Judicial Watch Goes to Court for Marine Hero!

[INSIDE JW]

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FBI FOR RECORDS ON ALLEGED TRANSFER OF BANK
FINANCIAL DATA OF EVERY PERSON IN WASHINGTON, DC AREA AROUND JANUARY 6

[[link removed]]
The Left, including the Biden administration, seems to be using the
January 6 disturbance as an excuse to target, intimidate and abuse
political opponents. With those concerns in mind, we filed a FOIA
lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records of communication
between the FBI and several financial institutions about the reported
transfer of financial transactions made by people in DC, Maryland and
Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021 (_Judicial Watch v. U.S.
Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:21-cv-01216)). Last week, the FBI refused to confirm or deny any
such records exist.

We sued after the FBI failed to respond to a February 10, 2021, FOIA
request for:

All records of communication between the FBI and any financial
institution, including but not limited to Bank of America, Citibank,
Chase Manhattan Bank, Discover, and/or American Express, in which the
FBI sought transaction data for those financial institutions’ debit
and credit card account holders who made purchases in Washington, DC,
Maryland and/or Virginia on January 5, 2021 and/or January 6, 2021.
Bank of America reportedly
[[link removed]]
“actively but secretly engaged in the hunt for extremists in
cooperation with the government” and, following the events of
January 6, gave the FBI financial records of their customers who fit
the following profile:

1. Customers confirmed as transacting, either through bank account
debit card or credit card purchases in Washington, D.C. between 1/5
and 1/6.

2. Purchases made for Hotel/Airbnb RSVPs in DC, VA, and MD after
1/6.

3. Any purchase of weapons or at a weapons-related merchant between
1/7 and their upcoming suspected stay in D.C. area around
Inauguration Day.

4. Airline related purchases since 1/6.
Here’s how the FBI is playing games with our investigation:

On June 8, 2021, the court overseeing the lawsuit ordered
[[link removed]]
the
FBI/DOJ to respond substantively to our request within 30 days.

On June 17, 2021, the FBI responded to our request, stating that the
request was “too broad” and asked for “further clarification
and/or narrowing” of the request.

On June 24, 2021, we responded to this request by sending a news
article
[[link removed]]
detailing
Bank of America’s handing over transaction records to the FBI of
people in the Washington, DC area around the date of January 6.

On July 1, 2021, the FBI responded to our FOIA request with a letter
stating that it accepts our narrowing of the search, but that it
neither confirms nor denies
[[link removed]]
the
existence of these documents. The FBI states:

The FBI accepts this supplemental correspondence as evidence you are
further clarifying and narrowing the subject of your request to
records/financial transaction requests from financial institutions
pertaining to the alleged riot on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, to
include records/financial transactions from January 5, 2021 for the 3
jurisdictions.

Please be advised that it is the FBI’s policy to neither confirm nor
deny the existence of any records which would disclose the existence
or non-existence of non-public law enforcement techniques, procedures,
and/or guidelines. The acknowledgment that any such records exist or
do not exist could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of
law.
We want the details on what looks to be an unprecedented abuse of the
financial privacy of countless innocent Americans by big banks and the
FBI. The FBI’s stonewalling and non-denial denial of our request
speak volumes.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES USPS ON TRACKING AMERICANS’ SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS

Did you know that the Post Office has an Internet Covert Operations
Program monitoring your social media posts? That’s right. This
agency, which has lost
[[link removed]]
$87 billion over the past 14 years, has time to look into your
opinions, even though it has trouble getting a letter into your
mailbox in a timely way – or at all.

To learn more about spy operation, we filed a Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for
information relating to the tracking and collecting of Americans’
social media posts through its Internet Covert Operations Program
(iCOP) (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:21-cv-01735)).

We sued after the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) failed to
respond to an April 27, 2021, FOIA request seeking access to:

1. All records from January 1, 2020 to the present identifying
criteria for flagging social media posts as “inflammatory” or
otherwise worthy of further scrutiny by other government agencies.

