Judicial Watch Victory: Court Rules against
Democratic Partisan Gerrymander in Maryland
We scored a significant victory for clean elections: the Circuit Court for
Anne Arundel County ruled
in favor of our challenge to Maryland’s congressional redistricting
plan. In its ruling, the court permanently barred Maryland’s use of its
current plan.
We filed the lawsuit
on behalf of 12 registered Maryland voters who object to Maryland’s 2021
congressional redistricting plan on the grounds that it is a partisan
gerrymander that diminishes their rights to participate in free, fair
elections for the U.S. Congress on an equal basis with other Maryland
voters, in violation of the Maryland Constitution (Parrott
et al. v Lamone et al. (No. C-02-CV-21-001773)). The trial
also included plaintiffs from a separate lawsuit.
In June 2015, we filed a lawsuit
challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s gerrymandered
congressional district map in federal court. The lawsuit was filed on
behalf of voters in each of Maryland’s congressional
districts—including Maryland Delegate Neil Parrott, who is also the lead
plaintiff in this new state-court lawsuit. In December 2016, we filed
a brief in
the U.S. Supreme Court in response to Maryland’s attempt to retain the
gerrymandered voter districting plan.
After conducting a trial last week in Annapolis, MD, the Circuit Court for
Anne Arundel County ruled:
With regard to Article 7 of the Maryland
Declaration of Rights ... the Plaintiffs, based upon the evidence adduced
at trial, proved that the 2021 Plan was drawn with “partisanship as
predominant intent, to the exclusion of traditional redistricting
criteria” … by the party in power, to suppress the voice of Republican
voters. The right for all [to] political participation in Congressional
elections … was violated by the 2021 Plan …
***
As result, this Court will enter
declaratory judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, declaring the 2021 Plan
unconstitutional, and permanently enjoining its operation, and giving the
General Assembly an opportunity to develop a new Congressional Plan that is
constitutional. A separate declaratory judgment will be entered as of
today’s date.
Our lawsuit details:
Maryland’s recent history of partisan
gerrymandering is no secret. [its 2011] congressional district map …
remains one of the most notorious partisan gerrymanders in U.S. history. A
federal district judge openly doubted that it could provide “fair and
effective representation for all citizens.” Another called it
“absurd” to suggest ‘that there is a community of interest” in a
district described as a “Rorschach-like eyesore.” [A federal appeals
court] famously described the same district as “a broken-winged
pterodactyl, lying prostrate across the center of the state.”
The lawsuit relates that a bipartisan commission recommended a map to
Maryland Governor Larry Hogan on November 5 that he approved, but the
legislature passed a different proposal in a straight party-line vote. On
December 9, 2021, Hogan vetoed this proposal, and, the same day, the state
legislature overrode his veto on another party-line vote.
Outside experts agreed that the plan was flawed, with the nonpartisan
Princeton Gerrymandering Project giving it a grade of “F” for fairness
and geographic compactness. In 2020, Republicans accounted for
approximately 35% of Maryland’s congressional votes, but they’re
unlikely to win even a single seat under this plan. This outcome wouldn’t
be possible without political gerrymandering.
This key court victory against abusive partisan gerrymandering by Democrats
in Maryland could set a national precedent.
In June 2015, we filed a lawsuit challenging
the constitutionality of Maryland’s gerrymandered congressional district
map in federal court. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of voters in each of
Maryland’s congressional districts—including Maryland Delegate Neil
Parrott, who is also the lead plaintiff in this new state-court lawsuit. In
December 2016, we filed a brief in
the U.S. Supreme Court in response to Maryland’s attempt to retain the
gerrymandered voter districting plan.
Records Reveal Fauci Emails about Hydroxychloroquine and
COVID
Dr. Fauci and his colleagues continue to dodge transparency, but we are
systematically prying loose more details about their behind-the-curtain
deliberations on Americans’ health. There’s more this week.
We received 199
pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
that include emails between National Institutes of Health (NIH)
then-Director Francis
Collins and Anthony Fauci about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.
