Court Hearing on Left’s Illegal Quotas

[INSIDE JW]

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES DOJ FOR EMAILS BETWEEN JOHN DURHAM AND AG GARLAND

[[link removed]]
Last year Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley raised
[[link removed]]
concerns about whether the Justice Department was in potential
conflict with the Durham Special Counsel investigation because a
senior Justice official, Susan Hennessey, had previously made
statements attacking the Durham investigation.

The senators said, in December 2021, that Hennessey “expressed a
clear partisan bias against the Special Counsel’s investigation,”
referring to one of her tweets
[[link removed]
“Durham has made abundantly clear that in a year and a half, he
hasn't come up with anything. I guess this kind of partisan silliness
has become characteristic of Barr's legacy, but unclear to me why
Durham would want to go along with it.”

To explore this, we filed a FOIA suit against the Department of
Justice for records of communication between Special Counsel John
Durham and Attorney General Merrick Garland (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v.
U.S. Department of Justice
[[link removed]
(No. 1:22-cv-00734)).

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after
the DOJ failed to respond to our August 23, 2021, FOIA request for:

1. All records of communication, including emails and text messages,
between Special Counsel John Durham and Attorney General Merrick
Garland.

2. All budget records related to the operations of the office of
Special Counsel John Durham.
Durham’s investigation began in May 2019, and he was officially
designated
[[link removed]]
as Special
Counsel in October 2020.

It shouldn’t take a federal lawsuit to get answers to simple
requests for information about Garland’s communications with Durham
and basic budget documents about the Durham Special Counsel operation.

JUDICIAL WATCH FILES BRIEF SUPPORTING LAWYERS IN 2020 ELECTION
CHALLENGES

The Left seeks to retaliate against anyone who questioned the 2020
election.

We filed an _amicus curiae_
[[link removed]]
(friend of the court) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit supporting Sidney Powell’s appeal of sanctions levied
against her and her associates in Michigan 2020 election challenges.

We argue that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan abused its discretion in sanctioning Powell and other lawyers
in the case.

Our brief comes in the case _King, et al. v. Whitmer, et al._
[[link removed]],
(Appeal No. 21-1786), in which Powell and other attorneys ask the
appeals court to reverse the lower court’s order sanctioning them.

We argue that improperly sanctioning lawyers for bringing civil rights
litigation on elections will have a chilling effect:

Voting and election litigation constitute some of the most
contentious, political forms of civil rights litigation. These
qualities are even more acute in postelection disputes where
litigation schedules are compressed and available information is
limited and often dynamic. Nevertheless, the prosecution (and defense)
of election disputes plays an important role in our electoral and
political process.

As a conservative advocacy group that often brings election and voting
lawsuits, including those to enforce federal and state election
integrity laws, Judicial Watch has a particular interest in the issues
at stake here. If the decision of the district court is affirmed, and
the Appellants are sanctioned, the precedent will be weaponized to
threaten legitimate parties prosecuting election integrity claims.
Courts sanctioning lawyers pursuing election law claims in the heat
of an election is a dangerous game that could allow election
corruption to go unchecked. The partisan retaliation and harassment of
lawyers involved in litigating the 2020 election dispute is
unprecedented and undermines the rule of law – and courts should not
take part in it.

HEARING HELD IN SUIT CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA’S QUOTAS FOR CORPORATE
BOARDS

We were in court this week for a hearing
[[link removed]]
in our taxpayer lawsuit challenging California’s racial, ethnicity,
and LGBT quotas for corporate boards of directors (_Robin Crest, et
al. v. Alex Padilla, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of
the State of California_
[[link removed]]
(No. 20ST-CV-37513)).

The court heard the parties’ competing requests for summary
judgment. A trial is scheduled for May 2, 2022.

This action comes in the lawsuit we filed on October 2, 2020, in the
Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles on
behalf of three California taxpayers (Robin Crest, Earl De Vires and
Judy De Vires) to prevent California from enforcing Assembly Bill 979
(AB 979). The bill requires that boards of directors of
California-based, publicly held domestic or foreign corporations
satisfy racial, ethnicity, and LGBT quotas by the end of the 2021
calendar year.

We argue that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed
resources on AB 979 is illegal under the California Constitution. A
Senate Floor Analysis produced during deliberation on the legislation
concluded the bill draws distinctions based on race and ethnicity, and
therefore, it is “suspect” and that “the existence of general
societal discrimination will not ordinarily satisfy courts.” Also,
according
[[link removed]]
to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, AB 979 “will result in
ongoing costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to gather
demographic information and compile a report on this data on its
internet website.”

