Border Drug Crisis



[INSIDE JW]

NEW: DEPOSITIONS OF OBAMA IRS OFFICIALS DETAIL KNOWLEDGE OF TEA PARTY
TARGETING

[[link removed]]

We have been at the forefront in uncovering the Obama IRS scandal that
showed the agency’s abuse of conservative Americans and
organizations in the run-up to the 2012 election. We’re still
learning the details of their conspiracy.

We have just received previously sealed court documents, including
depositions of IRS officials Lois Lerner, the former director of the
Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and
Holly Paz, her top aide and former IRS director of Office of Rulings
and Agreements, which show they knew most Tea Party organizations were
legally entitled to tax-exempt status.

The release comes in the December 2017 _amicus curiae_
[[link removed]]
brief (friend of the court) we filed in _NorCal Tea Party Patriots, et
al. v. The Internal Revenue Service, et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:13-cv-00341). We argued that the documents we sought may shed
light on government misconduct, and the shielding of internal
government deliberations does not serve the public’s interest.

Lerner’s and Paz’s depositions were sealed
[[link removed]]
by Judge Barrett in April 2017, after Lerner’s and Paz’s lawyers
claimed the two officials were receiving threats. The court finally
ordered
[[link removed]]
the unsealing of the depositions four years after the plaintiffs
requested the depositions be unsealed and only after the plaintiffs
filed for a _writ of mandamus_
[[link removed]]
to force action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The sworn depositions were given in 2017 by Lerner and Paz. In the
newly unsealed deposition transcripts, the two IRS officials
repeatedly have memory lapses and regularly plead ignorance of the
fundamental matters in question.

The unsealed Lerner and Paz deposition transcripts reveal through
sworn testimony the bureaucratic tangle created by the Obama IRS to
single out, delay and deny the processing of conservative, especially
Tea Party non-profit groups’ applications for tax-exempt status and
to disclose their donors’ names. At the same time, Paz admits under
questioning that she knew from the beginning
[[link removed]]
there was not sufficient legal basis to deny most of the targeted
groups tax exempt status:

Q: [T]he organizations had filed applications representing …what
they were organized for and what they have done and also their
intended activities, and you thought that … for the majority of
those applications that that would warrant the recognition of
exemption?

***
The Witness [Paz]: My recollection is that at the time, my thinking
was that the majority of the (c)(4) applications, while they may have
indicated some amount of political activity, that we would not have
enough basis to make a determination that that would be their primary
activity and deny them exempt status.

Q: And, therefore, they would receive an approval or recognition of
exemption?

A: Correct.
The records also include an unsealed court filing by NorCal Tea
Party Patriots that provides a detailed description of the ordinary
process
[[link removed]]
by which the IRS determines whether to grant an organization tax
exempt status and how the process under Lerner deviated from that norm
after the IRS brought Tea Party groups under special scrutiny
following the _Citizens’ United_
[[link removed]]
Supreme Court
decision. (The _Citizens United_ decision held that the First
Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent
expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including
nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.)

The NorCal Tea Party Patriots filing
[[link removed]]
details:

Lerner expressed strong feelings about the Supreme Court’s 2010
_Citizens United v. FEC_ decision. In a June 1, 2012, email exchange
with [redacted], Lerner wrote that “_Citizens United_ is by far the
worst thing that has ever happened to this country.” Later in the
same email exchange, Lerner expanded on her views of _Citizens
United_:

We are witnessing the end of “America.” There has always been the
struggle between the capitalistic ideals and the humanistic ideals.
Religion has usually tempered the selfishness of capitalism, but the
rabid, hellfire piece of religion has hijacked the game and in the
end, we will all lose out. It’s all tied together— money can buy
the Congress and the Presidency, so in turn, money packs the SCt. and
the court backs the money—the “old boys” still win.”

Lerner sought to reverse the impact of _Citizens United_. In a June
11, 2012, email exchange with Robert Stern [former chair of the
Council on Governmental Ethics Laws] about Stern’s report discussing
states’ responses to _Citizens United_, Lerner wrote:

I like it! Very easy to find specific information, as well as get the
big picture— you done good! Now, if you can only fix the darn
law!”

***

In a February 13, 2012, email exchange among Lerner and various of her
subordinates about [proposed] federal legislation that would require
tax-exempt organizations to disclose their donors, Lerner wrote:
“Wouldn’t that be great? And I won’t hold my breath.”
The NorCal Tea Party Patriots filing also describes Lerner’s
targeting Tea Party groups
[[link removed]]
after _Citizens’ United_:

Lerner began to worry that applicants for exemption would rely on
_Citizens United_ to challenge the IRS’s regulations on political
activities by (c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations.

