Suit for Fauci Agency China Docs

[INSIDE JW]

PELOSI CONGRESS ASSAULT ON ELECTION INTEGRITY RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS

[[link removed]]

Robert Popper is a Judicial Watch senior attorney who served as the
deputy chief of the voting section of the Civil Rights Division of the
U.S. Department of Justice from 2008 to 2013. In the following op-ed
[[link removed]]
for _The Hill_ he reveals the massive power grab the Left plans on
elections across the land:

Ever since House Resolution 1, the Democrats’ 886-page partisan wish
list of a voting bill, passed the House on a party-line vote earlier
this month, its critics
[[link removed]]
have had a lot to say. They correctly point out that the bill
federalizes election law on a historically unprecedented scale
[[link removed]],
systematically impairs existing federal and state laws
[[link removed]]
concerning
election integrity, and imposes new burdens and restrictions
[[link removed]]
on
political speech and activity. All of this is apparent from the text
of the bill.

Less obvious — indeed, almost hidden from anyone who does not
specialize in voting law — is a provision of H.R. 1
[[link removed]]
requiring
states to draw federal congressional districts in a way that favors
Democrats: “Districts shall comply with the Voting Rights Act …
including by creating any districts where two or more politically
cohesive groups protected by such Act are able to elect
representatives of choice in coalition with one another.” The bill
adds that districts must “ensure the practical ability” of such
groups to “elect representatives of choice … regardless of whether
or not such protected group constitutes a majority” of a district.

“In coalition with one another” — these innocent-seeming words
are, in fact, an attempt to reverse particular rulings of the Supreme
Court and compel the drawing of what are known as “coalition”
districts specially constructed to ensure Democratic majorities.

The checkered history of coalition districts is bound up with cases
interpreting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
[[link removed]],
which
forbids any practice that causes members of a racial group to “have
less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate
in the political process and to elect representatives of their
choice.” This clause has long been interpreted
[[link removed]]
to forbid
at-large elections where these allow a racial majority to dominate a
racial minority.

Here is how this might happen: In an at-large election for, say, a
city council of seven members, every member is elected by the entire
population of the city; if voting is racially polarized, a racial
majority of only 55 percent of the city’s voters has the power to
elect all seven council members, effectively denying the large
minority any representation whatsoever. The remedy for this kind of
violation of Section 2 is the imposition of electoral districts. These
allow the city-wide minority a chance to prevail locally in at least a
few of those districts. But before compelling such a remedy — that
is, before throwing out a jurisdiction’s chosen electoral system and
imposing a district plan — the Supreme Court logically requires
[[link removed]]
that a racial
minority at least have a chance of forming a majority in one of the
new districts.

In the intervening years, the plaintiffs suing to enforce Section 2
have most often been Black or Hispanic voters. In any particular
jurisdiction, they may not have sufficient numbers to make up a
majority in a new district. Further, many of these voters tend to vote
for Democrats, and the requirement that they be placed in districts
where they can form a majority often conflicts with the desire of
Democratic operatives that they be placed strategically to maximize
the party’s electoral chances.

Enter the concept of coalition districts. Suppose there are too few
black voters to form a majority in a new district. The idea is that,
if enough white voters join them, or if enough Hispanic or other
minority voters join them
[[link removed]],
and if this
“coalition” is large enough to constitute a voting majority in
that district, then drawing it becomes legally necessary to ensure
minority voters’ opportunity “to elect representatives of their
choice.”

This is a transparent partisan trick. What special interest do
minority voters in such a district share with other minority or
majority voters who may join them to form a majority? The only answer
is that they all intend to vote the same way.

Indeed, drawing such a coalition district seems to reduce to a mandate
to “find as many Democrats as you can and put them in a district.”
An ideological preference cannot be enshrined as a voting right.
As Richard Pildes put it in 2002
[[link removed]],
a “statute
aimed at counteracting discrimination in voting would thus be
transformed into a substantive, partisan entitlement to office.”

In Bartlett v. Strickland in 2009, the Supreme Court rejected the
idea that white votes could be combined with Black votes to constitute
a majority in a Section 2 remedial district. As Justice
Kennedy observed
[[link removed]],
Section 2
does not grant “special protection to a minority group’s right to
form political coalitions.” And in Perry v. Perez in 2012, the
court implied
[[link removed]]
that the
same reasoning would bar the drawing of a “minority coalition
opportunity district” in which “two different minority groups”
were expected “to band together to form an electoral majority.”

