Taxpayer Cash for Illegal Aliens?

[INSIDE JW]

California Officials Pressured Big Tech to Censor Social Media
Election Posts

[[link removed]]

We now have chilling details of California state officials and Big
Tech executives conspiring to uproot the First Amendment and influence
the 2020 election. And, key targets were Judicial Watch and me.

The proof is in 540 pages
[[link removed]]
and
a supplemental four pages
[[link removed]]
of
documents we received from the office of the Secretary of State of
California revealing how state officials pressured social media
companies (Twitter, Facebook, Google (YouTube)) to censor posts about
the 2020 election. Included in these documents were “misinformation
briefings” emails that were compiled by communications firm SKDK,
which lists
[[link removed]]
Biden
for President as their top client
[[link removed]]
of
2020.

The documents show how the state agency successfully pressured YouTube
to censor my Judicial Watch video concerning the vote by mail and a
Judicial Watch lawsuit settlement about California voter roll clean
up.

We received the records in response to our California Public Records
Act (CPRA) requests to the Office of the California Secretary of State
for records related to the Office of Election Cybersecurity’s
database of social media posts; communications with social media
companies; and other social media related records regarding the 2020
elections. We filed the requests after a December 2020 report
[[link removed]]
surfaced
that the state agency was surveilling, tracking, and seeking to censor
the speech of Americans:

The Office of Election Cybersecurity in the California Secretary of
State’s office monitored and tracked social media posts, decided if
they were misinformation, stored the posts in an internal database
coded by threat level, and on 31 different occasions requested posts
be removed. In 24 cases, the social media companies agreed and either
took down the posts or flagged them as misinformation, according to
Jenna Dresner, senior public information officer for the Office of
Election Cybersecurity.

“We don’t take down posts, that is not our role to play,”
Dresner said. “We alert potential sources of misinformation to the
social media companies and we let them make that call based on
community standards they created.”

On September 24, 2020, a California Secretary of State chart
[[link removed]]
lists a video
[[link removed]]
I
did and falsely alleges
[[link removed]



Head of conservative group Judicial Watch Hosts video alleging
Democrats benefit from incorrect voter rolls and ballot collection.

The Secretary of State’s office details its communication with
YouTube: “We wanted to flag this YouTube video because it misleads
community members about elections or other civic processes and
misrepresents the safety and security of mail-in ballots.” The chart
quotes me describing Judicial Watch’s statement about its federal
lawsuit settlement with Los Angeles County that will require it to
clean up voter rolls and how a Michigan court “changed the rules”
on ballot deadlines and ballot harvesting. (The controversial decision
was overturned
[[link removed]]
in
October 2020.)

The document shows that California state officials contacted YouTube
directly to remove the video on September 24, 2020, and that YouTube
seemed to respond by deleting the video on September 27, 2020.
On September 11, 2020, outside consultant Zeke Sandoval, of the SKDK
communications firm, provides the Secretary of State’s Office a
“Misinformation Daily Briefing
[[link removed]
which again targets me:

Trump tweeted, “The big Unsolicited Ballot States should give it up
NOW, before it is too late, and ask people to go to the Polling Booths
and, like always before, VOTE. Otherwise, MAYHEM!!! Solicited Ballots
(absentee) are OK,” and Twitter was quick to fact check and shared a
link with info about how voting by mail is safe and secure
[[link removed]].
Viral reply on
Twitter from Tom Fitton
[[link removed]]
asserting,
“Mailing 51 million ballots to those who haven’t asked for
increases risk of voter fraud and voter intimidation!”

A 30-page “Misinformation Tracking Sheet
[[link removed]
lists social media posts that the office disagrees with and has asked
social media companies to remove.

