What is Fauci Hiding?

[INSIDE JW]

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: CITY OF ASHEVILLE AGREES TO END DISCRIMINATORY
‘BLACK ONLY’ SCHOLARSHIPS AND GRANTS

[[link removed]]
Another victory for Judicial Watch!

The City of Asheville, North Carolina, settled our federal civil
rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove
[[link removed]]
all racially discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship
program. The city also agreed
[[link removed]]
to remove racially discriminatory eligibility provisions in a related
program that provides grants to educators. The City Council approved
the settlement on January 11.

In October 2021, we filed the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on
behalf of a North Carolina citizens group, WNC Citizens for Equality,
Inc., whose members include high school students who were ineligible
for a scholarship program only because they are not Black (_WNC
Citizens for Equality, Inc., v. City of Asheville et al. _
[[link removed].
1:21-cv-00310)). (The Legal Insurrection Foundation partnered with us
in the lawsuit.)

Here’s the background. On May 5, 2021, the City of Asheville entered
into an agreement with the Asheville City Schools Foundation to
establish and administer the City of Asheville Scholarship Fund.
According to the agreement, the City of Asheville Scholarship is
“awarded in perpetuity to Black high school students within
Asheville City Schools, with special consideration given for Black
students pursuing a career in education.” (In July 2020,
Ashville’s City Council unanimously approved what is called a
“reparations initiative
[[link removed]
that provided
[[link removed]]
“funding to programs geared toward increasing homeownership and
business and career opportunities for Black residents.”)

To settle our civil rights lawsuit, on January 11, 2022, Asheville’s
City Council approved a resolution that removes the racial criteria
for the scholarship:

[T]he scholarship will give preference to applicants whose household
members, including parents and/or guardians have a high school
education or less, these applicants representing “first
generation” college students.
The City Council also removed racially discriminatory language for
a scholarship program for educators and staff of Asheville City
Schools.

The scholarship agreements were also amended to prohibit
discrimination based on race and other categories.

Our clients, a group of Asheville residents, including high school
students, courageously challenged this blatantly discriminatory and
illegal scholarship program in federal court.

Thankfully, the City of Asheville did the right thing in quickly
ending these indefensible race-based scholarship programs.

This federal lawsuit and the resulting remarkable settlement should
serve as a wake-up call to those activists and allied politicians
pushing the extremist leftist agenda to segregate and discriminate
based on race.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FOR INFO ON CIA TARGETING PRESIDENT TRUMP

For four years the Deep State schemed against President Trump to end
his presidency. Then near the end of his administration, they accused
him of planning a coup, according to reports.

To unveil the details we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
lawsuit against the CIA for records of communications and meetings
between then-CIA Director Gina Haspel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff General Mark Milley (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Central
Intelligence Agency
[[link removed]
(No. 1:21-cv-03387)).

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on
December 31, 2021, after the CIA failed to respond to a September 15,
2021, request for:

* All records of communication between CIA Director Gina Haspel and
Gen. Mark Milley between November 1, 2020, and January 20, 2021.
* All records regarding all meetings between CIA Director Haspel and
Gen. Milley between November 1, 2020, and January 20, 2021. This
includes all summaries, notes, and transcripts, as well as all records
created in preparation for, during, or pursuant to any such meeting.

Milley and Haspel reportedly
[[link removed]]
had at least one conversation in which President Trump was attacked as
being part of a “coup.”

This isn’t our first lawsuit involving Milley. On March 5, 2021, we
filed a FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the
Pentagon for records about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January 8,
2021, telephone call with Milley. Pelosi acknowledged the call in a
January 8 letter
[[link removed]]
to her
colleagues.

It ought to be disturbing to all Americans that the head of the CIA
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs were reportedly conspiring
against the president of the United States.

Our new lawsuit will hopefully ferret out the truth about any plots to
undermine President Trump by the military and CIA.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FOR DR. FAUCI’S CALENDARS AND CALENDAR ENTRIES

Dr. Anthony Fauci wields enormous power, and the American people have
a right to know what he has been up to.

In our pursuit of that information, we filed a Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) lawsuit with OpenTheBooks.com against the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) for Fauci’s calendars and
calendar entries. (_American Transparency, d/b/a/ OpenTheBooks.com and
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
[[link removed]
(No. 1:22-cv-00036)). He’s the Director of the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID.