2. All records from January 1, 2020 to the present relating to the
Internet Covert Operations Program’s database of social media posts.


3. All records and communications from January 1, 2020 to the present
between any official of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and any
official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security regarding the Internet Covert
Operations Program.

4. All social media posts that the Internet Covert Operations Program
has flagged and forwarded to other government agencies.

5. Any analyses outlining the authority of the U.S. Postal Inspection
Service to monitor, track, and collect Americans’ social media
posts.

6. All records concerning the reasons for the U.S. Postal Inspection
Service to monitor, track, and collect Americans’ social media
posts.

7. All records of communication sent to and by Chief Postal Inspector
Gary Barksdale from January 1, 2020 to the present regarding the
Internet Covert Operations Program.
The FOIA request was prompted by an April 21, 2021, _Yahoo!
News_ report
[[link removed]]
that
the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service has been “running
a program that tracks and collects Americans’ social media posts,
including those about planned protests.” Again, according to a
document obtained by _Yahoo! News_, this surveillance effort is known
as the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP):

“Analysts with the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)
Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) monitored significant
activity regarding planned [anti-lockdown] protests occurring
internationally and domestically on March 20, 2021,” says the March
16 government bulletin, marked as “law enforcement sensitive” and
distributed through the Department of Homeland Security’s fusion
centers. “Locations and times have been identified for these
protests, which are being distributed online across multiple social
media platforms, to include right-wing leaning Parler and Telegram
accounts.”
Did the Biden administration weaponize the United States Postal
Service to improperly spy on Americans who object to lockdown
policies? Judicial Watch, with your support, aims to get the truth.

BREAKING: NEW DOCUMENTS SHOW SIGNIFICANT WUHAN LAB AND NIH
COLLABORATION

We continue to learn that U.S. agencies, including the one run by Dr.
Anthony Fauci, collaborated extensively with the Chinese communist
medical establishment in Wuhan and elsewhere in China. This
collaboration occurred over many years before the pandemic erupted.

We received 301 pages
[[link removed]]
of
emails and other records from National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials in connection with the Wuhan
Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, revealing relationships that
began in 2014. These records reveal that Dr. Fauci’s NIAID gave nine
China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance
[[link removed]]
to research coronavirus
emergence in bats and was the National Institute of Health’s (NIH)
top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself.

These records also include an email from the Vice Director of the
Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for
decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.

Additionally, a World Health Day announcement lists “successful
activities” of the US-China collaboration that included “detailed
surveillance throughout China and in other countries on the emergence
of coronaviruses” and NIH’s receipt of influenza samples from
China to “assess risks associated with emerging variants for
pandemic and zoonotic threat.”

The records further show that, in 2018, Dr. Ping Chen
[[link removed]],
the NIAID
Representative in China, learned of a “type of new flu vaccine using
nano-technology from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology” and
discovered that the Chinese had blocked all Internet links to reports
on the new technology. This led Chen to write an urgent “night
note” to U.S. government officials. The note said, “The intranasal
nano-vaccine can target broad-spectrum flu viruses and induces robust
immune responses.”

The documents also include a picture of the Wuhan facility building
taken by Dr. Chen.

We obtained the documents through our Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) lawsuit
[[link removed]]
for 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 sought records about NIH
grants that benefitted the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The agency is
only processing 300 pages of records per month, which means it will
take until the end of November for the records to be fully reviewed
and released under FOIA.

The nine grants to the controversial EcoHealth Alliance include the
following:

* One grant awarded each year
[[link removed]]
between
2010-2012 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Chinese collaborator
Jinping Chen of Guangdong Entomological Institute, to study in China
“Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats.”

* One grant awarded each year
[[link removed]]
from
2014-2017 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Chinese collaborator
Changwen Ke of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of
Guangdong, in a project titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat
Coronavirus Emergence.”