In opposing
[[link removed]]
the state’s effort to summarily end the taxpayer lawsuit, our
attorneys note:

AB 979 and Defendant’s justifications also plainly “embody
stereotypes that treat individuals as the product of their race,
[ethnicity, sexual orientation, or transgender status] evaluating
their thoughts and efforts—their very worth as citizens—according
to [] criterion[s] barred to the Government by history and the
Constitution.” In the end, AB 970 is simply a numerical set-aside
that amounts to racial, ethnic, and LGBT balancing. ([“Racial
balancing is not transformed from ‘patently unconstitutional’ to a
compelling state interest simply by relabeling it ‘racial
diversity.’”].)
(We completed a trial in a separate lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in
Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of California taxpayers to
prevent the state from implementing a 2018 law (SB 826) requiring
publicly-held corporations headquartered in California to have at
least one director “who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on
their boards by December 31, 2019 (_Robin Crest et al. v. Alex
Padilla_
[[link removed]]
(No.19ST-CV-27561)).)

California would require corporate board quotas based on race,
ethnicity, and LGBT status. This law is the most significant attack in
the modern era on constitutional prohibitions against discrimination.
Our taxpayer clients seek to protect the rule of law and ensure that
taxpayer resources are not illegally used to advance blatant and
pernicious race and other discrimination.

AGENCY CREATED TO PROTECT TRANSPORT INVESTIGATES 3,800 ‘NON-MASKED
PASSENGERS’4

Our federal government fails at most everything it does but excels in
pestering – and fining – U.S. citizens, who pay its bills. Our
_Corruption Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]]
the details.

The Homeland Security agency created after the 2001 terrorist attacks
to protect the nation’s transportation system has been quite busy
investigating and fining travelers who do not wear masks to supposedly
slow the spread of COVID-19. From February 2021 when the face mask
security directive was implemented to March 2022, the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) has investigated more than 3,800 cases
involving “non-masked passengers,” according to a federal audit.
The agency charged with preventing another 9/11 issued more than 2,700
warning notices and over 900 civil penalties against passengers who
violated the mask mandate, the probe found. The average fine was $699.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of
Congress, conducted the audit and issued a report
[[link removed]]
this week with the
findings. Because the TSA is responsible for securing the nation’s
transportation sector, it issues security directives if threat
information, events, or significant vulnerabilities indicate that
additional security measures are needed. In this case, surface
transportation operators within the U.S. were ordered to implement
face mask requirements for passengers and employees because the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that
multi-person transportation modes potentially increase the risk of
spreading COVID-19 because travelers are in close proximity to others
in enclosed spaces where physical distancing is not possible.

It appears that the TSA, not exactly known for its competence, was
more efficient than ever in cracking down on mask violators.
Congressional investigators found that the agency issued the COVID-19
directives in less than a week and “expedited coordination with
external stakeholders—other federal agencies and industry—to
develop and issue these directives, due to the urgent nature of the
COVID-19 pandemic.” Not everyone was happy. “While selected
external stakeholders raised several issues with the security
directives, they stated that TSA’s expedited coordination was
generally effective,” the GAO writes. Some may wonder if
health-related issues fall under the security threats that Congress
created the TSA to deal with. Not really, but the TSA claims that the
introduction or spread of a communicable disease through the
transportation sector is a threat that allows it to exercise its
authority as needed, including the authority to issue security
directives.

Coinciding with the report highlighting the TSA’s mask policing
duties, new research
[[link removed]]
conducted by a European consulting and health group shows travel
restrictions failed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Even when
travel restrictions are implemented immediately after the discovery of
a new variant, it only delays infection peaks by a maximum of four
days, researchers found. By the time restrictions are issued, the new
variant has likely been circulating in communities worldwide,
according to the study. “Air travel restrictions do not affect the
size of the peak,” researchers write, adding that “introducing air
passenger testing does not affect the height of the peak of cases,
relative to not having any restrictions in place. This holds even when
travel volumes are high.” The study has led the International Air
Transport Association (IATA) and Airports Council International Europe
to call for an end to all COVID restrictions, including mask mandates.


The TSA’s “security directive” for mask use on public
transportation and transportation hubs has been extended through April
18. The agency will continue to crack down on violators, issuing
warning notices and civil penalty fines against passengers. First-time
offenders typically get warning notices and “repeat offenders” get
slapped with civil penalties of up to $1,500. Because so many
passengers refused to comply with the face mask requirement, last fall
the TSA expanded the list of aggravating factors that qualify a
violator for a monetary civil penalty to include instances of defiant
behavior while refusing to wear a face mask and repeated removal or
improper use of a face mask after being instructed to wear one. The
agency also increased the penalties, with first-time offenders
receiving $500 to $1,000 fines and repeat offenders fines of up to
$3,000. The overwhelming majority of mask incidents investigated
occurred onboard aircrafts.