Now, H.R. 1 seeks to revive this bad idea and to make it federal law.
Like so much else in the bill, it is sure to be subject to legal
challenges — in this case, for blatantly favoring the electoral
prospects of one party and one viewpoint.

LAWSUIT: 2,400 ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS RELEASED UNDER SAN FRANCISCO
SHERIFF’S OFFICE SANCTUARY POLICY

If you want to know the danger sanctuary policies produce, look no
farther than San Francisco, where criminals are permitted to roam
free.

We have sued to overturn the San Francisco Sheriff’s sanctuary
policy, and our suit revealed that more than 2,400 criminal illegal
aliens were released under the department’s policy on communications
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about criminal illegal
aliens in the Sheriff’s custody. (_Cynthia Cerletti v. Vicki
Hennessy, Sheriff_
[[link removed]]
(No.
CGC-16-556164)). A hearing in the court challenge is scheduled
for April 5
[[link removed]].

We note in a recent court filing
[[link removed]]
that
the Sheriff’s office’s policy “is so effective in regulating
immigration and obstructing Congress’ purposes under federal
immigration law that, in over 2,401 known instances, it has never
resulted in ICE taking into custody a single alien, not even aliens
with significant criminal backgrounds wanted for removal.”

This is the latest action in the December 2016 lawsuit we brought on
behalf of California taxpayer Cynthia Cerletti. Our lawsuit argues
that the Sheriff Department’s restrictions on communications with
ICE conflict with federal immigration law and attempt to regulate
immigration and are therefore invalid.

Our recent filing includes expert testimony
[[link removed]]
that
details specific examples of egregious criminal behavior of illegal
aliens that the Sheriff’s office had in custody who were released
without consultation with ICE:

* A citizen of Cuba faced charges for burglary and a parole
violation, with a prior burglary conviction.
* A citizen of Vietnam faced charges for robbery, battery, and
assault.
* A citizen of Ethiopia was charged with assault with a deadly
weapon, assault on a peace officer, receiving stolen property, a
parole violation, and had prior convictions for stolen property
crimes.
* A citizen of Mexico had a long list of current and prior offenses,
including convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, robbery,
felony assault, false imprisonment, burglary, vehicle theft, and
probation violations, including one revocation of probation. This
individual appeared to have been arrested at least nine times between
January 2015 and March 2020.
* A citizen of Honduras was facing instant charges of burglary.
His 5-page rap sheet included prior convictions on felonies such as
burglary while in possession of a concealed, loaded firearm, giving
false information to an officer, child endangerment, theft, domestic
violence, robbery, assault, and violating a restraining order.
* Another citizen of Mexico was facing instant charges of robbery,
domestic violence and assault and also was the subject of an ICE
detainer and warrant of arrest after a biometric match with DHS
records. The alien had three recent, separate, prior felony
convictions: two for auto theft and one for burglary, which had
occurred over a 15-month period ending two and one-half years prior to
the instant offense.
* A citizen of Ukraine was arrested and held to answer for a felony
burglary charge, along with false imprisonment, receiving stolen
property, threatening an officer, and a firearms charge. Two years
prior, he was convicted on a robbery charge, among other offense.
* Another citizen of Mexico was held to answer on felony burglary
charges, false imprisonment, and adult kidnapping charges. The alien
had prior burglary convictions, one occurring one year prior to the
instant charge, and another occurring four years prior, for which he
was sentenced to 364 days plus probation.
* A citizen of Cambodia was facing instant charges for assault with
a deadly weapon, murder, and a loaded firearm violation.

In December 2017
[[link removed]],
the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County overruled the
San Francisco Sheriff Department’s move to dismiss this lawsuit.

In rejecting the Sheriff’s attempt to end the lawsuit, presiding
Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn wrote there is “sufficient support
at this stage of the case for Cerletti’s allegation that the
Sheriff’s policy prohibiting or restricting release information
about suspected priority aliens stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment of Congress’ asserted purpose of enabling federal
immigration officials to gain access to inmates who may have violated
federal immigration laws.”

Our taxpayer lawsuit shows that the San Francisco Sheriff’s
sanctuary policy is not only unlawful but is also a clear and present
danger to the public safety.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE FOR RECORDS ABOUT
CHANGES TO PROCESSING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS IN 2020 ELECTION, AND 2021
TRUMP/RAFFENSPERGER CALL

The election in Georgia last year was controversial, to say the least,
and we want to know more about what happened behind the scenes.