* A grant was issued
[[link removed]]
in
2012 to EcoHealth Alliance, working with Xiangming Xiao of the East
China Normal University, in a project titled “Comparative Spillover
Dynamics of Avian Influenza in Endemic Countries.”

* A grant was issued
[[link removed]]
in
2018 to EcoHealth Alliance, again working with Ke in the project
called “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

The records include an email
[[link removed]]
on
March 20, 2020, labeled, “navigating politics,” In which NIH
virologist Jens Kuhn
[[link removed]]
forwards to NIH
colleagues Cliff Lane
[[link removed]]
(NIAID
Deputy Director) and Connie Schmaljohn
[[link removed]]
(senior
NIAID official), a 2016 email of “high importance” that Kuhn
received from Wuhan Institute of Virology Vice Director Yuan Zhiming
[[link removed]],
with the subject line “asking for help.”

In his 2016 email, Zhiming told Kuhn:

I am writing to you to ask your help. Our laboratory is under
operation without pathogens, and we are now looking for the
disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and surface
decontamination indoor decontamination. We have tried several ones do
[sic] determine their antiviral efficacy and corrosion to pipeline and
wastewater treatment equipment. Unfortunately, we have found a good
candidate. I hope you can give us some help, to give us some
suggestion for the choice of disinfectants used in P4 laboratory.
What kind of disinfectants for decontamination of airtight protective
clothes?
What kind of disinfectants for surface decontamination in door?
What kind of disinfectants for air decontamination in door?
What kind of disinfectants for infectious materials indoor?
What is the approval procedure for the choice of disinfectants in
laboratory?
I am sorry to disturb you and I really hope you could give us some
suggestion and cooment [sic].
Best regards and looking forward to seeing you in Wuhan.

Yuan Zhiming
After the new coronavirus emerged, on March 20, 2020, continuing on
this email chain
[[link removed]],
Zhiming writes Kuhn:

The 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is a major challenge
for global public health security. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 has been
associated with serious acute respiratory distress syndrome with large
number of patients’ hospitalization and relatively high mortality.
We had a very hard time in combating the infection in Wuhan, the
epicenter of the COVID-19 in China, and now we can see the situation
goes in good direction, with no reported confirmed case, no reported
suspected case in last two days here.

My colleagues and I have been working on characterization of
pathogens, antiviral screen, vaccine development, animal modeling
since the early January this year, and some progresses have been made.
I hope our understanding of the virus and the technology could be
valuable in the global fighting to the virus.

As I can see from the media, the virus is spreading in your country,
and more people are infected during the last days, and the situation
worries me a lot. I am confident that we could finally curb the
spreading of the virus with our joint effort, and our life will return
back to the normal soon. I do not know what I can do for you in the
special moment and I hope you could protect you and your family.
Kuhn tells Lane and Schmaljohn, “I know Zhiming for quite some time
and also met him personally in Wuhan twice … He used to be
responsible for the BSL-4 there.”

Some of Kuhn, Lane and Schmaljohn’s follow-on comments about
Zhiming’s emails are redacted under “deliberative process”
exemption.

In an email exchange on August 11, 2014, between Chen and the head of
the NIH-funded biosecurity lab at the University of Texas in
Galveston, Dr. James Leduc, Leduc provides the initial contact between
NIAID (via Chen) and officials at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Leduc told Chen
[[link removed]]
that
he had been working on an initiative to “form long-term scientific
and technical collaborations with the new BSL4 laboratory” in Wuhan,
under the direction of Dr. Yuan Zhiming, with whom Leduc had met
“repeatedly.” Leduc adds, “we are already attempting to build
the kind of partnership [with the Wuhan Institute of Virology] that I
think is envisioned under the GHSA [Global Health Security Agenda].”

