Secret Service in a Tailspin!



[INSIDE JW]

Judicial Watch to Monitor Wisconsin Polls, Sets Up Election Fraud
Report Hot Line

[[link removed]]
With the election less than two weeks away, Judicial Watch is
preparing to monitor Wisconsin polls and is setting up a National
Election Fraud Report Line for voters to report voting issues as part
of our ongoing election integrity efforts. Our trained observers will
monitor polling sites in Wisconsin on November 5. Separately, Judicial
Watch will run an Internet hotline
[[link removed]]
for
voters in all states to report suspicions of election and voter fraud.

We monitor elections to ensure compliance with state and federal laws.
Judicial Watch’s election observers have monitored many state and
national elections and have been certified and served as international
election observers.

Our lead election law attorney, Robert Popper, established Judicial
Watch’s election monitoring program. Popper is a former deputy chief
of the Voting Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department
of Justice and a veteran poll observer for the Department of Justice.

The Election Integrity Hotline allows voters who witness any
suspicious activity at their polling place, have issues with a voting
machine, or witness voter fraud or intimidation to send a detailed
email to Judicial Watch at [email protected].

Our Judicial Watch election teams will monitor the election in
Wisconsin to expose and deter any fraud, and our Election Hotline will
expand our watchdog capability right down to the grass roots.

As you are probably aware, Judicial Watch is a national leader in
voting integrity and voting rights. As part of our work, we assembled
a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped
discriminatory elections in Hawaii and cleaned up voter rolls across
the country 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.

The NVRA requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a
reasonable effort to remove” from the official voter rolls “the
names of ineligible voters” who have died or changed residence.
Among other things, the NVRA requires registrations to be cancelled
when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices and then
fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. In 2018, the
Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory (_Husted v.
A. Philip Randolph Inst_
[[link removed]].,
[[link removed]]
138 S.
Ct. 1833, 1841-42 (2018)).

In September, we argued
[[link removed]]
before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding a lower
court ruling on Mississippi’s election law that permits absentee
ballots to be received as late as five business days after Election
Day.

In a similar lawsuit, in 2022, on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and
two other registered voters, we sued
[[link removed]]
Illinois
for allowing vote-by-mail ballots (even those without postmarks) to be
counted if received up to 14 calendar days after Election Day if the
ballots are dated on or before Election Day.

We filed our latest California lawsuit in May 2024 after uncovering
[[link removed]]
a
broad failure to clean up voter rolls in dozens of California
counties. We sued
[[link removed]]
California
under the NVRA to force it to clean up 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 February 2023, Los Angeles County confirmed
[[link removed]]
removal
of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since the year before,
under the terms of a settlement agreement
[[link removed]]
in
a federal lawsuit
[[link removed]]
we
filed in 2017. (Legal pressure from Judicial Watch ultimately led to
the removal of up to four million ineligible voters
[[link removed]]
from
voter rolls in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Colorado, North
Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, and elsewhere.)

In March 2024, on behalf of Breakthrough Ideas, Illinois Family
Action, and Carol J. Davis, we sued
[[link removed]]
Illinois
officials under the NVRA to force them to clean the State’s voter
rolls.

In December 2023, our attorneys sent a notice letter
[[link removed]]
to election officials in the District of Columbia notifying them of
evident violations of the NVRA, based on their failure to remove
inactive voters from their registration rolls. The letter pointed out
that D.C. publicly reported removing few or no ineligible voter
registrations under a key provision of the NVRA. The letter threatened
a federal lawsuit unless the violations were corrected in a timely
fashion. In response to Judicial Watch’s inquiries, Washington, D.C.
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.”

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. 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.

We also 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 of our Judicial Watch lawsuits.

In December 2023, our lawyers sent three other notice letters
[[link removed]]
to
election officials in the District of Columbia, California, and
Illinois, notifying them of evident violations of the NVRA, based on
their failure to remove inactive voters from their registration rolls.
In response to Judicial Watch’s inquiries, Washington, D.C.,
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.”

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]]
we
conducted 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, we filed a federal lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the
Illinois State Board of Elections and its Executive Director,
Bernadette Matthews, over their failure to clean Illinois’ voter
rolls and to produce election-related records as required by federal
law.

Also 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 us with the most recent voter roll data
for each Colorado county each year for six years.

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
Judicial Watch’s challenge to the Democratic state legislature’s
“extreme” congressional-districts gerrymander.

And, even after all this work, more is coming – as Judicial Watch
increases its work to ensure free, fair, and honest elections!

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES TO FORCE CLEAN UP OF OREGON VOTER ROLLS—LAWSUIT
ALLEGES THE STATE HAS ONE OF WORST VOTING LISTS IN THE NATION

Dirty voter rolls can mean dirty elections. Oregon has one of the
dirtiest voting rolls in America and needs to clean them up ASAP!
That’s why adding to our accomplishments listed above we filed our
latest National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) lawsuit against the
State of Oregon this week after uncovering
[[link removed]]
a
broad failure to clean up voter rolls in dozens of Oregon counties.