In an internal email
[[link removed]]
on
January 12, 2021, Deputy Secretary of State and Chief Communications
Officer Paula Valle
[[link removed]]
emails Chief Counsel Steve Reyes
[[link removed]]
and Jenna
Dresner
[[link removed]]
in the
Office of Cybersecurity, as well as Press Secretary Sam Mahood
[[link removed]]
stating that she is
uncomfortable with CalMatters
[[link removed]]
reporter Fred Brewster’s questions about the office’s tracking and
censoring efforts:

Hi Steve – Please see below – the reporter at Cal Matters who
PRA’d us is doing a follow-up story. We asked him to send us his
questions. I am not necessarily comfortable with his line of questions
and the additional doors that this will open. I want to get your
feedback I would simply like to give him a statement about what our
goal is and leave it at that. Thoughts?

Brewster’s questions, which include concerns from citizens who were
targeted by the “Misinformation Tracker,” were sent on January 12,
2021:

I reached out to the users on page 7 and page 21 of the Misinformation
Tracker request I received. Both individuals wanted to know how their
posts ended up being labeled misinformation and how, given their
relatively small following, they came to the attention of the Office
of Election Cybersecurity?

Another user named “DC O’Bryan” had his post taken down (page 5
of the Misinformation Tracker). In an email, you highlight a report
sent to the state that says, “I don’t know if this is hot air
meant to provoke. If it is, a call from an official might get the
point across that you don’t joke about election fraud.” Was
O’Bryan called to confirm that his post was a joke?

How does the Office of Election Cybersecurity differentiate between
parody and satire and misinformation?

Did CISA, Facebook, or any other partners provide guidance on how to
spot and define misinformation? If someone has their posts in the
Misinformation Tracker, are there plans to contact those individuals
and is there a way for them to petition the state to delete them?

The Secretary of State’s Office emails Facebook and Twitter on April
25, 2019, with requests from the Office to remove tweets and posts
[[link removed]]
for
what they have labeled “misinformation.”

The office emails Facebook, attempting to set up a call to discuss
removing future posts. This 15-minute call is with “new Facebook
contact for social media reporting: Javier Hernandez, Politics &
Government Outreach” in order to discuss how the office will report
posts to Facebook. In the email, Facebook outlines its goals to
directly work with “electoral authorities in every state” so that
they can “report instances of voter suppression on Facebook directly
to our team, so [Facebook] can look at them quickly and remove them
from the site.”

On December 31, 2019, after the Secretary of State’s office reports
a tweet to [email protected], Kevin Kane, a Twitter
representative, replies
[[link removed]]
and
offers his direct contact for the Office’s future needs in removing
posts.

In a September 21, 2020, email chain
[[link removed]]
with
the subject line “elections issue,” Jenna Dresner
[[link removed]]
in the
Secretary of State’s Office of Cybersecurity writes to “Cristina
and team” at Facebook at 11:43 a.m.: “We want to flag this
Instagram post.”

The reply comes from Facebook Community Operations: “Thank you for
your report. We have reviewed the … content and can confirm that the
content has been removed …” At 12:53 pm. Dresner writes to Press
Secretary Sam Mahood, Social Media Coordinator Akilah Jones
[[link removed]]
and others, “Post from
this morning was removed (and fast!) Akilah we can update tracker.”

In an October 28, 2020, email
[[link removed]],
Jones writes to Flores at Facebook and CCs Dresner that a post, which
was from a user named @Screenplaywale, “voters are being asked to
gerrymander and voter suppress their ‘trump supporting father’s
ballots.’”

In an email chain
[[link removed]]
on
September 14, 2020, titled “Election Issue” the office internally
complains about how long it takes Facebook to remove a post and how to
speed up this process.

Mahood writes to Dresner: “It looks like it took Facebook 2 weeks to
respond to Chris. This is way too long, we should raise to FB and make
sure we know best method to report posts.” Dresner responds: “Sure
– I’m 98% sure this is the one you chased with an email directly
to our FB contacts which resulted in it taken down that day. I can
confirm that process works for the future?”