A chart labeled “NIH Extramural Projects with a Chinese
Collaborator, by IC, FY2010-2018
[[link removed]
indicates NIH provided a total of 2,221 grants between 2010-2018 for
projects involving a “Chinese Collaborator,” with Anthony
Fauci’s NIAID providing the most grants among all NIH subagencies,
furnishing 490 grants. The remaining 1,731 grants were from 19
different NIH subagencies.

An additional chart shows that the NIAID financial grants increased
steadily over those eight years, with a particular spike in 2013; and
the number of grants jumped from 34 in 2012 to 61 in 2013.

Another spreadsheet shows the 2,221 grants disbursed among 261
universities, laboratories, and private companies. The vast majority
are in the US, but others are in China, the UK, Canada, Thailand, and
Australia.

Additional spreadsheets detail the 2,221 grants
[[link removed]],
including:

* A grant to Wayne State University, working with Chinese
collaborator Xiaoyi Fang, to study in China “Venue-based HIV and
alcohol use risk reduction among female sex workers in China.”

* A grant to Purdue University, working with Chinse collaborator
Yinlong Jin, to study in China “Selenium, other risk factors and
cognitive decline in rural elderly Chinese.”

* A grant to Peking University, working with Chinese collaborator
Yaohui Zhao, in a project in China titled “China Health and
Retirement Longitudinal Study.”

* A grant to Boston College, working with Chinese collaborator Wei
Sun of Renmin University of China, to study in China “The impact of
Long-Term Care Insurance.”

* A grant to Florida International University, working with Chinese
collaborator Sheng Li of Shanghai Institutes of Biological Sciences,
to study in China “Regulation of juvenile hormone titers in
mosquitoes.”

* A grant to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, working
with Chinese collaborator Yue Long Shu of the Chinese National
Influenza Center, in a project titled “Southeast Regional Centers of
Excellence for Biodefense & Emerging Infectious Di[seases].”

* A grant to Zhejiang University, working with Chinese collaborator
Shulin Chen, to study in China “Collaborative Care for Depressed
Elders in China.”

In an email
[[link removed]]
on
October 26, 2017, Chen sends a “trip report” to NIH colleagues
advising them that she visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She
includes a photo
[[link removed]]
of
the lab and states,

My contact who helped arrange the visit is Dr. Zhengli Shi, who is a
Chinese collaborator on a NIAID grant to EcoHealth for SARS like
corona virus project.

The P4 lab is located in a new developing zone about one hour car ride
from the current institute location in central Wuhan city. The
location will be the new campus for the entire institute in the near
future (a lot of construction is going on right now). Since we are not
allowed to take photos so only the photo from the outside is
attached.
In an email marked “high importance
[[link removed]
on August 6, 2014, with the subject “Harbin Wuhan China Global
Health Security,” Chen discussed collaborating more with Chinese
health officials with her NIH colleagues. Chen states:

I had a meeting with [HHS Health Attache to China
[[link removed]]]
Liz Yuan and Liz updated me
with regarding the activities involving Global Health Security Agenda.
China’s National Health and Family Planning Commission (Ministry of
Health) and China CDC are supportive and should commit to be a part of
the network. We do want to expand the Chinese participation in the
network to include other partners and sectors, including agriculture
and veterinary.
We could not so far identify any direct NIAID collaboration with the
Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). However, from a quick search we
found Dr. James Leduc of University of Texas at Galveston and Dr. Jian
Han of the Hudsonalpha Institute of Biotechnology at Birmingham
recently visited WIV… James Leduc is the head of the national lab at
Galveston and I believe NIAID funded the establishment of the lab
(biosecurity lab) … And please find if both James Leduc and Han Jian
have any NIAID funded grants.
In an email
[[link removed]]
on
February 26, 2018, Chen messaged her NIH colleagues to report that she
had learned of a, “type of new flu vaccine using nano-technology
from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology” and discovered that the
Chinese had blocked all Internet links to reports on the new
technology.