Lerner particularly worried that Tea Party groups would seek to
challenge IRS regulations. In an email exchange concerning the
February 1, 2011, SCR [Sensitive Case Report
[[link removed]]],
Lerner told Paz and others: “Tea Party Matter very dangerous…This
could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether
_Citizen’s United_ [sic] overturning the ban on corporate spending
applies to tax exempt rules. Counsel and Judy Kindell need to be in on
this one please needs to be in this. Cincy should probably NOT have
these cases—Holly please see what exactly they have please.’

Later in that exchange, Lerner directed her subordinates to find a
reason other than political activity to deny the Tea Party applicants
exemption under § 501(c)(3) to prevent them from challenging the
exemption rules based on Citizens United.

Thanks—even if we go with a 4 on the Tea Party cases, they may want
to argue they should be 3s, so it would be great if we can get there
without saying the only reason they don’t get a 3 is political
activity.
These new transcripts expose how the Obama IRS intentionally
suppressed the Tea Party movement during the 2012 presidential
campaign. These documents show how the Obama administration easily
used the IRS to suppress an entire political movement threatening his
reelection. The Obama IRS abuse is the epitome of election
interference. Given this largely unchecked abuse by the IRS, the Biden
administration’s massive new expansion of the IRS should concern all
Americans.

Lois Lerner retired
[[link removed]]
with full federal benefits in September 2013.

The original NorCal Tea Party Patriots lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in which Lerner and Paz gave depositions was a class-action lawsuit
against the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Treasury
and named individual officials claiming that:

Elements within the Executive Branch of the federal government,
including Defendants, brought the vast powers, incomprehensible
complexity, and crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of
citizens whose only wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the
policies or ideology of the Administration. In other words, these
citizens were targeted based upon their political viewpoints.
The lawsuit was settled
[[link removed]]
in 2017 when the Justice Department awarded the plaintiffs over $3.5
million for “attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and incentive
awards.” In settling the case, the DOJ admitted the IRS abused its
power and the criteria it used to screen applications for 501(c)
status was inappropriate. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated
[[link removed]


The IRS’ use of these criteria as a basis for heightened scrutiny
was wrong and should never have occurred. It is improper for the IRS
to single out groups for different treatment based on their names or
ideological positions. Any entitlement to tax exemption should be
based on the activities of the organization and whether they fulfill
requirements of the law, not the policy positions adopted by members
or the name chosen to reflect those views.
Despite these admissions of wrongdoing
[[link removed]],
the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges
[[link removed]].

We uncovered troves of documents about the Obama IRS scandal (see, for
example, here
[[link removed]]
and here
[[link removed]]).
And
we filed at least nine FOIA lawsuits about the IRS scandal. Much of
what is known about the scandal resulted from our litigation and
investigations.

Here is a partial summary of our disclosures:

* In September 2014, our FOIA lawsuit forced the release
[[link removed]]
of documents detailing that the IRS sought, obtained and maintained
the names of donors to Tea Party and other conservative groups. IRS
officials acknowledged in these documents that “such information was
not needed.” The documents also show that the donor names were being
used for a “secret research project.”
* In April 2015, we released court ordered IRS documents
[[link removed]]
that included an email
[[link removed]]
from Lerner asking that a program be set up to “put together some
training points to help them [IRS staffers] understand the potential
pitfalls” of revealing too much information to Congress. The
documents also contain a Lerner email from 2013 in which she says she
is willing to take the blame
[[link removed]]
on some aspects of the scandal. She also indicates that she
“understands why the IRS criteria” leading to the targeting of Tea
Party and other opponents of the President Obama “might raise
questions.”
* In July 2015, records
[[link removed]]
showed the IRS scandal also included the Justice Department and FBI as
well. According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch under court
order, in an October 2010 meeting, Lerner, Justice Department
officials and the FBI planned for the possible criminal prosecution of
targeted nonprofit organizations for alleged illegal political
activity. As part of that effort, the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21
computer disks, containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS
returns from 113,000 non-profit, 501(c)(4) social welfare groups as
part of its prosecution effort. According to a letter
[[link removed]]
from then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, “This revelation likely means that
the IRS – including possibly Lois Lerner – violated federal tax
law by transmitting this information to the Justice Department …”
* Also in July 2015
[[link removed]],
we released Obama IRS documents
[[link removed]]
confirming that the agency used donor lists of tax-exempt
organizations to target those donors for audits. The documents also
show IRS officials specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce may come under “high scrutiny” from the IRS.
* In July 2016, we, through a federal court order
[[link removed]]
in one of our FOIA lawsuits
[[link removed]]
(_Judicial Watch v Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:14-cv-01239)), obtained FBI “302” documents
[[link removed]],
which contain detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations,
revealing that top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and
Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting “Tea
Party” and other conservative organizations two full years before
disclosing it to Congress and the public.