On August 22, 2019, Maria Benson
[[link removed]],
director of
communications for the National Association of Secretaries of State
emails the communications directors for Secretaries of State offices
that Twitter confirmed that they streamlined their process
[[link removed]]
for
government officials to report “misinformation:”

Great news—TWITTER IS NOW ON-BOARDING STATES INTO THEIR
MIS/DISINFORMATION PARTNER SUPPORT PORTAL! Once on-boarded, you will
be able to directly report mis/disinformation instead of having to
submit it to me first….” [Emphasis in original]

Benson also gives contact information for Facebook and Google
complaints, and says: “If any of the items you reported do not get
prompt attention, please let me know and I can also reach out the
companies.”

On September 24, 2019, the California Secretary of State’s office
confirms that it plans to participate in
Facebook’s “misinformation” training
[[link removed]]
which
is a review from Facebook on “monitoring guidelines for reporting
misinformation” and teaches participants how to use the direct
reporting channel Facebook opened for them.

On October 1, 2020, Benson forwards information from Twitter about
their training to directly remove posts
[[link removed]]
they
label as misinformation to the Secretary of State’s office. This is
described by Twitter as: “training on creative and effective content
strategies on Twitter in advance of the U.S. Election,” as well as
“onboarding state and local election officials onto Twitter’s
Partner Support Portal.” This portal is described as, “a dedicated
way for critical stakeholders – like you – to flag concerns
directly to Twitter.”

These documents detail a conspiracy against the First Amendment rights
of Americans by the California Secretary of State, the Biden campaign
operation, and Big Tech. These documents blow up the big lie that Big
Tech censorship is ‘private’ – as the documents show collusion
between a whole group of government officials in multiple states to
suppress speech about election controversies.

JUDICIAL WATCH IN COURT TO STOP A MARYLAND COUNTY FROM GIVING CASH TO
ILLEGAL ALIENS

On May 5, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will
hear our lawsuit (_Bauer, et al. v. Elrich, et al. _
[[link removed].
20-1707)) challenging the legality of the Montgomery County, Maryland,
program that provides cash payments to illegal aliens.

We argue on behalf of Montgomery County taxpayers Sharon Bauer and
Richard Jurgena that the county’s program providing $10 million in
cash benefits to illegal aliens violates federal law and irreparably
harms county taxpayers.

The Monday hearing will be at 9:30 a.m. ET and can be accessed
here:
[link removed]

This hearing arises from our complaint
[[link removed]]
(Bauer
et al. v. Elrich et al.
[[link removed]]
(No.
482061V)) filed on May 8, 2020, in Montgomery County Circuit Court,
which Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich and Raymond Crowel,
director of the county’s Department of Health and Human Services,
subsequently removed to federal court
[[link removed]].
The lawsuit seeks to permanently enjoin Elrich and Crowel from
expending taxpayer money on the cash-benefits program known as the
“Emergency Assistance Relief Payment Program” (EARP).

Under federal law, certain categories of aliens, including illegal
aliens, are ineligible for state or local public benefits. Such
benefits include direct, cash payments. If a state chooses to provide
such benefits to illegal aliens, it must enact a state law
affirmatively providing for such eligibility.

On May 29, 2020, the District Court ruled
[[link removed]]
the
program likely violates federal law and irreparably harms county
taxpayers. The court ordered
[[link removed]]
the
county to hold back 25% of any unspent funds until the court could
fully consider the merits of our taxpayer lawsuit. Later, the District
Court dismissed the case, concluding it did not have jurisdiction to
hear the case.

The Department of Justice filed an _amicus brief_
[[link removed]]
in
the appeal we brought, in which the agency agrees the policy is
illegal but suggests state taxpayers have no right to sue state
officials to stop them from using taxpayer funds to violate federal
law.

We explain in our appeal
[[link removed]
“The issues before this Court concern what cases federal courts may
hear, whether state causes of action may rely on violations of federal
law, and whether county officials acted illegally.” Also, pointing
to 8 U.S. Code § 1621
[[link removed]


In short, Section 1621 prohibits unlawfully present aliens from
receiving state and local public benefits unless the state legislature
affirmatively authorizes it.

