NEW Federal Lawsuit on CRT Abuse!

[INSIDE JW]

THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE

[[link removed]]

The rule of law and our constitutional system was undermined by the
Roe v. Wade decision that led to the legalization of abortion on
demand.
In this regard, Judicial Watch filed an _amicus curiae_
[[link removed]]
brief
in the Supreme Court in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. Our brief
in support of the constitutionality of Mississippi’s Gestational
Age Act argues that states have the right under the Constitution to
regulate abortion and protect unborn life. (_Dobbs v. Jackson_
[[link removed]]
(No.
19-1392)).

Our brief argues
[[link removed]]
that
the Supreme Court should overturn Roe and restore the regulation of
abortion to the states:

Despite creative judicial legislating, it is crystal clear that
abortion does not involve war, peace, negotiation, foreign commerce,
or taxation. Abortion fits squarely into the states’ sphere of
objects that concern the “lives, liberties, and properties of the
people.” Not being an enumerated power, the _Roe_ Court did not
have the authority to overturn the abortion laws of the states.
Additionally, our brief notes
[[link removed]]
that _Roe
v. Wade_ didn’t provide clarity, but instead muddied the waters:

Far from creating a national consensus, Roe threw the states into a
48-year contentious legal battle. Even some abortion advocates eschew
the injudicious method of federalizing abortion as short-circuiting a
naturally evolving jurisprudence under state laws. As federal and
state judges attempt to apply this Court’s precedents, a national
landscape of inconsistent, inconclusive, and untenable rules have
emerged. As a national policy, abortion jurisprudence is, in a word, a
mess. Stubbornly holding on to unconstitutional precedent will never
have a positive outcome. It is time to return abortion policy to the
states where it belongs and where the democratic process can
effectively work.
States must be able to defend life, and the disastrous Roe decision
has upended our constitutional order. The Supreme Court has a chance
to right a constitutional wrong in a way that will allow Americans
again to protect the right to life.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule by June of next year…

WHY NO ONE IS SURPRISED HILLARY CLINTON’S INFLUENCE-PEDDLING
FOUNDATION COLLAPSED

Per usual, Judicial Watch took the lead in exposing Bill and Hillary
Clinton’s shady dealings inside their “foundation,” especially
in the way they used it to sell influence. Now their foundation’s
fundraising is collapsing, which isn’t a surprise, as I detail in
this op-ed
[[link removed]]
for _Daily Caller_:

When one of the most recognizable nonprofits in the world loses 75%
of its contributions over a four-year period, there are typically
investigatory reports written into what has gone wrong. That isn’t
the case with the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation received
[[link removed]]
$62.9
million in 2016 but only $16.3 million in 2020, and very few people
seem to have noticed.

That is because most Beltway insiders know the Clinton Foundation’s
primary purpose: to serve as a platform for Hillary Clinton’s
political operation while lining the Clintons’ pockets by trading
influence for money. That is why donations spiked
[[link removed]]
when
Hillary was secretary of state and most of the world thought she was
destined to become president — and why they cratered after she lost.

Kevin Thurm, the CEO of the Clinton Foundation, tried to play off the
2020 decline off as pandemic-related. In a letter, he wrote
[[link removed]]
that
2020 “was a difficult year for philanthropy. Across the sector,
resources were stretched thinly and fundraising activities were
impacted.” This argument doesn’t explain the tens of millions the
Foundation lost between 2016 and 2019 and ignores that charitable
giving was up by 5.1%
[[link removed]]
in
America last year.

Of course, an objective observer easily understands the real reason
the Clinton Foundation experienced such a sharp decline in
contributions since 2016. The Foundation is an influence-peddling
scheme, and the Clintons’ influence has waned. Even Obama understood
the scheme. When President Obama nominated Hillary Clinton in 2009 to
serve as secretary of state, she agreed to a strict memorandum of
understanding
[[link removed]]
to
wall off the Foundation from conflicts of interest with the State
Department. As Judicial Watch uncovered, the Clinton team immediately
violated this agreement
[[link removed]]
by
using the Clinton State Department to help Clinton Foundation donors.

