Happy Easter!

[INSIDE JW]

MORE SHOCKING DETAILS OF FDA PURCHASES OF FETAL TISSUE -- AGENCY
WANTED “FRESH, SHIPPED ON WET ICE” FETAL ORGANS

[[link removed]]

The sale of body parts harvested during abortions is not generally
understood, certainly not the gruesome details of the transactions.

More grotesque details emerge in 575 pages
[[link removed]]
of
records we received from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
showing the agency spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to buy
human fetal tissue from California-based Advanced Bioscience Resources
(ABR). The tissue was used in creating “humanized mice
[[link removed]
to test “biologic drug products.”

This is the third set of records from our March 2019 lawsuit. We
released other sets, which also include records obtained from the
National Institutes of Health, in February 2020
[[link removed]]
and June
2020
[[link removed]].


ABR, a nonprofit, human fetal tissue “procurement” firm, has been
the subject of criminal referrals
[[link removed]]
from
both U.S. House and Senate committees investigating human fetal tissue
trafficking and whether Planned Parenthood or any other entity was
illegally profiting from transfers of organs harvested from aborted
human fetuses. Federal law
[[link removed]]
regulates the
purchase and acceptance of human fetal tissue
[[link removed]]
for research. It is unlawful to “acquire, receive, or otherwise
transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the
transfer affects interstate commerce
[[link removed]


The records include the following communications between ABR
procurement manager Perrin Larton and FDA research veterinary medical
official Dr. Kristina Howard between January 2011 and April 2018:

Howard’s May 10, 2012, email
[[link removed]]
to
Larton bearing the subject line “Tissue Delivery” details, “Just
wanted to follow up with you regarding the tissue deliveries. We have
three batches of mice that still need to be humanized, so please keep
us on the schedule every week until we manage to receive three sets of
tissue.”

Howard’s October 17, 2012 email
[[link removed]]
to
Larton about the gender of an aborted fetus from which an organ was
harvested: “I wanted to check with your records on the sex of the
tissue we received today. It was Liver #4505.” Larton responded,
“The techs were not able to identify the gender. We only check
external genitalia and if it’s not there … due to the nature of
the termination procedure… we have no way of telling.” Howard
replied, “Thank you for explaining that to me. I have some leftover
cells to sex it.”

A May 9, 2013 email
[[link removed]]
exchange
in which Howard complained to Larton about Fedex x-raying the packages
in which fetal organs had been shipped. Howard wrote, “Our package
was x-rayed and the tissues could not be used.” Larton responded,
“DAMN … they were wonderful tissues. I procured them! I’m
training a new tech in Minneapolis and I told her how important it is
to put the DO NOT X-RAY stickers on the package. Of course if you
have an IMBECILE on the Fedex side … but then, now it’s a moot
point.” Howard replied, “Yes, we were absolutely
heartbroken. They were beautiful tissues and to lose them like that
was awful.”

An August 26, 2015 email
[[link removed]]
exchange
in which the FDA’s Howard wrote, “As always, we are requesting
liver and thymus for each date.” ABR’s Larton responds, “I’ll
put you on the schedule for your requested tissue delivery
dates.” Howard replies, “Thanks Perrin! Btw, are you planning to
attend the humanized mouse workshop in Zurich in January?” Larton
then writes, “Yes. Linda and I will both be attending. Will we see
you there?” Howard replies, “Assuming the gov’t allows me to
go, I will be there. I have lots of data!”

A June 9, 2016 email
[[link removed]]
exchange
in which Howard tells Larton, “We have a very important and
timing-wise challenging, surgery the week of June 20th. We will be
making dual humanized BLT mice (human liver and the BLT surgery) at
the same time.” Larton replies, “Does the tissue HAVE to come
from a male fetus? It really helps when we can send either,
especially since this is an important and time sensitive
surgery.” Howard replied, “It is strongly preferred to have a
male fetus if at all possible. However, after we dose the mice, we
have to proceed with the surgery, so at that point undetermined sex or
female is better than no tissue. I know in some cases it is
impossible to tell what the sex is, however, I don’t know what
proportion of your tissues are in that category.”