Even though the Maryland legislature had not affirmatively authorized
it, Montgomery County, Maryland, nonetheless, started providing cash
payments to unlawfully present aliens. As part of its response to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Montgomery County Council appropriated $10
million for an Emergency Assistance Relief Payment (“EARP”)
program…. EARP provides cash payments to individuals or families,
including unlawfully present aliens … who (1) live in Montgomery
County, (2) are not eligible for federal COVID-19 stimulus checks or
state benefits, (3) are not eligible to receive unemployment benefits,
and (4) have an income equal to or below 50% of the federal poverty
level…. The County Department of Health and Human Services
(“DHHS”), which administers the program, distributes payments of
$500 to eligible single adults, $1,000 to eligible families with a
child, and an additional $150 to families for each additional child,
up to $1,450 total….

Seeing their taxes being spent in violation of federal law, Sharon
Bauer and Richard Jurgena (“Taxpayers”), Montgomery County
taxpayers, sought to enjoin County Executive Marc Elrich and DHHS
Director Raymond Crowel (collectively “Montgomery County”) from
implementing EARP.

Politicians in Maryland are using COVID as an excuse to violate the
law. If they want to give cash payments to illegal aliens, they must
be accountable and transparent, and, as federal law requires, pass a
state law to do so.

JUDICIAL WATCH FIGHTS HARD LEFT 'CRITICAL RACE THEORY’

If you’re a parent or grandparent you need to pay close attention to
what’s being taught in schools and colleges, and if you’re a
voter, keep an eye on your local and state governments. All are being
overrun by a Marxist racist madness known as Critical Race Theory.
Judicial Watch is fighting this tidal wave, as Micah Morrison, our
chief investigative reporter, describes
[[link removed]]
in his _Investigative Bulletin._

Not long ago, Critical Race Theory was the territory of far-left
academics pushing the boundaries of Marxism and nihilistic
counterparts such as radical feminism and post-structuralism. All the
philosophies to one degree or another advanced the notion that
objective truth and standards—in society, in institutions, in
law—do not exist. All reality is contingent, all is in flux, all is
a construct of language and illusion. One person’s truth is another
person’s lies.

Critical Race Theory emerged from this philosophical train wreck in
the 1980s to say that Western civilization—and the American
experiment in particular—is suffused to its core by white supremacy,
white privilege, and institutionalized racism, and must be dismantled.
For a long time, CRT was dismissed as an esoteric academic fad. But
ideas have consequences and today, in the mysterious alchemy of social
upheaval, Critical Race Theory suddenly is everywhere, its poisonous
agenda swiftly moving through universities and public schools,
government, law, science, business, and the media.

Rooted in the Left doctrine of class struggle, CRT teaches that U.S.
society—our culture, laws, beliefs, and modes of governance—are a
racist system devoted to upholding the power of white people. CRT is
closely linked the new cancel culture
[[link removed]].
Dissenters from this new orthodoxy are punished. Freedom of speech is
dismissed, and open debate is canceled, as we’ll see below in the
case of high school coach David Flynn.

The rhetoric of this radicalism is cloaked in the language of social
justice, but if you “peel back the layers of ideology and you get to
the core of this belief system,” notes
[[link removed]]
writer
Christopher Rufo, “they’re advocating for a kind of cultural
revolution, steeped in Marxism, adjusted to identity politics, and now
activated through Black Lives Matter, through Critical Race Theory,
and absurdly through even corporate HR departments.” For more on
CRT, see this Heritage Foundation special report
[[link removed]].


Judicial Watch is fighting back. Three cases, in particular,
illustrate the scope of the Critical Race problem. Tellingly, they all
involve schools—a key battleground in this war of ideas.

In suburban Massachusetts, popular football coach David Flynn was
abruptly fired from his job at Dedham High School after protesting
unannounced changes to his daughter’s middle school curriculum.