Working with the State Department’s Environment, Science,
Technology, and Health (ESTH) officer Sarah Oh, Chen then wrote a
“night note” about this development. In the note she cites Cui
Zongqiang, head of the Wuhan research group stating, “The intranasal
nano-vaccine can target broad-spectrum flu viruses and induces robust
immune responses,”

Chen adds, “‘In our study, an intranasal nanovaccine worked well
against infections of H1N1 and H9N2 virus in mice,’ Cui said.” NIH
official Gray Handley responded to Chen, saying, “Thanks, Ping. All
quite interesting developments.”

In a January 20, 2017, report
[[link removed]]
to NIH colleagues, Chen describes the, “Global Virome Project,”
which is sponsored by USAID and other organizations, and would be led
by the US and China. Chen notes:

The purpose of the project is to identify viruses present in the
wildlife with potential crossing over to humans, causing human
infection and disease. Following the identification of the viruses is
the development of vaccines to protect human population… One of the
partners in this project is EcoHealth Alliance. Peter Daszak from
EcoHealth Alliance is one of the leaders for the GVP project and he
has NIAID grant from RDB looking at the coronaviruses in Bat
populations in China in collaboration with Wuhan Institute of
Virology.
In an email exchange dated July 14, 2015, Chen, tells NIH colleagues
that she has been coordinating projects and visits with the Wuhan Lab.

Chen states that she’s “been working with Ken [presumably the US
Health Attaché in Beijing Ken Earhart] on preparing for the pre
advance team visit in preparation for the possible HHS Secretary visit
to China in Sept. 9-11. The pre advance team will be in Beijing this
Wednesday. I will meet them on Wednesday to brief on the NIAID
activities in China.”

Chen then identifies
[[link removed]]
the
individuals who she has been coordinating with in Wuhan:

I visited three Chinese PIs [presumably Principal Investigators] on
NIAID funded projects in Wuhan (I contacted 5 PIs, one was not
available and one never responded) last week. Briefly, one PI at the
Wuhan Institute of Virology, Dr. Shi Zhengli, is known as the bat
lady. She studies the viruses carried by the Chinese bats trying to
identify the viral reservoirs, particularly focusing on coronaviruses
such as SARS and MERS. She has identified bat viruses that are
genetically very close to the SARS virus that caused the outbreak in
China in 2003. Another PI I visited is Dr. Yang Dongliang … Dr. Yang
has one of the one-year programs where he collaborated with US PI on
universal HIV vaccine research. His role in the collaboration was to
collect HIV isolates from Chinese patients, sequencing the viruses,
and close the envelope genes for the US collaborators to screen for
conserved epitopes via a novel screening technology. The third PI I
visited is Dr. Wu Jiangguo, who is the head of the state key lab of
virology in Wuhan University. [Redacted]. George Gao [likely top
Chinese CDC official
[[link removed]]
George
Fu Gao] is a close collaborator with the lab. In addition to basic
research on virology, the lab also does translational research in
antivirals, vaccines and reagents with industry partners.
In a previous March 16, 2015, email
[[link removed]]
update
to NIH colleagues, Chen informed them that “First week of May, visit
Wuhan Institute of Virology with Ken to see its BSL4 lab and talk
about common interests. While in Wuhan, I will meet the Chinese PIs on
NIAID grants.”

In a report
[[link removed]]
dated
January 12, 2015, Chen advised her NIH colleagues on her attempts to
get an invitation to the ceremony of the completion of the BSL4 lab:

I sent a request to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for invitation to
attend the BSL4 laboratory completion ceremony. I got a message from
the contact I have that limited number of international people outside
France will be invited to the ceremony as it is the French who helped
with the construction of BSL4 lab. I just received a reply that I
won’t be able to attend the ceremony but will have the opportunity
to visit the institute at a later time.
I received a message from ESTH [the State Department’s Environment,
Science, Technology and Health Office
[[link removed]]]
asking the representatives from US Fed agencies to provide information
on China’s biosecurity. The message says: State’s office that
deals with biosecurity has sent to Embassy Beijing the email below
regarding China’s policies, capabilities, and activities related to
a range of biological threats and risks: including infectious
diseases, biosecurity, biological weapons, and bio-terrorism.”
In a proposed program
[[link removed]]
that
Chen provided to NIH colleagues for an upcoming virology conference
which was to be held on March 9-10, 2015 in Beijing, titled
“Advancement in Our Scientific Understanding of Avian Influenza and
MERS as Emerging Respiratory Threat to Public Health in Asia and
Beyond – From Viral Evolution to Animal and Human Hosts,” one of
the scheduled speakers was Matt Frieman of the University of Maryland
School of Medicine, who was going to address the topic “Repurposing
FDA Approved Drugs for Coronavirus Infection.” Another speaker,
Xinquan Wang, of Tsinghua University, was going to address the topic,
“Potent Neutralization of MERS-Cov by Human mAbs to the Viral Spike
Glycoprotein.”

In a redacted email
[[link removed]]
dated
November 3, 2014, Chen notes to her NIH colleagues that the Chinese
government had begun screening people who merely came from Ebola
effected regions of Africa:

Chinese government has been screening people who come from the Ebola
regions of Africa. Two US CDC people in Beijing were sent to Sierra
Leone one month ago and were scheduled to return. Last Friday I was
able to help Ken [presumably the US Health attaché in Beijing, Ken
Earhart] to acquire the information on the monitoring process and
guarantee procedures that are implemented in three Beijing’s
infectious disease hospitals through my contacts. The concern is
[redacted].
In an email on March 6, 2018, Chen informs NIH colleagues that the US
Embassy in Beijing was “collecting US-China collaboration stories in
preparation for the World Heath Day on April 7.” One of the US-China
collaborations labeled “successful activities,” was
“Coronavirus: NIH-funded investigators are conducting detailed
surveillance throughout China and in other countries on the emergence
of coronaviruses (such as SARS and MERS-CoV) and studying the dynamics
of viral transmission from animals to humans, which may identify
potential outbreak threats to the U.S. and other parts of the
world.”

Another “success story
[[link removed]
was titled, “Influenza: NIH receives influenza samples and
information on circulating viruses from China and Hong Kong to assess
risks associated with emerging variants for pandemic and zoonotic
threat and to monitor the prevalence and evolution of the novel H7N9
and H10N8 viruses in China. These strains are otherwise unavailable
and they are essential to the development of vaccines needed for a
potential influenza pandemic.”

These documents are of world-wide interest, as they suggest that the
Wuhan lab had major bio-safety issues and the American government was
carefully monitoring its activities from a national security
perspective even while funding it. Dr. Fauci and his colleagues have
some more explaining to do.

Also from this lawsuit, in June 2021, we revealed
[[link removed]]
that
the NIAID under Fauci gave the Wuhan lab $826,000 for bat coronavirus
research from 2014 to 2019.

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

In a related lawsuit, in October 2020, we received from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services 300 pages
[[link removed]]
of Fauci
emails, including his approval of a press release supportive of
China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.

This latest tranche of documents is truly incredible – both in
content and in the fact that it took a year and a federal lawsuit to
disgorge them from the Fauci agency.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OVER THE MISTREATMENT OF A WAR
HERO

Too often, Pentagon bureaucrats mistreat genuine war heroes.

Maj. Fred C. Galvin (USMC, Ret.), commander of an elite U.S. Marine
Corps Special Operations unit, was falsely accused of war crimes in
Afghanistan in 2007. He was fully exonerated in 2019 but was still
denied retroactive promotion to lieutenant colonel by the Marine Corps
in 2020 despite an otherwise exemplary service record.

We filed a lawsuit on his behalf against the Acting Secretary of the
Navy Thomas Darker and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Our suit
alleges that the military violated the Administrative Procedure Act
and another statute in denying Maj. Galvin a promotion (_Maj. Fred
Galvin v Thomas Harker et al,_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:21-cv-01813)).