A July 22, 2016 email
[[link removed]]
in
which Howard asked Larton if she knew “about tissue for tomorrow
yet?” Larton replied, “This week I’m working with a doctor who
induces fetal demise at 20 weeks. The other doctors who staff this
clinic won’t induce fetal demise until 22 weeks … and of course
… this week we had 4 21 week [sic] cases that all had been injected
with digoxin on Wednesday so the tissue is unusable. I’ll have you
on next week and prioritize your request.”

An August 5, 2016 email
[[link removed]]
from
an unidentified individual at ABR informing Howard that ABR was “not
able to procure for you today,” referring to human fetal
tissue. Howard replied, “Given how old the mice are (12 weeks) we
will use frozen tissue. Fresh tissue is always our preference, but I
don’t think we can wait another week. We are going to receive more
mice in early Sept so we will try for more tissue then. I hope supply
issues will resolve themselves by that time.” Larton, who was CCd
on the email, responded, “It’s so frustrating. We’re also
working with a new doctor in one of the busiest clinics… not a good
combo! The tissue is awful!”

A May 25, 2017 email
[[link removed]]
in
which Howard asked Larton “How likely is it that we could get tissue
tomorrow?” Larton responded, “Quite likely. I don’t know how
many cases will be available, but you’re the only researcher that
will take tissue this Saturday.” Howard replied, “Great news! We
have mice that need to be made.” Howard also thanks Perrin, “Btw,
last week’s tissue was amazing!”

A September 22, 2017 email
[[link removed]]
in
which Lorton wrote to Howard: “We did get tissue for you today. Is
it to be addressed to you for pick up at the station?” Howard
responded, “Yay! Happy to hear tissue is available. By chance do
you know how many weeks it is?” Larton responded, “The tissue is
15 weeks. Due to the Rosh Hashanah holiday … the clinics were
closed yesterday … so no real large tissue today.” Howard
replied, “I didn’t realize that the holiday would interfere with
clinic operations. Thanks again for getting the tissue.” Larton
responded, “We didn’t either … but … many of the doctors are
Jewish!”

An April 5, 2018 email
[[link removed]]
in
which Howard wrote to Perrin, “[W]hile we (like everyone else) are
desperate for tissue each week, this week and especially next week are
important for us to get tissue. We are trying to get several new
staff qualified for our surgery (so they can participate in the other
scheduled surgeries) and we must have fresh tissue to do that. I
realize tissue is always hit or miss, but if it is possible to
prioritize us these two weeks, it would be greatly
appreciated.” Larton replied, “I just let everyone know to
prioritize your request today and if we don’t get it today,
tomorrow”

A June 18, 2018 email
[[link removed]]
in
which the FDA’s Howard asked ABR’s Perrin to bill the FDA for
“four (4) sets of tissue for July, however, to ensure they are
covered on the existing PO [purchase order], can they all be billed
for July 6 – as we did last year as time was running
out?” Perrin replied, “I’m sure [name redacted] won’t have
a problem billing to the existing PO since you’ve done it in the
past.”

In September 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) terminated
[[link removed]]
the
contract with ABR. HHS said it “was not sufficiently assured that
contract included the appropriate protections applicable to fetal
tissue research or met all other procurement requirements.”

The records were turned over to us as a result of our March 2019
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against
HHS, of which the FDA is a part (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department
Health and Human Services_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:19-cv-00876)).

Last month, the federal court overseeing this lawsuit ordered
[[link removed]]
HHS to release previously withheld portions of records about its
purchases of organs harvested from aborted human fetuses. The court
found “there is reason to question” whether the transactions
violate federal law barring the sale of fetal organs.

The decision notes that ABR:

sold second-trimester livers and thymi for hundreds of dollars
apiece. The same for brains, eyes, and lungs. After tacking on fees
for services like shipping and cleaning, ABR could collect over $2,000
on a single fetus it purchased from Planned Parenthood for $60. The
federal government participated in this potentially illicit trade for
years.

The court also found it “dubious” that a FOIA exception invoked by
the government could be used to “shield illegal business practices
under the guise of ‘confidential business information’” and
declared that “[t]here is reason to question the lawfulness of the
transaction between the Government and ABR.”