Consequently, we filed two Georgia Open Records Act lawsuits against
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger for records related to:

(1) the March 6, 2020 consent agreement regarding the processing of
absentee ballots in the November 3, 2020 general election (_Judicial
Watch v. Brad Raffensperger_
[[link removed]]
(No.
2021 cv 347236)); and

(2) the January 2, 2021 telephone call between Raffensperger and
President Trump (_Judicial Watch v. Brad Raffensperger_
[[link removed]]
(No.
2021 cv 347237)).

We filed the first lawsuit after Secretary of State Raffensperger
failed to respond to a November 17, 2020 request for:

All records related to the March 6, 2020 Consent Agreement entered
into by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and others
relating to the processing of absentee ballots by the Secretary of
State in the November 3, 2020 general election, including but not
limited to emails regarding the agreement sent to and from
Raffensperger, State Election Board Vice Chair Rebecca N. Sullivan,
State Election Board Member David J. Worley, State Election Board
Member Matthew Mashburn, and/or State Election Board Member Anh Le.

Our second lawsuit seeks:

All emails sent to and from Secretary of State Raffensperger, Deputy
Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs and General Counsel Brian Germany
regarding the January 2, 2021 telephone call between President Trump,
Secretary Raffensperger and others concerning alleged election fraud
in Georgia.

On March 6, 2020, Raffensperger and other Georgia officials signed
a consent decree
[[link removed]]
with
the Democratic Party of Georgia, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that
critics contend improperly weakened anti-fraud measures related
absentee ballots.

In an hour-long telephone call on January 2, 2021, President Trump and
Raffensperger discussed Trump’s concerns about voter fraud in
Georgia. The conversation became controversial after Raffensperger’s
office allegedly leaked
[[link removed]]
a
recording of the call to the _Washington Post_.

Here’s some background.

In April 2020, we identified thousands of persons who may have
registered to vote in Georgia at non-residential addresses. We shared
its data with Raffensperger’s office at the time and requested an
investigation. On January 5 of this year, we announced
[[link removed]]
that,
of this list of voters who may have registered using non-residential
addresses, 4,700 voted absentee
[[link removed]]
in
the 2020 presidential election. Georgia law requires
[[link removed]]
that
citizens registering to vote must reside “in that place in which
such person’s habitation is fixed….”

We have been busy elsewhere. In 2020, as you know, we sued North
Carolina
[[link removed]],
Pennsylvania
[[link removed]],
and Colorado
[[link removed]]
for
failing to clean up their voter rolls and also sued Illinois
[[link removed]]
for
refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of federal law.
These lawsuits continue. We also has filed dozens of public records
requests in multiple states about the 2020 election.

Hiding key records about a controversial absentee ballot settlement
agreement and leaking the President Trump’s phone call with
Georgia’s secretary of state prevents Americans from knowing the
full story and deciding for themselves whether the outcome in Georgia
was fair.

FAUCI UPDATE: JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FOR NIH FUNDING AND OTHER RECORDS
TIED TO CHINA’S WUHAN INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY

You know Dr. Anthony Fauci is a federal bureaucrat with immense and,
too often, unaccountable political power. But he and his agency will
face accountability thanks to a new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
lawsuit Judicial Watch filed against the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) for National Institutes of Health (NIH) records
of communications, contracts and agreements with the Wuhan Institute
of Virology in China (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:21-cv-00696)). The lawsuit specifically seeks records about
NIH grants that benefitted the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

We sued after the NIH denied our April 22, 2020, FOIA request for:

* All NIAID communications regarding the Wuhan Institute of Virology
in Wuhan, China;
* All agreements, contracts and related documents between NIAID and
the Wuhan Institute of Virology; and
* All records, including agreements, funds disbursement records and
related NIAID communications regarding a reported
[[link removed]]
$3.7
million in grants provided by NIH to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In April 2020, the _Daily Mail_ reported
[[link removed]]
that
documents “show the Wuhan Institute of Virology undertook
coronavirus experiments on mammals captured more than 1,000 miles
away in Yunnan – funded by a $3.7 million grant from the US
government.”