As the TSA does an impeccable job chasing non-masked passengers, its
lapses in more serious areas come to mind. They include missing guns
and bombs during covert exercises known as “red team tests
[[link removed]
TSA agents literally sleeping on the job
[[link removed]]
and stealing from passengers, the failure to properly screen luggage
and a number of other violations that have risked national security.
Records
[[link removed]]
obtained by Judicial Watch a few years ago show hundreds of badges
that allow agents to access secure areas of airports went missing
along with uniforms and other devices used to control entry. Last year
a federal audit
[[link removed]]
disclosed
that nearly 2 million workers with unescorted access to security
restricted areas at airports throughout the U.S. could pose an
“insider threat” as the TSA studies how to curb the risk. The
agency is supposed to submit a plan to Congress examining the cost and
feasibility of enhanced worker screening measures at American
airports.

FOURTH DEPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL ALIEN ARRESTED THREE TIMES BY U.S.
POLICE
Fourth time’s the charm? I doubt it. Here’s a case study of the
danger created by the Biden border crisis. Our _Corruption Chronicles_
blog tells
[[link removed]]
the story.

How porous is the southern border? An illegal immigrant arrested three
times by local police in the U.S. and wanted for murder in Mexico just
got deported for the fourth time. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) classifies the Mexican national, Rafael Silverio Rojas, as a
“noncitizen foreign fugitive.” This month the agency’s
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) handed Rojas to Mexican
authorities at the international boundary of the Lincoln/Juarez Bridge
in Laredo, Texas. Rojas, who is 26 years old, had been removed from
the U.S. on three previous occasions before the most recent encounter.
Somehow the fugitive managed to enter the country through the southern
border again and again.

Roja’s history of illegal border crossings began in 2017 when the
U.S. Border Patrol sent him back home in early July after an
apprehension. He was removed twice in 2020, according to ICE, before
being arrested by ERO officers in Laredo on February 23. The fugitive
illegal immigrant was also arrested by the Laredo Police Department on
three occasions for assault and bodily injury in 2021, federal
authorities reveal. In late October of 2018, Mexican authorities in
Guanajuato, in the country’s central region, issued a warrant for
Rojas’ arrest. He is wanted for homicide. A Guanajuato newspaper
article about Rojas’ latest deportation says Guanajuato is the
Mexican state that saw the most migrants deported by the Trump
administration. Of 89,000 Mexicans “repatriated” in the first five
months of the Trump administration, the story says 6,566 were from
Guanajuato.

It is no secret that there is a national security and humanitarian
crisis along the famously porous southern border and the Rojas case is
just another example of how dire the situation is. Last year the
federal government reported record-breaking Mexican border arrests.
Federal agents apprehended an astounding 1,659,206 illegal immigrants
at the southwest border in 2021, breaking the previous high of
1,643,679 in 2000. In the fiscal year of 2020, federal agents only
arrested 400,651 on the southern border. The upsurge in just one year
is difficult to grasp. Eight of the nine Border Patrol sectors saw
triple-digit percentage increases in illegal immigrants over last year
and one, Yuma in Arizona, reported an eye-popping 1,200.4% hike in
apprehensions. The agency’s Del Rio sector in Texas had an
unbelievable 542.7% surge. The Rio Grande Valley sector, also in
Texas, saw a 508.7% increase and led all stations with 549,000
arrests. Del Rio reported 259,000 apprehensions which surpassed Border
Patrol divisions in Texas and Arizona that typically see more traffic.
Two other Texas stations, Big Bend and El Paso, recorded apprehension
gains of 331.9% and 256.5% respectively. Big Bend and El Centro in
California were the only sectors that did not see six-digit
apprehensions this year, though both reported major increases over
2020—331.9% for Big Bend and 115.4% for El Centro.

Like Rojas, most of the illegal aliens (608,000) arrested by the U.S.
in 2021 came from Mexico followed by the Central American nations of
Honduras (309,000), Guatemala (279,000) and El Salvador (96,000). In
the last month of the fiscal year, migrants from those four Latin
American countries accounted for well over half (63.7%) of
apprehensions along the Mexican border. The final month of the fiscal
year, which ended in September, also saw a final spike of migrants
from Haiti (132%), Turkey (89%), India (82%), Ukraine (81%) and even
China (75%). The number of illegal aliens from Russia nearly doubled
from 758 to 1,432 during the same period, according to year-end stats
provided the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Biden
administration partially dealt with the onslaught by dispersing
hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants throughout the U.S. The
administration’s open border policies are also slamming the
overwhelmed U.S. immigration court system, creating the largest
backlog of cases in history. At the end of December pending cases
reached a shocking 1,596,193, according to government figures.

Fiscal year 2022 also started with a bang, a 137% increase in the
first quarter over the final quarter of 2021. In the first three
months of 2022, Border Patrol figures show 496,148 migrant encounters
compared to 209,342 from October to December of 2021.
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]]