These fetal organ trafficking documents shock the conscience and show
potentially illegal use of tax dollars to purchase organs of the
unborn killed through abortion.

SUPREME COURT DROPS THE BALL ON CLINTON EMAIL TESTIMONY

This week, we learned that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Judicial
Watch’s request to take up our challenge
[[link removed]]
to
an appeals court decision exempting Hillary Clinton from testifying
under oath about her emails and Benghazi attack documents.

Hillary Clinton ignored the law but received special protection from
both the courts and law enforcement. For countless Americans, this
double standard of justice has destroyed confidence in the fair
administration of justice. Americans would never have known about
Hillary Clinton’s email and related pay for play scandals but for
our diligence. We expect that the Biden State and Justice Departments
will continue to protect her and cover up their own misconduct as we
press for additional accountability through the courts.

We argued that the Supreme Court should hear our case because the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in
undermining the Freedom of Information Act in giving Clinton
unwarranted special treatment that conflicts both with Supreme Court
precedent and the precedents of other courts of appeal, including its
own.

The cert petition to the top court arose from our FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
(_Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of State_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:14-cv-01242), which led directly
[[link removed]]
to
the disclosure of Clinton’s use of a non-government email server to
conduct government business. On March 2, 2020, U.S. District Court
Judge Royce Lamberth authorized
[[link removed]]
us
to depose Clinton about her emails and the existence of relevant
Benghazi attack documents. The court also ordered
[[link removed]]
the
deposition of Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, and two
other State Department officials.

JUDICIAL WATCH AT THE SUPREME COURT: FIGHTING FOR CLEAN ELECTIONS

Basic election security and anti-voter fraud provisions remain under
attack by the organized Left and its party allies. And Judicial Watch
remains on the front lines in the courts for the rule of law to ensure
cleaner elections. Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter,
describes
[[link removed]]
a key Supreme Court battle in Judicial Watch’s _Investigative
Bulletin_:

Battles for clean elections are heating up around the country and
Judicial Watch has long been a national leader in the fight. Recently
we weighed in on a critical case now being considered by the Supreme
Court. Its outcome could reshape elections in America for decades to
come.

The case unfolds in the midst of a political battle that could render
any decision by the Supreme Court largely moot. As Judicial Watch
senior attorney Robert Popper recently wrote
[[link removed]],
House Resolution 1, rammed through the House of Representatives
earlier this month by Democrats on a party line vote, “federalizes
election law on a historically unprecedented scale, systematically
impairs existing federal and state laws concerning election integrity,
and imposes new burdens and restrictions on political speech and
activity.”

At the High Court, the immediate issues in _Arizona Republican Party
et al v. Democratic National Committee et al_
[[link removed]]
revolve
around out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting. Should the
Arizona practices be banned?

But both sides are hunting bigger game in the high-stakes case:
Section Two of the Voting Rights Act. Both sides see the case as an
opening for the court to reshape Section Two. The standard set in the
case will impact a wide array of hot-button state election issues
around the nation, including redistricting, voter ID, mail-in ballots,
same-day registration, proof required for registration, how much early
voting is required, third-party collection of ballots, and when polls
can close on election day.

The landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act was a frontal assault on racial
discrimination in elections. Section Two bans any law that “results
in a denial or abridgment” of the right to vote “on account of
race.”

What results in a denial or abridgment of voting rights? It happens,
Section Two says, when “the totality of circumstances” show that a
racial minority has “less opportunities than other members of the
electorate to participate in the political process and to elect
representatives of their choice.”

Lower courts have disagreed on Section Two, issuing complex and often
contradictory rulings. In the Arizona case, lower courts considered
whether state laws banning out-of-precinct voting and ballot
harvesting were discriminatory and thus illegal under Section Two.

The Arizona out-of-precinct law banned people from casting votes in
precincts other than where they were registered to vote. The ballot
harvesting regulation banned third parties such as paid political
operatives and labor unions from going door-to-door to collect
ballots.

A federal district court said the Arizona statutes are not
discriminatory, upholding the laws.