The NIH in April 2020 suspended funding a grant to the non-profit
EcoHealth Alliance that “had previously established a partnership
with a virology laboratory in Wuhan, China” but in August gave the
EcoHealth Alliance a grant of $7.5 million. The grant will reportedly
[[link removed]]
“focus
on Southeast Asia and the emergence of coronaviruses; filoviruses, the
family responsible for Ebola; and paramyxoviruses, a family of viruses
that includes measles and mumps.”

In March 2021, we uncovered HHS/NIH records
[[link removed]]
that
show NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms
and that the World Health Organization conducted an unreleased,
“strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in
January 2020. Additionally, the records reveal an independent
journalist in China pointing out the inconsistent COVID numbers in
China to NIAID Deputy Director for Clinical Research and Special
Projects Cliff Lane.

In October 2020, we received records
[[link removed]]
from the
HHS that show Dr. Fauci approved a press release supportive of
China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.

For almost a year now, Dr. Fauci’s agency has stonewalled our lawful
request for information about the agency’s connections to the
controversial Wuhan lab. The American people have a right to know
about Dr. Fauci’s agency’s involvement with the infamous Wuhan
Institute of Virology

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES OPM FOR RECORDS ON AGENCY PERSONNEL CLASSES,
SEMINARS IN CHINA; BREACH OF OPM DATA

The risks to everyday Americans from actions by Chinese government
seem to be increasing every day. Judicial Watch is committed to
getting answers about the China threat that a compromised Washington,
DC (see Hunter Biden) would rather ignore.

I expect will get some insight from a FOIA suit we filed against the
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) seeking records of the
OPM’s Federal Executive Institute’s personnel classes and seminars
in China and any records of communications concerning the 2014 breach
of OPM data by hackers working for the Chinese government, which
compromised the personal information of some 22 million
Americans (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:21-cv-00646)).

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after
OPM failed to reply to a December 11, 2020, FOIA request for:

Any and all promotional materials, admission applications, invitations
to apply, enrollment documentation, or similar records pertaining to
any course, conference, seminar, or other event conducted by the
Federal Executive Institute in China between September 1, 2009 and
September 1, 2012.

Any and all course catalogs, syllabi, agendas, training and briefing
materials, or similar records pertaining to any course, conference,
seminar, or other event conducted by the Federal Executive Institute
in China between September 1, 2009 and September 1, 2012.

Any and all contracts, including Personal Service Contracts, awarded
by the Office of Personnel Management to support the operations of the
Federal Executive Institute in China between September 1, 2009 and
September 1,2012.

Any and all materials used to provide security briefings to any
student, faculty member, instructor, or other employee or contractor
assigned on a permanent or temporary basis to the Federal Executive
Institute in China between September 1, 2009 and September 1, 2012.

Any and all records of communication between any official, employee,
or representative of the Office of Personnel Management and any
official, employee, or representative of the government of China
and/or any other Chinese national regarding, concerning, or related to
the Federal Executive Institute in China between September 1, 2009 and
September 1, 2012.

Any and all records of communication between any official, employee,
or representative of the Office of Personnel Management and any other
individual or entity regarding, concerning, or related to the Federal
Executive Institute in China that contain the terms “breach,”
“security,” or “SF-86” between March 1, 2014 and January 20,
2017. This request includes, but is not limited to, any such
communications with any official, employee, or representative of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The Federal Executive Institute
[[link removed]],
a training center for executives of U.S. government agencies, includes
an International Leadership Development Program that for years sent
U.S. officials to China for training.

We’re seeking information on Federal Executive Institute operations
in China between September 2009 and September 2012.

An April 28, 2010, report
[[link removed]]
from the Chinese
propaganda outlet People’s Daily Online described how a group of 20
U.S. officials selected by the Federal Executive Institute went
to Tsinghua University in China for “a one-week intensive training
program” that included lectures on China’s communist system.

In the hacking matter, the OPM revealed
[[link removed]]
in June 2015 that it was
the target of a “cyber intrusion” in which the personnel records
of 22.1 million people were compromised. The OPM was targeted in two
linked attacks, the first in March 2014 and the second in May 2014.

Sending federal employees to communist China for “training” seems
like reckless risk to our national security. And the hack, likely by
China, of the Obama administration’s sensitive personnel records of
millions of government employees is a scandal that our government
would like to cover up but for which we are seeking answers now in
federal court.

Until next week …





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[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 - 2021, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]