The Clintons also agreed
[[link removed]]
that
the State Department would approve Bill Clinton’s speeches. Judicial
Watch investigations (in partnership with the _Daily
Caller_) uncovered
[[link removed]]
that
this agreement translated into the Clinton State Department
rubber-stamping virtually all of Bill Clinton’s 215 speeches, which
raked in $48 million in speaking fees while his wife was secretary of
state. These speeches included government-controlled entities in
China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. State Department memos approving his
speeches were routinely sent to Cheryl Mills, who was Hillary
Clinton’s senior counsel and chief of staff – and a former
Foundation board member!

The former president blurred ethical lines, routinely mixing diplomacy
and Clinton Foundation fundraising. He praised
[[link removed]]
Colombian
President Manuel Santos’s efforts to reach out to terrorist group
FARC shortly after playing golf
[[link removed]]
with
the president as part of a fundraising effort. In another email
exchange, a Clinton Foundation official briefed
[[link removed]]
the
State Department on Clinton’s trip to Myanmar and his efforts to
promote the Clinton Foundation.

If this wasn’t sleazy enough, emails reveal that the Clinton
Foundation was influencing State Department decisions. Records show
[[link removed]]
that
Huma Abedin, Secretary Clinton’s close friend and State Department
official, often served as a conduit between Secretary Clinton and top
donors. In one case, Clinton declined to meet with Crown Prince Salman
of Bahrain, but after Doug Band from the Clinton Foundation emailed
Abedin, the Crown Prince ended up on Clinton’s schedule. Band also
attempted to get a visa for an English soccer player with a criminal
charge because Casey Wasserman, a major Foundation donor, wanted the
visa approved. Similarly, Band pushed Foggy Bottom to help Nigerian
billionaire Gilbert Chagoury, because Chagoury, who had donated
millions to the Clinton Foundation, was “key guy there [Lebanon] and
to us.”

In another instance, Band pushed Abedin to make a particular
hire, arguing
[[link removed]]
that
it was “important to take care of [Redacted].” Abedin assured Band
that “Personnel has been sending him options.” This revelation of
an outside donor pushing for a political appointment through a
nonprofit might seem shocking, but the Justice Department had little
interest in this influence peddling scheme.

Maybe the most egregious instance of Clinton corruption is
the Uranium One
[[link removed]]
deal. Bill Clinton reportedly helped his billionaire pal Frank Giustra
acquire uranium mining rights from the Kazakhstani dictator in the
mid-2000s. Giustra then gave tens of millions to the Clinton
Foundation. In 2009, when it appeared the Kazakhstani government might
seize the uranium, Secretary Clinton helped approve a deal that
allowed a Russian state-owned company to take over part of the
company, even though she had previously opposed foreign companies
controlling vital U.S. resources. Unsurprisingly, those involved in
this deal donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, which tried to
hide
[[link removed]]
the
donations.

The collapse of the Clinton Foundation might shock outsiders, but it
is no surprise to those who have watched the Clintons’ machinations
for years. The Foundation existed as a way for the Clintons to peddle
their connections and power in exchange for money. When it became
clear they’d never hold power again, donors predictably turned off
the cash spigot.

But the grift game never stops, as the Obama Foundation is now on the
scene. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos just gave the Obama Foundation a $100
million gift
[[link removed]].
As the
Clinton money machine declines, the Obama machine rises!

DOCUMENTS REVEAL BILL CLINTON’S TRIP WITH GHISLAINE MAXWELL

We have been investigating
[[link removed]]
former President Bill Clinton’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein for
years, and we now have more insight.

We received four pages
[[link removed]]
of records from the Secret Service revealing that Bill Clinton took a
trip with Ghislaine Maxwell to India. Maxwell, a longtime associate of
Jeffrey Epstein, is now on trial for sex trafficking and other
charges.