We obtained the records as the result of a FOIA lawsuit
for Collins’ emails (Judicial
Watch v U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No.
1:21-cv-02302)). We sued after the Department of Health and Human Services
failed to respond to a June 8, 2021, FOIA request for:
All emails sent to and from Director Francis Collins related to “gain of
function”, “hydroxychloroquine”, “HCQ”, and/or “Wuhan Institute
of Virology”
In a June 19, 2020, email
current acting Director of the NIH Lawrence
Tabak writes to NIH then-Director Francis Collins about an
NIH-sponsored randomized control trial of the effectiveness of using
hydroxychloroquine to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19
Based on the recommendations from the DSMB [Data and Safety Monitoring
Board of NIH] that met late today, NHLBI [National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute] is stopping … the randomized controlled trial comparing
hydroxychloroquine vs. placebo/Standard of care in hospitalized patients
with confirmed SARS-CoV2 infection. This was a scheduled interim analysis
– actually the 4th in a series – looking at both safety and outcomes
data. Bottom line: There was no harm signal.
[Emphasis in original] However, based on the conditional power analysis
there is less than a 1% probability that HCQ would prove more effective
than standard of care even if we enrolled twice the number of patients.
Therefore, we are concurring with the DSMB’s recommendation and stopping
the trial in accordance with standard trial monitoring and oversight
practices. The trial was almost completed (475 patients enrolled out of 510
target); however, based on these results there is no need to continue the
study.
Collins replies on June 20, 2020, and copies Dr. Fauci: “Well, that fits
with the outcome of the RECOVERY trial. [Emphasis in original] I hope NHLBI
will quickly publish the results. Looping in Tony.”
Fauci responds the same day: “Thanks. Not unexpected, but good to have
[t]o have solid evidence behind our recommendations. We now need results of
the trials for prophylaxis.”
In May 2020, Nakela Cook authored an
NIH report called, “Update on COVID-19 Initiatives and Request for
Additional Funding.” According to Cook, a unit of NIH called the
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) launched a large trial
to study the effect of the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a
prophylactic treatment in healthcare workers (HCWs) against COVID-19. The
study was called the “HERO [Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and
Outcomes]-HCQ Trial.”
Cook claims that the study’s creators wanted to, “Create a community of
healthcare workers (HCWs) who may be at risk of COVID-19 infection.” And
then, “randomize 15,000 at-risk HCWs into a randomized clinical trial to
evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to prevent COVID-19
clinical infection in HCWs.”
According to Cook, secondary goals of the scientists include, “To
evaluate the efficacy of HCQ to prevent viral shedding of SARS-CoV-2 among
HCWs.” And “Evaluate safety and tolerability of HCQ.”
The records include a June 26, 2020, letter
from a group of Democrat congressmen to then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar. The
representatives write:
We write with strong concerns surrounding the Administration’s
termination of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant to EcoHealth
Alliance on April 24, 2020. In the letter communicating the grant’s
termination, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, Dr. Michael
Lauer, wrote that “At this time, NIH does not believe the current project
outcomes align with the program goals and agency priorities.”
However, press reports indicate that the grant was canceled because a small
portion of the funding was to be given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology
for on-the-ground sample collection and analysis. Given the potential
for this study to inform our knowledge of coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) transmission, it is deeply concerning that it may have been
canceled for political reasons in the midst of the current pandemic.
In a heavily redacted July 21, 2020, email
exchange with the subject line “EcoHealth [EcoHealth
Alliance] oversight response” Adrienne
Hallett writes: “We are going to draft a response to the letter
[redacted]. Mike [Lauer],
can you help with the draft?”
Collins responds, “Sounds like a plan. [Redacted].”
Hallett’s response is completely redacted, then Lauer replies, “Thanks
so much Adrienne! I’ll draft something today.”
Fauci’s agency is slow-rolling the release of documents about COVID,
Wuhan, and gain-of-function research. At this rate, Fauci will be long
retired before we get even a partial accounting for its activities. But
Judicial Watch will keep on pushing for the full truth.