On March 4, 2007, Galvin and 29 members of the Marine Special
Operations Company Foxtrot (Fox Company), the first combat unit of the
U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC), passed
through the Afghan village of Bati Kot, near the Pakistan border, in a
six-vehicle convoy. A suicide bomber driving a fuel and
explosive-packed van approached the convoy at a high rate of speed.
The van detonated, then fighters on both sides of the road opened fire
on the convoy. Fox Company fought back and escaped, returning to their
base with only one minor casualty. The Afghan government, numerous
media outlets, and others falsely accused Maj. Galvin and the unit of
war crimes in responding to the attack, and even the U.S. military,
after a horribly flawed investigation, called for Galvin and six other
Marines be charged with dereliction of duty and negligent homicide.
Maj. Galvin was relieved of command, and Fox Company was redeployed
out of Afghanistan.

Maj. Galvin and Fox Company were eventually exonerated by a Court of
Inquiry that, in a historic finding
[[link removed]],
found the Marines acted properly and instead faulted both the Air
Force colonel who investigated the incidents and senior U.S. military
leadership. The Court of Inquiry also found that the Air Force
colonel's findings and conclusions ran counter to the weight of the
evidence and faulted senior U.S. leaders for being unable or unwilling
to respond appropriately to what was described as an “enemy
information operation.”

The Court of Inquiry also faulted senior U.S. leaders for failing to
stand by Maj. Galvin and Fox Company until competent evidence had been
gathered. According to the Court of Inquiry report, “The
redeployment of [Fox Company] was based, in large part, on
unsubstantiated allegations related to the 4 March 2007 incident. The
decision to re-deploy [Fox Company] was influenced by the high level
of command, media, and governmental attention focused on the 4 March
2007 incident.” A video
[[link removed]]
produced in 2019
documents what happened to Galvin and Fox Company after the ambush and
how false charges ruined their reputations.

Galvin was due to be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel in
August 2010, and although he was exceptionally well-qualified for
promotion as compared to his peers, the board did not select him for
promotion. Ultimately, he was forced to retire involuntarily from the
Marine Corps.

In 2019, a U.S. Navy panel ordered that adverse fitness reports in
Maj. Galvin’s service record regarding the 2007 ambush and a later
event, in which Maj. Galvin also was found to have acted entirely
appropriately, be removed from his service record. The panel also
ordered that a special selection board be convened to consider Maj.
Galvin for retroactive promotion to lieutenant colonel. The special
selection board denied Maj. Galvin promotion again, despite his having
an exceptional service record:

(Maj. Galvin) had served in several key leadership billets, a
significant marker for promotion. He had extensive combat experience
and had been “forward deployed” for more than three years, which
also are significant markers for promotion. He had received multiple
awards, including a Bronze Star with Combat V, and received glowing
comments recommending him for promotion. Plaintiff also had
completed his Professional Military Education promotion requirement by
attending the Marine Corps Command and Staff College and completing
the Intermediate Level School in 2008.
Maj. Galvin was never provided an explanation – a “rational
connection to the facts found and the choices made” – for why he
was not promoted.

The Pentagon’s continued refusal to promote Maj. Galvin is an
absolute disgrace. This American hero gave years of his life and his
good name to serve our country selflessly and has been denied a
well-deserved promotion because of anti-military politics, false
narratives, and the cynical choices of his superiors.

We are honored to go to court on behalf of Major Galvin, a brave
warrior and patriot who first and foremost acted to protect the lives
of the soldiers under his command.