We obtained the documents through a FOIA request to the Secret Service
for information about any trips Bill Clinton took with Ghislaine
Maxwell.

The records include exchanges between Secret Service officers about a
trip Maxwell took with President Clinton. In a November 20, 2003,
email exchange, a Secret Service official advises a colleague, “The
LA lead is [redacted]. Manifest to Osaka and LA (has not been
confirmed but this should not deviate too much). FPOTUS Clinton
[redacted] Ghislaine Maxwell [redacted]. Crew [redacted].”

The colleague replied, “Thanks [redacted] info helps. I’ll have
the prelim sent to my office by this evening so the twx [teletype] can
go out tomorrow [redacted].”

On November 22, 2003, a Secret Service agent responded to the same
chain, writing, “[Redacted] I have just received an updated manifest
for the trip to LA. The additional names are [redacted]. Hope this
doesn’t create too many issues for you. I’ve attached the passport
list. Thanks [redacted]; Agra, India to Los Angeles, CA (via Japan for
fuel stop)”.

An official replies, “Thanks [redacted] I met with the [redacted]
today and they had given me that info along with [redacted] (another
addition), so we have 4 crew members and 12 staff and [redacted] USSS
[redacted] total. Not sure if they are feeding our [redacted] USSS, so
I’ll have food and drinks waiting for them. Cheers”.

Another agent responded, “as far as crew and usss are concerned then
that is correct – staff/guest list could change – as you see
[redacted] but I don’t think drastically. I just heard about
[redacted] from my saic [Special Agent-in-Charge]. If you are able to
get my guys food then it is greatly appreciated – evn [sic] an
attempt. All you guys in Honolulu have made my job much less
difficult. Thank you for all your help.”

Finally, an agent wrote “[Redacted] no problem. We’re here to help
and happy to do so. I know your guys have been run through the ringer
and I think everyone wants to see this trip get over, so if I can help
make their trip a little nicer, that’s the least we can do. I heard
that when they flew from Oslo to Hong Kong via Russia fuel stop, they
had nothing to eat that entire trip, so I don’t want that to happen
again.”

Obviously, this new information raises more questions about the extent
and nature of the relationship between Bill Clinton, Ghislaine Maxwell
and Jeffrey Epstein.

TRIAL UPDATE: JUDICIAL WATCH LAWYERS IN COURT TRIAL AGAINST
CALIFORNIA’S GENDER QUOTAS FOR CORPORATE BOARDS

Judicial Watch lawyers are now in a California Superior Court trial in
a taxpayer lawsuit challenging constitutionality of California’s
gender quotas for corporate boards of directors. The trial is expected
to last three weeks and is taking place in a Los Angeles courtroom
(_Robin Crest et al. v. Alex Padilla_
[[link removed]]
(No.19STCV27561)).

We filed the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2019, on behalf of California
taxpayers Robin Crest, Earl De Vries and Judy De Vries. The lawsuit
challenges a 2018 law, known as Senate Bill 826, which requires every
publicly held corporation headquartered in California to have at least
one director “who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on its
board of directors by December 31, 2019. The law also requires
corporations to have up to three such persons on their boards by
December 31, 2021, depending on the size of the board.

We argue
[[link removed]]
that California’s quotas for women on corporate boards violates the
Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution, among other
provisions, and we ask the court to permanently enjoin any expenditure
of taxpayer funds to implement the quotas.

In our brief
[[link removed]]
prepared
for the trial we point out:

Even time spent by public officials carrying out an unlawful law can
be enjoined…. Application of the law as written will result in a
state official expending taxpayer funds on an unlawful law unless the
expenditures are enjoined.

***

California’s equal protection clause – is clear and well settled:
“When the challenged statutory scheme employs express gender
classifications, a plaintiff meets his or her burden [of establishing
unconstitutionality] by pointing that out.”