Judicial Watch Victory: Sixth Circuit Judicial Council Vacates
Order Punishing Federal Judge Who Pushed for Timely Justice in Social
Security Benefits Cases
As part of the settlement of a historic federal lawsuit, the federal Sixth
Circuit Judicial Council is vacating an unprecedented and entirely
unwarranted order by a disciplinary panel that found U.S. District Court
Judge John R. Adams committed misconduct by objecting to undergoing a
psychiatric examination and ordered him to submit to the examination.
In September 2017, Judicial Watch filed
a federal lawsuit challenging the discipline on behalf of Akron, Ohio-based
Judge Adams (The
Hon. John R. Adams v. The Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit, et
al. (No. 17-1984)). The Sixth Circuit oversees and hears appeals
from federal trial courts in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
Here’s what happened.
On August 14, 2017, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the
Judicial Conference of the United States upheld an administrative ruling by
the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council finding that Judge Adams committed
misconduct when he issued a show cause order to a magistrate judge who
missed a deadline in a Social Security benefits case. Judge Adams had long
been concerned about the efficient use and supervision of his court’s
magistrates and the timeliness of magistrates’ decisions, particularly in
Social Security cases. To reduce delays in such cases, he began issuing
orders setting deadlines for magistrates’ “reports and
recommendations” – analyses by magistrates on how a judge should
rule.
The magistrates resisted Judge Adams’ efforts and, when one magistrate
missed a deadline, Judge Adams issued the show cause order. After the
magistrate explained that the missed deadline resulted from a simple
calendaring error, Judge Adams accepted the explanation and placed both the
order and the explanation under seal.
Some of Judge Adams’ colleagues on the Ohio Federal District Court filed
an ethics complaint claiming that Judge Adams’ deadlines and show cause
order caused the magistrates to give priority to his cases over theirs. As
a result, Judge Adams was subjected to a years-long ethics investigation so
vengeful and vitriolic that even his mental health was questioned. Despite
the complete absence of any medical evidence suggesting he suffered from a
mental disability, Judge Adams was ordered to undergo a psychiatric
examination, including a three-hour battery of psychological testing. When
he objected, he was accused of undermining the investigation.
In addition to his efforts to ensure timely processing of Social Security
appeals, Judge Adams also has spoken out numerous times about the Ohio
Federal District Court’s wasteful use of taxpayer dollars, such as the
spending of thousands of dollars to purchase iPads for judges and other
court staff while simultaneously threatening cutbacks and furloughs for
essential staff, such as probation officers. He also questioned reimbursing
judges for travel expenses incurred attending ceremonial portrait
unveilings of their colleagues.
No case had ever decided whether a sitting federal judge can be compelled
to undergo a psychiatric examination, but the Committee on Judicial Conduct
and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States held it was
misconduct for Judge Adams to object to this unprecedented demand. It also
ordered him to endure two years of monitoring by a judicial committee and
threatened to reassign his current caseload and ban him from being assigned
new cases.
After over four years of federal litigation, including an appeal, the
Judicial Council agreed to finally vacate the unprecedented orders
targeting Judge Adams.
The courts are not above the law. Judge Adams is a fine jurist committed to
the highest standards of judicial ethics and has served with distinction
for over 19 years. No other federal judge should ever have to go through
what Judge Adams went through. That the bureaucracy of the federal
judiciary retreated from its abuse of him is a remarkable victory for the
rule of law and our constitutional system.
Judicial Watch Sues over COVID-19 Travel Exemptions for Biden
Officials
Rules for thee, but not for me? Too often that’s the case in Washington.
Now we want to know if government employees under the Biden administration
enjoyed privileges withheld from ordinary Americans when it came to
COVID-19 travel restrictions.
We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA suit) against the State
Department for all documents related to national interest travel exemptions
from the Biden administration given to federal employees and their families
related to the COVID-19 pandemic (Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:22-cv-00736)).