DC RACIAL EQUITY OFFICE RULES LINCOLN STATUE WILL WIDEN RACIAL
INEQUITY

Racist and anti-American critical race theory is well-established
throughout the government. Consider the latest effort to erase history
in the name of “equity” in our nation’s capital, as uncovered
[[link removed]]
by our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog:

A government office launched recently to eliminate racial disparities
and achieve racial equity in Washington D.C. has determined that
installing an Abraham Lincoln Spirit of Freedom Emancipation Statue at
the African American Civil War Museum will widen racial inequity even
though the council unanimously voted for it
[[link removed]]
and
the mayor supports it. In fact, Mayor Muriel Bowser urged the D.C.
Council to pass
[[link removed]]
the
resolution, known as PR 24-0238, approving the statue’s installation
on the public space adjacent to the museum in the historic Archibald
Grimke School at 1925 Vermont Avenue, NW.

In a May 14, 2021 letter
[[link removed]]
to
D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, the mayor refers to the project
as “commemorative work” and writes that the Lincoln statue was
delivered in July 2020 and the museum has filed the necessary
paperwork to obtain a permit from the Department of Transportation to
install it. Bowser reveals the piece was designed to create a
sightline across Vermont Avenue from the Memorial to the Museum at
Grimke, which is currently under construction, and it will rest on a
podium adorned by ceremonial steps. “I urge the Council to take
prompt and favorable action on the enclosed resolution,” Bowser
writes, referring to the measure attached to her letter. On June 29,
the council passed it by a vote of 13-0.

Nevertheless, a special D.C. panel created to tackle racism,
the Council Office of Racial Equity
[[link removed]]
(CORE),
has nixed the idea, writing in a report
[[link removed]]
that
“Lincoln’s legacy has long been debated” and the statue will not
increase representation of communities of color. The five-page
document, officially called Racial Equity Impact Assessment
[[link removed]]
(REIA),
delves deeply into the supposed lack of diversity among statues and
commemorative works in D.C. and offers a simple conclusion involving
the new Lincoln fixture: “Although the overall impact on
residents’ lives will be minimal, PR24-0238 would contribute to
widening the racial inequity between the number of commemorative works
dedicated to white men and those dedicated to Black persons and other
persons of color in the District of Columbia.”

The CORE report seems to scold D.C. officials, stating that
“commemorative works should be intentional about who is being
honored, why they are being honored, and how that representation will
inspire future generations.” Under the large, bold heading of
“RACIAL EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS” the race council writes that there
are at least four statues and commemorative works honoring President
Lincoln’s legacy, “which has long been debated,” throughout D.C.
It singles out the Emancipation Memorial for being funded by
“formerly enslaved men and women” who had no say in the matter.
“There is a severe lack of diversity amongst statues and
commemorative works in the District of Columbia,” the CORE racial
equity assessment states. “In 2019, of at least 115 statues in DC,
just six were of American women and only one was of a Black woman,
that being Mary McLeod Bethune. Duke Ellington was the only Black
native Washingtonian with a statue dedicated in his honor.” Erecting
yet another statue of Lincoln underscores the need to close the
existing gap, the panel writes.

CORE was established this year as part of a broader measure
called Racial Equity Achieves Results Act
[[link removed]]
(REACH) enacted to
establish a racial equity framework across the entire D.C. government.
REACH requires mandatory racial equity training for D.C. government
employees, the creation of a Commission on Racial Equity, Social
Justice, and Economic Inclusion as well as racial equity impact
assessment on certain council measures. The law also requires the
mayor to include racial equity performance measures in the development
of an agency’s annual performance plans and creates a racial equity
tool to help all D.C. agencies incorporate racial equity into their
operations, performance-based budgets, programs, policies, rules and
regulations.

CORE is tasked with eliminating racial disparities and achieving
racial equity by determining if proposed D.C. laws and policies
advance racial equity or increase racial inequity. The panel
accomplishes this by conducting a REIA like the one completed for the
new Lincoln statue. REIA is described on the agency’s website
[[link removed]]
as
the careful and organized examination of how different racial and
ethnic groups will likely be affected by a proposed bill or
resolution. “A REIA can help prevent institutional racism,
deconstruct structurally racist policies, and identify historic and
structural causes of long-standing racial inequities,” according to
CORE.
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]]