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after
the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is an agency of HHS,
failed to respond to our November 5, 2021, FOIA request for:

All calendars or calendar entries for Dr. Anthony Fauci, including
calendars maintained on Dr. Fauci’s behalf. For calendars or
calendar entries created electronically, the records should include
the names of invitees, notes, and other attachments for a given entry.


The time frame of the request was identified as “November 1, 2019 to
March 31, 2020.”
“It's an understatement to say that Dr. Fauci’s daily calendar
from the earliest days of the pandemic is in the public interest. By
not producing it, NIH is acting like it has a lot to hide,” said
Adam Andrzejewski, CEO and founder of OpenTheBooks.com.

On October 28, 2021, we filed a FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on behalf of
OpenTheBooks.com against the HHS for the employment contracts;
financial, conflict of interest, and financial disclosure documents;
and job description of Dr. Fauci, as well as royalties paid to NIH
employees by outside entities (_American Transparency, DBA
OpenTheBooks.com v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services _
[[link removed].
1:21-cv-02821)). (This issue made big news this week after an unhinged
Fauci called a United States Senator a “moron” for simply asking
that he disclose all his financial information.)

We have several other FOIA lawsuits concerning Dr. Fauci. One of these
recently uncovered
[[link removed]]
emails and other records that confirm Fauci agency funding for gain of
function research in Wuhan, China.

Fauci’s agency is playing shell games with records and we will
continue to go to court to stop the illegal secrecy.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES STATE DEPARTMENT FOR BIDEN AFGHANISTAN COVERUP
DOCUMENT

Biden’s Afghanistan surrender was the worst defeat for America since
the War of 1812. In fact, it may be even worse than that. So, one can
imagine the desperate coverup of the truths about this catastrophe by
the Biden administration.

Enter, Judicial Watch.

We filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the
Department of State for records of the censorship of government
reports about U.S. tax dollars spent on military support and equipment
for Afghanistan, as well as records about payments to Afghanistan’s
government and/or any member of the Taliban related to the U.S.
departure from Afghanistan (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of
State_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:21-cv-03391)) (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:21-cv-03390)).

We filed the lawsuit about the censorship of government reports about
Afghanistan after the State Department failed to respond to a
September 13, 2021, FOIA request for:

All records regarding the editing or removal from any public website
of any report pertaining, in whole or in part, to any military
equipment or training provided to the government of Afghanistan or any
component thereof. This request includes, but is not limited to, any
related directives or requests, as well as any related records of
communication between any official or employee of the Department of
State and any official or employee of any other branch, department,
agency, or office of the Federal government.
We filed the lawsuit concerning payments to the Afghanistan
government and/or Taliban after the State Department failed to respond
to a September 8, 2021, FOIA request for:

All records related to any actual or proposed payments to the
government of Afghanistan and/or any member or associate of the
Taliban related to the departure from Afghanistan of any U.S. citizen
or other individual authorized by the U.S. Government to depart. This
includes, but is not limited to, all fees related to the use of any
airport for any such departure.
Even without a lawsuit, we already uncovered smoking gun records
showing Biden’s lawless contempt for the people’s right to know
about his Afghanistan debacle.

Emails
[[link removed]]
we
obtained from the office of the Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) confirm that the Biden
administration censored hundreds of reports from government websites
at the request from the State Department:

On August 16, 2021, at 3:18 p.m., one day after the Taliban seized
control of Afghanistan’s capital Kabul, Carole Clay, an official at
the State Department’s Bureau of the Comptroller and Global
Financial Services, emails
[[link removed]]
SIGAR official Matt Dove
[[link removed]]
to inform him of the State Department’s “unprecedented request”
to SIGAR “to suspend large portions of your website and public
access to reports and records:

We request urgent assistance in identifying and temporarily removing
(and potentially redacting on a longer term basis) all potentially
sensitive and identifying information on U.S. government assistance
programs/projects in Afghanistan. A great many of your historical
publications contain extensive details about activities and partners
that could put individuals at risk in the current environment.
We caught the Biden administration red-handed
[[link removed]]
trying to cover up its Afghanistan disaster. As Americans reportedly
remain stranded there, the Biden administration has yet to come clean
about the tens of billions of military resources potentially lost to
the Taliban and about whether the government paid or considered paying
the Taliban during Biden’s deadly and disastrous surrender.