Coach Flynn noticed that his seventh-grade daughter’s “World
Geography and Ancient History” class was being taught things that
had nothing to do with geography or history. The course description
described the class as a review of the civilizations of Rome, Europe,
Africa, North America, and South America.

Instead, as we note in our lawsuit defending Coach Flynn
[[link removed]],
the instruction focused on “issues of race, gender, stereotypes,
prejudices, discrimination, and politics.” In other words, the
Critical Race Theory agenda.

Coach Flynn sent a polite email to school authorities noting that
parents had not been informed of the curriculum changes; that some of
the issues were not suitable for seventh graders; that the teacher did
not seem to be objective and was stating particular political points
of view; and that the teacher was using class materials that labeled
all police officers as risks to all black people, and all black males
as risks to white people.

Coach Flynn asked school authorities for compromises and modest
changes to the new curriculum. Their response? You’re fired.

Judicial Watch is suing school authorities in federal court for
retaliating against the coach for exercising his First Amendment
rights. We’ll be in court Monday, April 26, for a hearing on the
case. The public is invited
[[link removed]]
to
attend. You can watch a JW video presentation on the case here
[[link removed]].


One hour and a world away from Dedham, Harvard College faces a racial
reckoning of its own. Bastions of higher education are the incubators
of Critical Race Theory, but while accusing Americans of broad racist
crimes, they’re often themselves promoting discriminatory policies.
It’s no secret, for instance, that many universities have long been
discriminating against Asians in admissions practices.

With our colleagues at the Allied Educational Foundation, we filed
a friend-of-the-court brief
[[link removed]]
in
support of Students for Fair Admission’s petition for a Supreme
Court hearing challenging the decision by a federal appeals court
[[link removed]]
upholding
Harvard’s racial preferences admissions program.

Students for Fair Admission argue that Harvard’s admissions program
intentionally discriminates against Asian Americans on the basis of
race and violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bans
unconstitutional race-based admissions by public universities, as well
as the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Our brief rejects the notion that discriminating by race in admissions
can be justified by “diversity” goals. “College and university
administrators might promote greater cross-racial understanding and
tolerance in their students, not by racially discriminating against
applicants for admission to their schools, but by working to make
their schools more tolerant of the expression of different points of
view,” we note. “Admissions programs that intentionally
discriminate on the basis of race may themselves be negatively
affecting the level of racial understanding and tolerance on today’s
college campuses.”

In New York City, we are tracking a major lawsuit filed by race-theory
radicals seeking “an anti-racist education
[[link removed]
The suit is straight from the Critical Race Theory playbook. It seeks
major changes to the New York City public school system, which it
claims is “suffused with and perpetuates…various forms of racism
in ways blatant and subtle, intended or willfully ignored and
tolerated.” Racism in the lawsuit is defined to include
“internalized racism,” “interpersonal racism,”
“institutional racism,” and “structural racism.” Read the
lawsuit here
[[link removed]].


A successful lawsuit, _The New York Times_ notes, could compel New
York City “to restructure or even eliminate current admissions
policies for hundreds of selective schools, including gifted and
talented programs and academically selective middle and high
schools,” and accelerate pressure for shifting student populations
city wide in the name of “diversity” and “integration.”

Parents are fighting back. A new national grassroots
organization, Parents Defending Education
[[link removed]],
has filed a motion to intervene in
the New York City case. “PDE’s members, who are parents of
children in the system, believe that their children should be judged
based on their individual merit, not defined as members of a racial
group or blamed for the collective sins of others,” PDE President
Nicole Neily told Judicial Watch. “That’s why PDE opposes the
call to inject more race-based decision-making into the City’s
schools. The best way to achieve equality is to treat children
equally, regardless of skin color, and to fix the parts of the
City’s schools that are broken.” Read the PDE brief here
[[link removed]].


Judicial Watch will be following these cases and other developments in
the Critical Race Theory jihad in the months ahead. We’ll keep you
posted.

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]]