Here’s the background. On January 25, 2021, President Joe Biden issued a
presidential
proclamation prohibiting the entry of non-residents to America if they
have been in the Schengen
Area, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Brazil, or the
Republic of South Africa in the 14 days prior. The stated objective of this
order was to “prevent further spread” of COVID-19. On April 30, 2021,
President Biden extended this proclamation to cover those who had been in
the Republic of India.
Although these directives would potentially cause Americans to be separated
from loved ones abroad, federal employees could have potentially used their
positions and connections to circumvent the travel bans by obtaining
National Interest Exemptions (NIE).
Through this FOIA request, we hope to obtain information and statistics
regarding the total number of NIE requests made during the public health
emergency from federal and non-federal employees, as well as the number of
rejections and approvals of these requests.
We sued after the State Department failed to respond to a September 21,
2021, FOIA request seeking:
- All records of the number of applications, granted and denied, for a
National Interest Exemption to any of the COVID-19 related travel
restrictions implemented by the U.S. Government, including the restrictions
announced, by President Biden on January 25, 2021 and April 30, 2021.
- All records depicting the number of applications, granted or denied,
to a family member of an employee of any office of the U.S.
Government.
- All records of communication between any official of the Department of
State and any official of any other office of the U.S. Government regarding
applications for exemptions made by family members.
- All records of policies related to the processing of applications for
a National Interest Exemptions.
COVID restrictions have been too often ignored by government officials, and
Americans have a right to know if federal employees used their positions of
power to see their families when others could not.
Judicial Watch Sues HHS for Communications about Vaccine Side
Effects
The Centers for Disease Control is being
scrutinized for being less than forthcoming about what it knows about
the COVID-19 vaccines. Judicial Watch is pushing back on this lack of
transparency with lawsuit after lawsuit to enforce Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) accountability.
We just filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) for communications related to adverse events caused by
COVID-19 vaccines (Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No.
1:22-cv-00660)).
We sued after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to respond to
an August 30, 2021, FOIA request for:
All emails sent to and from members of the Vaccines and Related Biological
Products Advisory Committee regarding adverse events, deaths and/or
injuries caused by investigatory vaccines for the prevention or treatment
of SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19 currently produced by Pfizer/BioNTech,
Moderna and/or Johnson & Johnson.
The Vaccines
and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee “reviews and
evaluates data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of
vaccines and related biological products which are intended for use in the
prevention, treatment, or diagnosis of human diseases, and, as required,
any other products for which the Food and Drug Administration has
regulatory responsibility.”
Americans have a right to know about any and all safety issues tied to the
COVID vaccines. The government’s unlawful stonewalling, which will now
take a federal FOIA lawsuit to resolve, suggests that there is something to
hide.
City Under Siege: Staggering New York Crime Wave Roils
Politics
It’s been said that, “As goes New York, so goes the nation.”
Unfortunately, that seems all too true regarding leftist leniency for
criminals. However, as Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, describes
in Investigative Bulletin, even leftist politicians have been
forced to take action.
The NYPD’s new anti-gun units hit the streets last week and not a moment
too soon. New York City is in the midst of a staggering crime wave. Over
the past weekend, 29 people were shot in 24 separate incidents, the Daily
News reported.
According to the latest NYPD statistics, major felonies in the city
increased 58% in February 2022, in year over year comparisons to February
2021. Murders rose 10%. Felony assaults rose 22%. Rapes increased 35%.
Robberies increased 56%. Hate crimes—largely against Jews and
Asian-Americans—surged 189%. Crimes in the transit systems—mainly the
subways—were up 73%.
New York is a city under siege. Every day brings a new horror story. A
child is assaulted in Times Square. A young woman is stabbed to death in
her Chinatown apartment. A senior citizen is hacked to death by a wheelchair-bound
transgender two-time convicted murderer. A madman smears feces on a
woman’s face in a subway station, is released on bail, and is arrested
again after hurling a dumbbell through a window. A woman is shoved in
front of a subway train and killed. Another woman is attacked with a
hammer. A teen is shot to death in front of a Brooklyn high school. A baby
is shot in the face in the Bronx. A teenage cashier at a Burger King in
Manhattan is shot and killed during a robbery. Two police officers are killed
by gunfire in Harlem.