It is undeniable that SB 826 expressly employs a gender-based
classification. The law requires a pre-determined number of board
seats be set aside exclusively for women (or females as defined).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs will have satisfied the fourth and final
element of their article I, section 7 claim based on the statute
itself. The burden of justifying SB 826’s express gender
classification (i.e., satisfying all elements of strict scrutiny
analysis) shifts to Defendant …
A new study
[[link removed]],
published
[[link removed]]
on
November 18, found “a robust and significantly negative stock market
reaction” to California's gender quota mandate.

Before the quota bill passed, a California Assembly floor analysis
identified a “significant risk of legal challenges” to SB 826. It
characterized the legislation as creating a “quota-like system”
and noted, “[T]his bill, if enacted into law, would likely be
challenged on equal protection grounds … The use of a quota-like
system, as proposed by this bill, to remedy past discrimination and
differences in opportunity may be difficult to defend.”

In signing SB 826 in September 2018, then-Governor Brown wrote that
“serious legal concerns have been raised” to the legislation. “I
don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to
its ultimate implementation.” He signed the bill anyway, noting
“Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. – and beyond –
make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.”

This trial essentially puts ‘Critical Theory’ on the dock for a
discriminatory gender quota mandate that is blatantly unlawful and
unconstitutional. SB826 would upend decades of settled constitutional
law that prohibits discrimination based on sex. Even Gov. Brown, in
signing the law, worried that it is unconstitutional. We hope this
trial will vindicate the rule of law.

In a previous filing in this case, we included expert analysis
[[link removed]]
from
Jonathan Klick, Ph.D., J.D., an expert in econometrics, statistics,
and corporate law, who concluded:

In my opinion, the evidence offered in [the] declarations supporting
Secretary Padilla’s motion for each of these points
(underrepresentation of women on boards, discrimination as the cause
of this underrepresentation, and that research shows a differential
benefit of appointing women, as opposed to men, in terms of firm
performance) is deficient and unreliable.
In September 2020, we also filed a taxpayer lawsuit
[[link removed]]
to
prevent California from enforcing Assembly Bill 979, which requires
the same corporation subject to the gender-based quota also to satisfy
racial, ethnic, sexual preference and transgender status quotas by the
end of the 2021 calendar year.

In January 2021, we filed a public comment
[[link removed]]
with
the Securities and Exchange Commission in response to a proposed rule
change requiring race and gender quotas on the boards of corporations
listed on the Nasdaq exchange.

Of course, we’ll be sure to let you know what the Los Angeles court
ultimately decides!

JUDICIAL WATCH SEEKS TO DEPOSE CHICAGO MAYOR LORI LIGHTFOOT ABOUT HER
RACIST INTERVIEW POLICY

Your relentless Judicial Watch just filed a motion
[[link removed]]
for
court authorization to depose Mayor Lori Lightfoot in our civil rights
lawsuit on behalf of Thomas Catenacci and the Daily Caller News
Foundation regarding her policy of only granting interviews to
“journalists of color.”

On May 18, 2021, Mayor Lightfoot’s office informed multiple
reporters that she would grant one-on-one interviews, “only to Black
or Brown journalists
[[link removed]
The next day, the mayor released a letter
[[link removed]]
confirming
her discriminatory policy.

On May 27, 2021, we filed the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on
behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation and reporter Thomas
Catenacci against Lightfoot for violating their First Amendment Rights
and Catenacci’s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment (_Catenacci et al. v. Lightfoot_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:21-cv-02852)). Christine Svenson of Svenson Law Offices in Palatine,
Illinois, is assisting us with the lawsuit.

Catenacci, a white male, emailed Mayor Lightfoot’s office requesting
a one-on-one interview with the mayor. The office never replied to the
request or to multiple follow up emails from Catenacci.

In August, the court ordered
[[link removed]]
the
deposition of a representative of Lightfoot’s office.