On appeal, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with
the district court: the Arizona laws were proper and not
discriminatory.

But the liberally inclined full bench of the Ninth Circuit then took
up the case and parted ways with their colleagues. They reversed the
earlier rulings, saying that Arizona’s prohibitions on
out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting were enacted with a
discriminatory purpose and had discriminatory results—violations of
Section Two.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. In a friend-of-the-court
brief filed by Judicial Watch and our friends at the Allied Education
Foundation, we asked the High Court to reject the ruling of the full
Ninth Circuit.

We noted that in the matter of out-of-precinct voting, the Democratic
National Committee lawyers on the winning side in the Ninth Circuit
case “utterly failed” to provide “any evidence” that the
challenged voting procedures “_caused_ minorities to have less
opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect
representatives of their choice.”

“Causation”—cause—is the key first step in determining a
Section Two violation. The Ninth Circuit found no cause, no evidence,
and moved right on to the emotionally charged second step in finding a
violation: past racial discrimination and current socio-economic
disparities.

But to move on to the second step of finding a Section Two violation,
we note, the courts must “first find causation”—an entirely
reasonable standard. “The Ninth Circuit erred,” we note, “when
it proceeded to the next step of the Section Two analysis” [social
and historical conditions] “…without first finding causation.”

In other words, there must be evidence that, in the Arizona case, the
bans on out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting actually resulted
in a minority having less opportunity to vote and elect
representatives of its choice. But there was no evidence, we argue.
Absent evidence of actual harm, it is unjust and improper to invoke
social and historical comparisons.

The fundamental flaw in the Ninth Circuit ruling that out-of-precinct
voting had a racially discriminatory impact, we note, is that the case
provided “no statistical or non-statistical evidence showing (1)
which candidates in local and state races in Arizona elections were
preferred by minority voters; (2) the vote margins by which those
minority preferred candidates were defeated; and (3) whether the
number of minority-cast [out-of-precinct] votes, if cast, was
sufficient to have caused the election to go in favor of the minority
preferred candidate.”

Without this evidence, the case collapses.

Similarly, in the ballot harvesting issue, we note that evidence
presented to the Ninth Circuit consisted almost entirely of anecdotal
testimony that large amounts of ballots were collected from minority
voters before the ban. The implication here being that after the ban,
voting dropped. But we noted that “no evidence” was provided of
“specific numbers of ballots cast with the type of assistance
proscribed by” the Arizona bill. And, importantly, “no individual
voter testified that these ballot-collection and delivery
restrictions” made it more difficult to vote.

The Ninth Circuit ruling, we note, “pointed to no testimonial or
documentary evidence comparing the numbers of early ballots delivered
to election officials by third parties before and after the
enactment” of the Arizona law. In addition, there was no showing in
the case whether the ballot harvesting ban “caused
minority-preferred candidates to lose elections.”

Read the full Judicial Watch brief here
[[link removed]].
It is replete with fine detail and sophisticated legal argument.

My main takeaway? Evidence matters, and the Ninth Circuit failed to
consider it.

The broader issue? With the case now before the Supreme Court, the
expansive, evidence-free Ninth Circuit interpretation of Section Two
of the Voting Rights Act threatens to become the law of the land.
Judicial Watch strongly supports election law that is race-neutral. We
do not support, as Judicial Watch Tom Fitton recently said, “the
misuse of civil rights laws by leftist partisans to undermine election
integrity measures.”

A ruling is expected in summer.

RELEASED ILLEGAL ALIENS COMMIT HOME INVASIONS, ROBBERIES, STORE
BURGLARIES

President Biden’s border crisis is directly harming the safety of
innocent Americans. We have exclusive details on the devastating
impact on just one small border town, as reported
[[link removed]]
in our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog:

Violence sparked by the illegal immigrant crisis along the U.S.-Mexico
border has spilled over into a sleepy little town unaccustomed to the
devastating impact large influxes have on bigger cities near major
crossings. A series of crimes committed by illegal aliens and human
smugglers (coyotes) has left the usually tranquil Arizona town of
Sonoita, population of about 800, in shock. Veteran ranchers and
business owners in the area interviewed by Judicial Watch say that in
the last few days there have been two home invasion robberies and two
local stores were burglarized by a group of illegal immigrants who had
just been released into their community by the U.S. Border Patrol in
the predawn hours.

