uniformed Division Chief Michael Buck, Chief Counsel
> Thomas Huse, and Chief of Communications Anthony Guglielmi.
>
> All SF-50s, SF-52s, training completion forms, and disciplinary
> records of Secret Service Agent Michelle Herczeg.
>
> All USSS and DHS policy documents related to Diversity, Equity and
> Inclusion in the hiring, employment, training and discipline of
> Secret Service agents.
Prior to the altercation, Herczeg reportedly
[[link removed]]
arrived at Joint Base Andrews “and began acting erratically,
grabbing another senior agent’s personal phone and deleting
applications on it, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
The other agent, a shift leader, was able to recover his phone and
then acted as if nothing had happened.”

The catastrophic security failure behind the attempted assassination
of Trump shows how the management and quality of Secret Service
personnel are urgent issues. The Secret Service’s illicit cover-up
of these documents about the Kamala Harris protective detail incident
is not reassuring.

JUDICIAL WATCH ASKS COURT TO RETAIN LAWSUIT TO CLEAN UP VOTER ROLLS IN
ILLINOIS

Illinois is fighting a federal law requiring it to clean up its voter
rolls.

We asked
[[link removed]]
a federal court to reject the state’s motion to dismiss and end our
National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) lawsuit
[[link removed]]
to clean up the
state’s voting rolls (_Judicial Watch, Inc. et al v. The Illinois
State Board of Elections et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-01867)).

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of the nonprofit organizations
Illinois Family Action
[[link removed]],
Breakthrough Ideas
[[link removed]],
and Carol J.
Davis, who is a lawfully registered voter in Illinois.

In our original complaint
[[link removed]],
we point out
that 23 Illinois counties, with a combined registration list of
980,089 voters, reported removing a combined total of only 100
registrations in the last two-year reporting period under a crucial
provision of the NVRA. This is an “absurdly small” number, and
there “is no possible way these counties can be conducting a general
program that makes reasonable effort to cancel registrations of voters
who have become ineligible because of a change of residence while
removing so few registrations.”

We point out:

> Aside from the outright failure of 23 Illinois counties to remove
> registrants who fail to respond to Confirmation Notices [as required
> by NVRA], the complaint also listed counties who lack data that is
> crucial to list maintenance efforts under the NVRA. Again relying on
> Defendants’ own admissions to the EAC [Election Assistance
> Commission], the complaint notes that 34 counties could only report
> “Data not available” regarding Confirmation Notice removals, and
> 19 of these reported the same thing for death removals. In addition,
> 29 counties reported “Data not available” regarding the number
> of Confirmation Notices sent, and 22 counties said the same thing
> about the number of inactive registrations. In all, “[f]ifty-two
> of 108 Illinois jurisdictions failed to report any data to the EAC
> in one or more of the crucial data categories identified above.”
> For her part, Defendant Matthews confirmed that she “does not have
> access to local election authorities’ list maintenance records.”
> Apparently, no one in Illinois has access to this data.
Our attorneys argue:

* Defendants have failed to implement the NVRA’s required
“general program that makes a reasonable effort” to remove voters
who have moved or died;

* Defendant Matthews, who is Illinois’ chief State election
official…has failed in her duty to coordinate state responsibilities
under the Act; and

* Defendants have failed to retain and provide to Plaintiffs
NVRA-related records they are required to provide. The support for
these allegations derives primarily from Defendants’ own admissions,
in response to a survey conducted every two years by the federal
Election Assistance Commission as it prepares a mandatory report to
Congress, and in their correspondence with Plaintiffs.

Dirty voter rolls can mean dirty elections, and Illinois’ voting
rolls are a mess. Rather than trying to shut down our lawsuit,
Illinois should take immediate steps to clean its rolls to both
prevent fraud and increase voter confidence in the elections.

As you know, we are a national leader in voting integrity and voting
rights. We 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 our 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.

In May 2024, we sued
[[link removed]]
California to force the clean-up of its voter rolls. The lawsuit,
filed on behalf of Judicial Watch and the Libertarian Party of
California, asks the court to compel California to make “a
reasonable effort to remove the registrations of ineligible
registrants from the voter rolls” as required by federal law.

In December 2023, we sent notice letters
[[link removed]]
to election officials in the District of Columbia, California, and
Illinois, notifying them of evident violations of the National Voter
Registration Act
[[link removed]]
(NVRA) of 1993, based on their failure to remove inactive voters from
their registration rolls. The letters point out that these
jurisdictions publicly reported removing few or no ineligible voter
registrations under a key provision of the NVRA. The letters
threatened federal lawsuits unless the violations were corrected in a
timely fashion. In response to Judicial Watch’s inquiries,
Washington, DC, officials admitted that they had not complied with the
NVRA, promptly removed 65,544 outdated names from the voting rolls,
promised to remove 37,962 more, and designated another 73,522
registrations as “inactive.” NVRA lawsuits subsequently were
commenced against California
[[link removed]]
and
Illinois
[[link removed]].