At Judicial Watch, we warned for years that New York was slipping toward a
crisis
of crime and disorder. The reasons were not difficult to discern.
Progressive policy makers were denigrating and defunding the police at
every opportunity, dismantling successful policing units, decriminalizing
quality-of-life crimes, emptying jails, and launching a disastrous program
of bail reform.
Under Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York abandoned the successful policing
strategy of enforcing quality-of-life laws. This was the “Broken
Windows” theory of policing, a key factor in crime reduction during the
mayoral tenure of Rudy Giuliani.
“Broken Windows” is a metaphor for urban decline. The building with an
unrepaired broken window soon leads to the other windows being broken and
more disorderly conduct. “A neighborhood where minor offenses go
unchallenged soon becomes a breeding ground for more serious criminal
activity and, ultimately, violence,” writes
Giuliani police commissioner William Bratton and George Kelling, the father
of Broken Windows theory.
New York decriminalized quality-of-life crimes under de Blasio. Public
urination, public drinking, littering, and subway turnstile jumping were no
longer illegal. Incidents of harassment, menacing, petty theft, public
urination and public intoxication began to increase. That distant tremor in
the urban air was the sound of windows breaking.
Meanwhile, progressives rammed through the state legislature in Albany a
reform package that eliminated bail for a wide
range of offenses—from assault, arson and child abuse to
manslaughter, robbery and riot—and removed judicial discretion in holding
suspects. The reform legislation took effect January 2020. Many more
offenders walked. Some of them were poor first-time offenders on minor
crimes who simply could not afford bail and deserved to walk; others were
violent personalities or career criminals who did not. Crime rates
jumped.
The public backlash was swift. In November 2021, New York elected a new
mayor, a former police officer who had campaigned on a platform of public
safety, Eric Adams. The new mayor’s plans include a refreshed version of
the successful but controversial NYPD anti-crime unit, which was disbanded
in 2020 in the midst of social justice protests. The new six-person
anti-gun units, launched last week, will aggressively tackle gun crime in
New York. About 170 police officers have been deployed so far, focusing on
high crime areas, with 300 more to follow.
Adams also is advocating for reform of radical bail laws, tougher gun
possession charges for youthful offenders, and a crackdown on transit crime
with an increased police presence in the subways.
Initially stunned by the Adams electoral victory, New York’s powerful
progressive factions have begun to push
back hard on the new mayor. Adams’ appeal to Democratic leaders in
Albany for bail reform—largely focused on giving judges more discretion
to hold potentially violent offenders—was quickly shot down. Progressive
politicians in New York argue
that there is not a proven connection between the new bail laws and
increased crime; conservatives disagree.
Adams, meanwhile, gained an important ally in the bail reform fight: New
York Governor Kathy Hochul. The former lieutenant governor took over after
Andrew Cuomo resigned. Last week, she sent the state legislature a
“confidential” ten-point public
safety plan that backed the Adams proposal to give judges more
discretion in setting bail. The plan quickly leaked, infuriating the Left.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Hochul will be asking the voters for a full
term as governor in November.
Back in New York City, the new NYPD anti-gun teams acted quickly, making
the first arrest just two hours into the first patrol—an alleged member
of the Bloods crime gang with a loaded 9mm handgun. By the end of the first
week, the anti-gun units had arrested thirty more suspects and taken ten
illegal guns off the streets.
Public College Hosts Cop Killer, Calling Him a ‘Political
Prisoner’
Our colleges have turned against the society that funds and protects them,
bestowing honor on all manner of miscreants. Our Corruption
Chronicles blog reports
on the latest outrage.