Additionally, armed illegal immigrants were stopped by authorities
just south of Sonoita on private property, according to local sources.
“Keep in mind that our area is rural, and the large majority of
illegal immigrants are crossing in Nogales, Naco, and Douglas in Santa
Cruz and Cochise County,” said one area rancher. Another said the
sparsely populated region, located about two dozen miles from the
Mexican border, is a large grazing area that is “not accustomed to
this type of invasion of illegal activity.” The ranchers, all
lifetime Sonoita-area residents, asked not to be identified because
the situation is getting increasingly heated. Judicial Watch reached
out to the Santa Cruz County Sheriff, which has jurisdiction in the
area, for more detailed information about the crimes. However, the
agency never responded. Local sources with firsthand knowledge of the
recent crime spree say one of the homeowners recently robbed was
beaten quite badly by the illegal alien perpetrators. The other was
the family home of an area pastor’s son, the sources said.

Judicial Watch spoke to the owner of one of the Sonoita stores
recently burglarized by illegal immigrants sometime before dawn. The
business, Cowgirl Flare Boutique, sits at the intersection of Arizona
State Route 82 and 83 in the middle of town. Next to it is a
convenience store that also got burglarized by the same group. “The
Border Patrol processed and released two men and a woman for human
smuggling at around 4:30 a.m. and my store is very close to the
Sonoita Border Patrol station,” said Stephanie Hubbell, who opened
Cowgirl Flare Boutique nearly a decade ago. “They broke in and took
all the money in the cash register and several pairs of men’s jeans
and shirts.” The illegal immigrants also smoked crack cocaine in her
store, Hubbell said, and used the pages of a book nook stationed
outside her business to start a fire. Besides also burglarizing the
convenience store next to her, Hubbell said the illegal immigrants
stole all the cash donations in a shrine that the owner has in honor
of her deceased mother.

The problem is only getting worse, locals say, because federal agents
are overwhelmed with the onslaught of migrants and more are being
released into communities near the border. A separate group of illegal
immigrants processed and released by the Border Patrol was arrested
within the last 24 hours, Hubbell said, for criminal behavior in
Sonoita. “One was coming off meth and the other three guys were
traffickers,” Hubbell said. Hours later, an illegal alien “coming
off heroine” was taken into custody, she added. “This is the kind
of illegal activity that this is bringing to our area,” the longtime
resident and business owner declared. She and other town residents,
who did not want their name used, say that during Donald Trump’s
presidency there was less criminal activity by illegal immigrants than
in the first few months of the Biden administration. “This town was
so safe for the last four years,” Hubbell said. “Not now.”

In the last few weeks, several media outlets have reported that
federal authorities are indeed releasing large groups of illegal
immigrants in the U.S. after “processing” them, many without even
being issued a court date. One national news syndicate
[[link removed]]
obtained
an internal government document that explains the move is “intended
to mitigate operational challenges, including risks to national
security, during significant surges of illegal migration.” A Texas
congressman recently disclosed that federal officials have released
around 2,000 illegal immigrants inside the U.S. without a notice to
appear in court. The Democrat lawmaker, Henry Cuellar, calls
it “unprecedented
[[link removed]
in
a news story and warns that the migrants have placed pressure on
border towns. Cuellar represents the border city of Laredo in the U.S.
House and has blasted the Biden administration for failing to properly
handle the migrant crises. During a recent appearance on a cable news
show, the congressman said the Biden administration must work with
Mexico and Central America
[[link removed]]
to
make sure those countries are helping the U.S.

HAPPY EASTER!

Thanks to government and other abusive covid restrictions on our
God-given liberties, too many Americans (and Christians across the
world!) will again struggle to practice their faith and celebrate
Easter together this weekend.

Despite these challenges, from me and mine, I wish you and yours all
the Joy of Easter! Passover again happily coincides with Easter this
year – so, Happy Passover, as well!

Until next week …







[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU02"
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]]