EXCLUSIVE: JUDICIAL WATCH UNCOVERS DIRTY VOTER ROLLS, FIGHTS FOR
ELECTION INTEGRITY

The issue is simple: Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. In
our Investigative Bulletin, Micah Morrison, our chief investigative
reporter, lays out
[[link removed]]
our latest, essential efforts to ensure cleaner election rolls – and
elections:

In a high-impact case of potential voter fraud, you’ll learn about
only from Judicial Watch, a new investigation reveals likely
ineligible voter registrations around the country.

In November, Judicial Watch’s election integrity team sent letters
to officials in five states warning of apparent serious violations
[[link removed]]
of the National Voter Registration Act. The NVRA is a critical
election integrity measure that directs the states to make “a
reasonable effort” to remove from voting rolls “the names of
ineligible voters” who have been disqualified from voting due to
death or failure to provide notification of change of residence.
Dirty voter rolls matter. Leaving the names of inactive voters on
registration rolls creates opportunities for fraud, such as dead
people voting
[[link removed]]
or double voting
[[link removed]].
Sometimes it takes only a few votes to swing an election
[[link removed]].

The numbers of potentially ineligible voters identified in the new
Judicial Watch probe are staggering. The NVRA requires states to
remove registrations of voters who fail to respond to an address
confirmation request and then fail to vote in two consecutive
elections. States are required by federal law to report to Congress
how many ineligible voters are removed from their rolls for this
reason. Judicial Watch mined the statutory reporting data for some
astonishing revelations: over the most recent four-year reporting
period, large counties in powerful states such as New York and
California reported few or no removals of ineligible voters from
voting rolls.
For example, in the heart of New York City, Manhattan, with 1.2
million registered voters, state authorities removed a grand total of
two ineligible voters from voting rolls for failing to respond to a
notice and vote, according to data New York itself provided to
Congress.
In Brooklyn, with 1.7 million registered voters, the number removed
for this reason: zero. In Queens, with 1.3 million registered voters,
the number removed as ineligible: zero. In the Bronx, with 867,000
voters: one ineligible voter was removed. In Staten Island, with
344,000 voters: zero.
The story is the same in California. Large counties show impossibly
small number of ineligible voters removed from voting rolls for
failing to respond to a notice and vote. In San Bernardino County in
Greater Los Angeles, with a county population of 1.2 million
registered voters, a total of fourteen ineligible voters were removed
from the voting rolls for the entire four-year reporting period,
according to data the state provided to federal officials. For
Sacramento County, with over one million registered voters: zero
removed. In Fresno County, with more than 500,000 registered voters:
two ineligible voters removed.
“About 10% of Americans move every year,” notes Robert Popper,
Judicial Watch’s director of voting integrity efforts. “Those
counties should generate hundreds of thousands of cancelled
registrations. There is simply no way to comply with federal law while
removing so few outdated registrations under its key provision.”

Judicial Watch sent warning letters to state election officials in
five states—New York, California, Oregon, Arkansas, and
Illinois—noting the impossibly low numbers of statutory removals.
The warning letters give the state 90 days to correct the record.
“If the data are incorrect,” the Judicial Watch letters note,
“please provide what you believe to be the correct numbers.” If
the numbers are not corrected or otherwise resolved within 90 days,
“we will commence a federal lawsuit.” Read the letters here
[[link removed]].

Judicial Watch supporters know that this is not our first rodeo.
In California, we uncovered 1.6 million inactive voters on electoral
rolls in Los Angeles County and sued, forcing LA to clean up its act
[[link removed]].

We sued Pennsylvania for failing to make reasonable efforts to remove
ineligible voters from their rolls. Pennsylvania revised its numbers,
admitting it had reported incorrect information
[[link removed]]
to a federal agency on the removal of ineligible voters. But even the
new figures are too low. Pennsylvania now admits that in eighteen
other counties—which together contain twenty-five percent of the
entire state’s registered voters—it removed a grand total of
fifteen inactive, ineligible voters in a two-year period.
We went to court in Colorado, where studies have shown that a majority
of the state’s counties have registration rates that exceed 100% of
the voting-age population. Our lawsuit
[[link removed]]
charges “an ongoing, systemic problem with Colorado’s voter list
maintenance obligations.”
We filed a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in North Carolina for the same reason—large numbers of ineligible
voters on the state voter rolls.
We’ve successfully taken on Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana as well. In
Ohio, a Supreme Court decision upheld
[[link removed]]
a voter-roll cleanup stemming from a Judicial Watch lawsuit. In
Kentucky, we sued for a voter-roll cleanup and won
[[link removed]].
Indiana agreed
[[link removed]]
to clean up its rolls after Judicial Watch launched an investigation.