In a scandalous example of leftwing dominance in higher education, a public
university in New York will hold an event next month featuring a convicted
cop killer promoted by the taxpayer-funded institution as a “political
prisoner.” The April 6 event at State University of New York (SUNY) at
Brockport is titled “ History
of Black Resistance, U.S. Political Prisoners & Genocide: A Conversation
with Jalil Muntaqim” and the school’s announcement conveniently
omits Muntaqim’s crimes, though it mentions he “was an avid educator”
in prison. Formerly known as Anthony Bottom, Muntaqim was convicted for the
murder of two New York Police Department (NYPD) officers in 1971. At the
time he was a member of the radical Black Panther Party and Black
Liberation Army.
Muntaqim and two of his Black Liberation Army comrades ambushed
and killed the officers, Waverly Jones, who was black, and Joseph
Piagentini in Harlem. The officers were on foot patrol in a public housing
complex. As they returned to their police vehicle, the three suspects
attacked them from behind and shot them. Jones was killed instantly after
getting shot in the back of the head. Piagentini was shot multiple times
and died on the way to the hospital. One of the cop murderers died in
prison, the other was granted parole in 2018 and Muntaqim was paroled in
2020, after being denied parole 11 times and serving nearly five decades.
Piagentini’s widow was rightfully outraged that her husband’s murderer
was freed, saying this in a local news
report: “My husband, they shot him, there were 22 bullet holes in my
husband, and Bottom [Muntaqim] just kept on shooting,” she said. “My
husband looked at him, turned and said ‘I have a wife, I have
children,’ but he continued to shoot.”
The media has downplayed Muntaqim’s crimes, instead celebrating him as an
author,
activist, and local civil rights organizer who is featured in a
documentary released just weeks ago. In a review of the film, titled
“Conversations: The Black Radical Tradition,” one media outlet
describes the film as “first-hand accounts of Black resistance in America
in the 20th and 21st centuries from more than a dozen activists, scholars,
politicians, writers, and others involved in resistance and
community-building movements.” In the article Muntaqim says “there has
been an unbroken history of resistance against white supremacy,
institutional racism, and capitalist exploitation of our communities, but
the engagement in activism has at times gone dormant. So it’s important
for us to understand the history and resurrect that tradition of
resistance.” Another newspaper
article describes the cop killer fondly: “During his incarceration,
Muntaqim became a father, a grandfather, a great-grandfather, a mentor, a
scholar, a several-times-over published author and a faith
leader.”
SUNY Brockport was actually going to compensate the felon to appear at the
upcoming event, but public outrage forced university officials to revoke
the payment. They have, however, refused calls to cancel Muntaqim’s
appearance, which is being billed by the school as an “intellectual
conversation” about his time with the Black Panthers and as a political
prisoner. In a letter published by a local news
outlet in the aftermath of the public outrage, SUNY Brockport President
Heidi Macpherson explains that Muntaqim was invited by a faculty member who
was approved for a “Promoting Excellence in Diversity” grant. “We do
not support the violence exhibited in Mr. Muntaqim’s previous crimes, and
his presence on campus does not imply endorsement of his views or past
actions,” Macpherson, writes, adding that his appearance will provide an
opportunity to learn about his perspective and what may have contributed to
his past experiences. Macpherson assures individuals will have the
opportunity to ask difficult questions such as “why he chooses to
identify as a former political prisoner.”
At least one New York state legislator blasted the university, issuing a statement
saying that it is incredibly inappropriate and downright wrong to give
Muntaqim a platform at a taxpayer-funded institution. “What type of
message would we be sending to young college students to call someone who
played a role in the assassination of two members of law enforcement a
“political prisoner?” What message does it send to criminal justice
majors on campus? What message does it send to our law enforcement?”
Academic freedom and diversity are important, the lawmaker, Assemblyman
Josh Jensen writes, but “granting this opportunity to a convicted cop
killer is wholly misguided.” In its promotional material, the university
portrays Muntaqim as a civil rights hero, stating that he was a teen
activist for the NAACP and Black Panther Party at age 18. The school
further describes him as a “grandfather, father, mentor to many, and
loving human being.”
Until next week …
|