In July 2023 we filed
[[link removed]]
an
_amicus curiae_ (friend of the court) brief
[[link removed]],
supporting the 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). According to a national study
[[link removed]]
conducted by Judicial Watch in 2020, Maine’s statewide registration
rate was 101% of eligible voters.

In July 2023 we also 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 now 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 our 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]]
Judicial Watch 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-districts gerrymander.

We’ll keep you updated on this and our other election law cases as
events warrant!

TSA HAS NO IDEA HOW AIR MARSHAL REASSIGNMENTS AFFECTED SECURITY

Trying to cope with its disastrous border policies, the Biden
administration misused skilled air marshals to “babysit” the
people coming across. And it has no idea what that meant for our air
security, as our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]].


> The federal agency created after 9/11 to protect the nation’s
> transportation system has no idea how aviation security was impacted
> when it plucked Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) agents from their
> critical duties to help with the Mexican border crisis. FAMS
> operates under the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and
> in the last few years the agency has forced the highly trained
> aviation security specialists to assist Customs and Border
> Protection (CBP) with the onslaught of illegal immigrants entering
> the country under Biden’s disastrous open border policies. The
> deployments outraged air marshals around the country and led to
> accusations of fraud, waste, and abuse of authority by TSA and FAMS
> leadership for unlawfully sending assets to the southern border to
> perform duties unrelated to transportation. FAMS is charged with
> protecting commercial passenger flights by deterring and countering
> the risk of terrorist activity, a mission impossible to fulfill from
> the southwest border.
>
> When the highly trained law enforcement agents were reassigned to
> babysit the influx of illegal immigrants the Air Marshal National
> Council, which represents thousands of officers nationwide, filed a
> complaint
>
[[link removed]]
>
[[link removed]
> the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General and
> requested that the watchdog investigate the questionable deployment
> of TSA assets to El Paso, Laredo and McAllen Texas, San Diego
> California and Tucson and Yuma Arizona. The council pointed out that
> the air marshals were assigned to perform hospital watch,
> transportation duties, law enforcement searches, welfare checks and
> entry control, which have no relation to TSA’s core mission of
> transportation security. The first recent wave of air marshals—45
> officers and two supervisors—was dispatched to El Paso and Yuma on
> October 30, 2022, for 21-day rotations. More were assigned later to
> other busy locations overrun with migrants.
>
> The TSA admits it does not know the operational impacts that the air
> marshal border deployments had on transportation security. “TSA
> cannot assure deployments did not impact FAMS’ mission to mitigate
> potential risks and threats to our Nation’s transportation
> system,” according to a DHS report
>
[[link removed]]
>
[[link removed]
> days ago thanks to the Air Marshal National Council’s request to
> probe the matter. The agency did not bother to establish baseline
> quantifiable and measurable goals from which it could measure the
> effectiveness of its primary operations while air marshals were
> assigned to assist CBP at the southwest border, the 17-page report
> says. TSA incurred approximately $45 million in travel and payroll
> costs, but the agency was eventually reimbursed by CBP, which also
> operates under DHS.
>
> Under the agreement with CBP, air marshals played the role of
> “immigration officers,” to perform the following duties:
> Escorting migrants from the point of apprehension to processing,
> between various Border Patrol Sector facilities, or to another
> entity with jurisdiction over post-processing custody; escorting
> migrants to and from local health providers and hospitals;
> conducting searches, including pat downs, and placing or removing
> handcuffs or restraint devices on migrants in custody before they
> are transported; securing CBP facilities, including detention cells,
> and authorizing access to various entry controlled points; escorting
> migrants between processing checkpoints within the facility;
> assisting with staffing the unaccompanied female housing facility;
> observing migrants in holding areas to assess their safety and
> well-being while awaiting processing or transportation.
>
> Perhaps to discourage more Mexican border deployments, the DHS IG
> report, which has large redactions to protect sensitive information,
> stresses that FAMS is a risk and intelligence-based federal law
> enforcement organization. “TSA employs approximately [redacted]
> air marshals to assess, address, and mitigate potential risks and
> threats to our Nation’s transportation system,” the DHS watchdog
> writes, stating the obvious. “In addition to providing in-flight
> security, air marshals carry out a variety of other law
> enforcement–related functions.” Babysitting illegal immigrants
> is most certainly not one of them. FAMS was created in 1961 as a
> small force of only 18 “sky marshals” to counter airplane
> hijackers. After the 2001 terrorist attacks the force grew
> tremendously and plays a major role in protecting the nation’s
> civil aviation system.

Until next week...





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


[image]
[[link removed]]


RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN PERIL

_"When it comes to fighting for the American people’s ‘right to
know,’ no one holds a candle to Tom Fitton and his team at Judicial
Watch"_ - SEAN HANNITY

Tom Fitton returns with an exhaustive investigation into the
progressive movement’s efforts to dismantle the venerable
institutions of American rights and freedoms.

Pre-Order Tom Fitton's Must-Read Today!
[[link removed]]

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2024, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Privacy Policy
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]