Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Emails Between
John Durham and AG Garland
Last year Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley raised
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:
“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 (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 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 (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., (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 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 (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
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
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
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 (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
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
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
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,” TSA agents literally sleeping
on the job and stealing from passengers, the failure to properly screen
luggage and a number of other violations that have risked national
security. Records
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 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
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 …
|