Judicial Watch Sues FBI for
Records on Alleged Transfer of Bank Financial Data of Every Person in
Washington, DC Area around January 6
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 (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
“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 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 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 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 $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 (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 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 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 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, 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
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 (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 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 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 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 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 on March 20, 2020, labeled, “navigating politics,” In
which NIH virologist Jens
Kuhn forwards to NIH colleagues Cliff
Lane (NIAID Deputy Director) and Connie
Schmaljohn (senior NIAID official), a 2016 email of “high
importance” that Kuhn received from Wuhan Institute of Virology Vice
Director Yuan
Zhiming, 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, 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 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,”
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, 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 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 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” 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] 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 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
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 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 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 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 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] 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 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 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” 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 that
the NIAID under Fauci gave the Wuhan lab $826,000 for bat coronavirus
research from 2014 to 2019.
In March 2021, we uncovered 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.
In a related lawsuit, in October 2020, we received from the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services 300
pages 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, (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, 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 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
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 and the mayor supports it. In fact, Mayor Muriel Bowser
urged the D.C. Council to pass 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 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 (CORE), has nixed the idea, writing in
a report 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 (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 (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 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.
|