The new warning letters put California on notice (again) and expand
Judicial Watch’s electoral integrity work into New York, Oregon,
Arkansas, and Illinois. “Once again, Judicial Watch is leading the
charge for clean voter rolls and election integrity,” says Judicial
Watch President Tom Fitton. “These letters are just the beginning of
another sweep, in federal court if necessary, to clean voter rolls
throughout the country.”

FEDS SIT ON RECORDS REQUEST FOR 16 YEARS, THANK JUDICIAL WATCH FOR
‘CONTINUED PATIENCE’

Our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog has the incredible tale
[[link removed]]
over the outrageous, and almost comical, stonewalling Judicial Watch
faces day to day from the federal swamp:

In a brazen failure to comply with a public records law enacted to
keep government accountable, a federal agency waited 16 years to
respond to a Judicial Watch request for information related to a
controversial intelligence operation. Back in 2005, Judicial Watch
filed a Freedom of Information Act
[[link removed]]
(FOIA) request with the Department of Defense (DOD) for records
related to Able Danger, a secret military unit led by the U.S. Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM) that reportedly identified some of the
9/11 hijackers before the 2001 attacks. The request
[[link removed]]
also asks for U.S. intelligence, law enforcement and/or
counterterrorism projects utilizing data mining software techniques to
search open-source records in the public domain.

Last week, 16 years and a month later, USSOCOM’s FOIA team contacted
Judicial Watch to say it reviewed its current backlog of cases and
identified the 2005 inquiry as one of USSOCOM’s oldest pending
requests. “Before we continue to process your request, our office
would like to confirm that you are, in fact, still interested in the
subject matter of your request,” the agency writes in an electronic
mail to Judicial Watch. “If so, we will continue to process; if you
are no longer interested, please consider withdrawing your request.”
The email ends with regards and is signed by USSOCOM FOIA Team.
Judicial Watch quickly responded that it is very much interested in
the subject matter and asks the SOCOM FOIA team to keep the case file
open and continue to process the government records that we are owed.
“Please provide a projected date of when (after 16+ years) you
anticipate accomplishing your mission,” Judicial Watch writes to the
agency. USSOCOM’s replies by thanking Judicial Watch for its
“continued patience” and writes that it anticipates completion of
the request in “approximately 18-24 months,” adding that “it
could more or less.”

After more than a decade and a half, it is inconceivable for the
government to take another two years—possibly more—to provide the
information. Under FOIA, enacted in 1967 to ensure citizens are
informed about their government, all federal agencies are required to
respond to records requests within 20 business days. The information
surrounding Able Danger without question concerns the operations and
activities of government covered under FOIA, namely open-source data
mining efforts and the assertion that 9/11 terrorists had been
identified by U.S. intelligence agencies a year before the 2001
attacks. In 2005 Army intelligence officer Lieutenant Colonel Anthony
Shaffer said his Able Danger unit identified four of the 9/11
hijackers
[[link removed]]
as Al
Qaeda operatives well before the 2001 attacks. Months later, a
congressman revealed
[[link removed]]
the
secret military unit singled out 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta 13
different times and pinpointed a problem in Yemen two weeks before the
2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden that
killed 17 sailors. A 2006 Senate probe
[[link removed]]
found no evidence to support that Able Danger identified Atta before
9/11. The USSOCOM records Judicial Watch is working to obtain could
help uncover the truth.

The stonewalling of this vital information by the government is hardly
an isolated case. Judicial Watch regularly must sue the government in
federal court to get public records that should not require litigation
to obtain. The USSOCOM case, however, breaks the previous record for
the time a federal agency has taken to respond to a Judicial Watch
FOIA request. In December 2001 Judicial Watch asked the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) for information concerning Osama Bin Laden
being expelled from Sudan in May 1996 and relocating to Afghanistan.
Fourteen years and six months later the Defense Intelligence Agency
(DIA), a component of the DOD, finally responded
[[link removed]]
to the FOIA request, writing in a letter
[[link removed]]
that the records exist but “all substantive portions of the five
documents (36 pages) must be withheld in full from disclosure pursuant
to the FOIA.” Like in the most recent snub involving Able Danger,
the government expresses regret for taking so long—nearly 15
years—and a declassification officer apologizes for the delay in
replying to Judicial Watch’s request, explaining that to properly
respond, it was necessary to consult with other agencies and offices.
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 - 2022, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]