In July 2024, our attorneys sent a notice letter
[[link removed]]
to
the Oregon secretary of state on behalf of itself, the Constitution
Party of Oregon and an Oregon registered voter, notifying them of
evident violations of the National Voter Registration Act
[[link removed]]
(NVRA) of 1993, based on their failure to remove ineligible voters
from their registration rolls. The letter to Oregon serves as a
“pre-suit” notice.

When Oregon claimed it was too expensive to comply with the mandates
of the NVRA, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Constitution Party of
Oregon and two lawfully registered voters of Umatilla County and
Marion County, Oregon, against Lavonne Griffin-Valade in her official
capacity as Oregon Secretary of State and the State of Oregon, to make
“a reasonable effort to remove” the registrations of ineligible
registrants from the voter rolls as required by federal law (_Judicial
Watch, et al. v. The State of Oregon et al._
[[link removed]]
(No.
6:24-cv-01783)). The suit was filed to enforce basic voter list
maintenance provisions under Section 8 of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

In our complaint, our lawyers argue that Oregon’s voter rolls
contain large numbers of old, inactive registrations; and that 29 of
Oregon’s 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by
federal election law. Our complaint asserts that Oregon and 35 of its
counties had overall registration rates exceeding 100%; and that
Oregon has the highest known inactive registration rate of any state
in the nation. In combination, all of these facts show that Oregon is
failing to remove inactive registrations pursuant to Section
8(d)(1)(B) of the NVRA. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Oregon, Eugene Division, to compel the
defendants to comply with their voter list maintenance obligations
under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

We are being assisted in our Oregon lawsuit by Stephen Joncus of
Joncus Law PC in Happy Valley, Oregon.

Let’s hope Oregon does what it is supposed to do under law and start
cleaning up its voting rolls!

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FOR RECORDS OF SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS CRITICAL OF
DONALD TRUMP BY TOP FBI AGENT INVESTIGATING TRUMP ASSASSINATION
ATTEMPT

When we discovered
[[link removed]]
top FBI officials allegedly ordered an agent to scrub his Facebook
page to delete anti-Trump vitriol before they would promote him to
head the bureau’s Miami field office, we launched a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request with the Justice Department to get to
the bottom of this untoward effort to sanitize the bias of agents
within the Bureau. The Biden-Harris FBI is engaged in a cover-up of a
cover-up of one its top agent’s anti-Trump bias. This is why many
Americans are concerned about the FBI’s dangerous political bias
against Trump – and whether the FBI can be trusted to investigate
the attempts on his life.

We filed a FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against
the U.S. Department of Justice for messages among top leaders of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation referencing social media posts of
Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri
[[link removed]],
head of the Miami Field Office, which is investigating the September
15 assassination attempt against Donald Trump (_Judicial Watch v. U.S.
Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:24-cv-02740)).

We sued after the Department of Justice refused to respond in full to
a November 21, 2023, FOIA request for:

1. All emails and Lync system messages sent to and from the following

2. FBI officials referencing social media posts and/or Facebook posts
generated by Miami Field Office Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri: Director
Christopher Wray, Deputy Director Paul Abbate, and/or Executive
Assistant Director Jennifer Moore.

3. All communications, whether by email, text message, or the FBI Lync
system between Director Wray, Dep. Director Abbate and/or EAD Jennifer
Moore on the one hand and Miami FO Special Agent Veltri related to
Donald Trump, social media posts, Facebook and/or political opinions.
Veltri was reportedly
[[link removed]]
“one
of several officials that used litmus tests to ‘purge’ political
conservatives” like whistleblower Marcus Allen
[[link removed]]
from
the FBI.
We have frequently sued the FBI when it refused to release requested
documents.

In June 2024 we released
[[link removed]]
documents
showing that the FBI Office of Congressional Affairs provided a
Democrat staffer with information on FBI whistleblowers who detailed
the bureau’s targeting of political opponents and retaliation for
their testifying at a May 18, 2023, hearing of the House Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

We also represented Marcus Allen, a decorated veteran, FBI analyst and
witness
[[link removed]]
before the
Weaponization Subcommittee, in a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against
FBI Director Christopher Wray for violating Allen’s constitutional
rights by falsely accusing him of holding “conspiratorial views,”
stripping his security clearance, and suspending him from duty without
pay. On May 31, 2024, Allen’s security clearance was reinstated
[[link removed]].

In January 2024, we filed a FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against
the U.S. Department of Defense for reports submitted by a military
officer to his superiors regarding an alleged conversation around
January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko about
trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump.

In November 2023, we released
[[link removed]]
FBI
records showing top officials rushing to craft a public response to
the leaked FBI intelligence memo that revealed its targeting of
Catholics who adhere to traditional beliefs on church issues.