In our new motion
[[link removed]],
we point out:

Defendant Lori Lightfoot breached her obligation … to designate a
person or persons to testify on her behalf concerning topics
authorized by the Court. From the earliest moments of the deposition,
it was beyond clear that Mayor Lightfoot failed to produce a witness
who could testify to the factual issues raised in her motion to
dismiss and within the scope of the Court’s order. Specifically,
Kathleen LeFurgy, Mayor Lightfoot’s designee … was grossly ill
prepared to testify as Mayor Lightfoot’s designee.
We are now asking the court to order the deposition of Lightfoot
herself “on oral examination ...”

In a separate motion
[[link removed]],
we also ask the court to order the mayor’s office to answer 19
questions and any reasonable follow-up questions that LeFurgy had
refused to answer during the deposition.

Testimony in this lawsuit confirms Lightfoot is responsible for her
racist interview policy and is therefore a necessary witness in this
civil rights lawsuit.

“Based on the court proceedings to date it sure seems like Mayor
Lightfoot is trying to dodge responsibility for her racist interview
policy. We hope the court does not let this happen,” Daily Caller
News Foundation President Neil Patel said.

“It’s high time Mayor Lightfoot answered directly for denying my
interview request. The mayor must be held responsible for her
blatantly racist interview policy,” Thomas Catenacci said.


JUDICIAL WATCH SUES ON BEHALF OF MASSACHUSETTS TEACHER FIRED FOR
OPPOSING CRITICAL RACE THEORY

Critical Race Theory abuse is rising schools across the country, and
we’re fighting back.

In our latest effort, we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on
behalf of Kari MacRae, a Massachusetts high school teacher who was
fired in retaliation for posts on social media objecting to the
inclusion of critical race theory in schools (_MacRae vs. Matthew
Mattos and Matthew A. Ferron_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:21-cv-11917).

The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, asks for damages against Hanover School
Superintendent Matthew Ferron and Hanover High School Principal
Matthew Mattos for retaliating against MacRae, a math/business teacher
at Hanover High School, for exercising her First Amendment rights.

The lawsuit details that MacRae, who was hired as a Hanover High
School teacher on August 31, 2021, was fired over several TikTok video
posts that were made months prior to her hiring at the school. MacRae,
who in May of 2021 was elected to the Bourne School Committee, said
she made the posts in her personal capacity as a citizen and candidate
for public office.

MacRae was fired on September 29, 2021.

“I got fired specifically for a social media post I made,” she
said. “That’s a violation of free speech,” MacRae told the
_Cape Cod Times_
[[link removed]]
in
an interview published on October 13, 2021.

The lawsuit details that Mattos met with MacRae on September 24, 2021
to inform her that he was investigating the impact of six memes and
two TikTok videos that MacRae posted which were referenced in a
September 22, 2021, _Boston Globe_ article
[[link removed]].

On May 18, 2021, as part of her campaign for school committee member,
MacRae posted
[[link removed]]
a
TikTok video which stated, in part:

So pretty much the reason I ran for school board and the reason I’m
taking on this responsibility is to ensure that students, at least in
our town, are not being taught critical race theory. That they’re
not being taught that the country was built on racism. So they’re
not being taught that they can choose whether or not they want to be a
girl or a boy. It’s one thing to include and it’s one thing to be
inclusive. And it’s one thing to educate everybody about everything.
It’s completely another thing to push your agenda. And, with me on
the school board, that won’t happen in our town.
In a letter dated September 29, 2021, Mattos fired MacRae from her
position at Hanover High School, stating, “I have determined that
continuing your employment in light of your social media posts would
have a significant impact on student learning at HHS.” Ferron
reviewed and approved Mattos’ decision to fire MacRae.

The lawsuit details that no Hanover High School parent or student had
raised concerns about MacRae’s employment at Hanover High School
because of the social media posts.

Kari MacRae was viciously targeted and unlawfully fired as a teacher
because she exercised her First Amendment rights to criticize critical
race theory. This civil rights lawsuit aims to hold accountable school
district officials who are so desperate to push critical race theory
that they will trample the civil rights of our client, Ms. MacRae.

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]]