In June 2023, we sued
[[link removed]]
for all FBI
communications from bureau officials using several systems and
databases regarding investigations carried out after an October 4,
2021, memo from Attorney General Merrick Garland instructing
investigators to target American parents due to an alleged “increase
in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school
board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public
schools” In a March 21, 2023, report
[[link removed]]
on
the Garland memo, the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government cited FBI data which states that 25 inquiries under the
threat tag “EDUOFFICIALS” had been opened since the bureau began
tracking the alleged incidents.

In September 2022, we filed a FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
for all
records in the possession of FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst
Brian Auten regarding an August 6, 2020, briefing provided to members
of the U.S. Senate. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that
raised concerns that the briefing was intended to undermine the
senators’ investigation of Hunter Biden.

In May 2022, we announced a federal court ordered the FBI to disclose
additional details about FBI and other officials “cc-ed” on the
memo used to justify launching the “Crossfire Hurricane” spy
operation against President Trump and his 2016 presidential
campaign. Judge Carl J. Nichols had given the FBI until June 16,
2022, to respond. The order came in a September 2019 FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
our
lawyers filed after the FBI failed to respond to a request for the
memo, known as an “Electronic Communication” or “EC.”

In August 2020, we released 323 pages
[[link removed]]
of
emails between former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI
attorney Lisa Page. The records include an email from Strzok to other
FBI officials about Trump’s tweets regarding them spying on him, as
well as their interaction with other media outlets including CNN.

In December 2019,we sued
[[link removed]]
the
Justice Department and CIA for communications between Ciaramella and
former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Attorney Lisa Page, former
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and/or the Special Counsel’s
Office. In both cases the government refused to produce records,
“refusing to confirm or deny the existence or non-existence of
responsive records” because “confirming or denying the existence
or non-existence of responsive records would reveal information
protected by the CIA Act, namely the existence or non-existence of an
employment relationship between the Agency and Mr. Ciaramella.” And,
the government claimed, it would constitute an “unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy.”

The FBI, despite being a storied law enforcement agency, has an awful
record of corruption and cover-up. Judicial Watch’s litigation to
hold the FBI accountable under the law is – quite simply –
essential!

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FOR RECORDS ON KAMALA HARRIS SECRET SERVICE
MOTORCADE ACCIDENT

The Biden-Harris Secret Service is in a dangerous tailspin and
literally can’t drive straight. And rather than be forthcoming about
these issues with the American people, the Secret Service is engaged
is a series of mounting and unlawful cover-ups, going back at least to
a 2022 car accident by Kamala Harris’ Secret Service driver, which
the agency initially – and falsely – dismissed as “mechanical
failure.”

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records on a 2022 car
accident involving Vice President Kamala Harris’s Secret Service
motorcade (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security_
[[link removed]
_(No. 1:24-cv-02752)).

The suit was filed after the agency failed to respond to a July 19,
2024, our FOIA request for:

> 1. Any and all emails and text messages sent to and from members of
> the Vice-Presidential Protection Division regarding the October 3,
> 2022, accident involving the vehicle carrying Vice President Kamala
> Harris and/or the driving skills/abilities of the agent driving the
> vehicle at the time of the accident.
>
> 2. All waivers for defensive driver classes granted to USSS special
> agents involved in vehicular accidents with official vehicles.
>
> 3. Records reflecting directives for USSS special agents to undergo
> defensive driver classes as a result of being involved in accidents
> with official vehicles.
The _New York Post_ reported
[[link removed]]
in
October 2022 that “Vice President Kamala Harris was involved in a
minor car accident Monday, one that was initially — and falsely —
dismissed as ‘mechanical failure.’” The driver of her SUV struck
a curb hard enough “that the tire needed to be replaced, bringing
the VP’s motorcade to a standstill.” NBC reported
[[link removed]]
that
the vehicle had been partially airborne.

In my new book, _Rights and Freedoms in Peril_
[[link removed]],
I detail some of Judicial Watch’s
numerous lawsuits and disclosures about Secret Service controversies.

In addition, on September 3, 2024, following up on reports that the
Biden Secret Service denied President Trump’s requests for
additional Secret Service protection, we filed
[[link removed]]
a
FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for all Secret Service and
other records regarding potential increased protective services to
former President Trump’s security detail prior to the attempt on his
life at his July 13 campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania (_Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security_
[[link removed]
_(No.
1:24-cv-02495)).

On August 23, we received USSS records
[[link removed]]
that show the
Secret Service has made it a top priority that “diversity and
inclusion is not just ‘talked about’ – but demonstrated by all
employees through ‘EVERY ACTION, EVERY DAY.’” [Emphasis in
original] The records show the Secret Service, demands that 12 percent
of its workforce be composed of “persons with disabilities,” and
that it is the policy of the Secret Service to provide equal
employment opportunity without regard to such non-merit factors as
“disability (physical or mental).”

Until next week,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


[advertisement]
[[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]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]