The FBI 302 documents also confirm the Treasury Inspector General for
Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report
[[link removed]]
that said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting
conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.” Lerner
did not reveal the targeting
[[link removed]]
until May 2013, in response to a planted question at an American Bar
Association conference. The documents reveal that then-acting IRS
Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerner’s response, where
she admits:

They [IRS staff] used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they
selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the
title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and
inappropriate.

* In November 2016, after the IRS refused to acknowledge
[[link removed]]
its targeting of conservative groups, we forced the release of IRS
records revealing the agency used “inappropriate political labels”
to screen the tax-exempt applications of conservative organizations.
IRS agents were targeting organizations requesting tax-exempt status
based on “guilt by association
[[link removed]
and “party affiliation.” We brought to light that the IRS was
going to require 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations to restrict their
alleged political activities
[[link removed]]
in exchange for “expedited consideration” of their tax-exempt
applications. FBI “302” documents we uncovered also reveal that
IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups
because of their ideology and political affiliation
[[link removed]]
in the summer of 2011.
* We also separately uncovered
[[link removed]]
in its lawsuit _Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:13-cv-01559) that Lerner was under significant pressure from
both Democrats in Congress and the Obama Justice Department and FBI to
prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly
targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
(D-RI) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted,
“it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”
* In March 2017, we obtained IRS documents
[[link removed]]
through our FOIA lawsuit _Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:15-cv-00220) that contain admissions by IRS officials that the
agency used “inappropriate political labels” to screen the
tax-exempt applications of conservative organizations. Other records
uncovered reveal that the IRS was going to require 501(c)(4) nonprofit
organizations to restrict their alleged political activities in
exchange for “expedited consideration” of their tax-exempt
applications.
* In June 2018, we obtained internal IRS documents
[[link removed]]
through one of its FOIA lawsuits (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal
Revenue Service_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:13-cv-01559)) revealing that Sen. John McCain’s former staff
director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent
Subcommittee, Henry Kerner, urged top IRS officials, including
then-director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner, to “audit so many
that it becomes financially ruinous.” Kerner was appointed
[[link removed]]
by President Trump as Special Counsel for the United States Office of
Special Counsel.

Also, in an echo of the Clinton email scandal and in response to our
litigation, the IRS initially claimed that emails belonging to Lerner
were supposedly missing
[[link removed]].
Later, IRS officials conceded
[[link removed]]
that the “missing” emails were on IRS back-up systems.

The Obama IRS scandal serves as a warning – that keeping a watch on
our government is essential – as those in power are _always_ willing
to abuse government power for political ends.

BOSTON TARGETED COVID-POLICY PROTESTORS OUTSIDE MAYOR’S HOME

When and how can citizens protest the rules imposed on them by their
elected officials? That is at issue in Boston, where an ordinance
proposed by the mayor and adopted by the city council led to the
wrongful arrest of a protestor.

We have an obvious interest in the case, and we stepped in, suing in
August under Massachusetts Public Records Law after the city failed to
respond to our April request for records concerning the enforcement of
City of Boston Ordinance Section 16-63 (An Ordinance Regarding
Targeted Residential Picketing) (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v City of
Boston_
[[link removed]]
(No. 2284-cv-01782)). We are represented in the case by attorney Ilya
I. Feoktistov.

We received 525 pages
[[link removed]]
of records from the City of Boston revealing the police department
specifying criminal complaints, as opposed to civil citations, for
protestors picketing outside of the home of Mayor Michelle Wu over her
COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates.

On January 15, 2022, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu began a program, B
Together
[[link removed]],
which required people to “show proof of COVID-19 vaccination to
enter certain indoor spaces … including indoor dining, fitness, and
entertainment venues.” Protests began
[[link removed]]
outside of her home shortly thereafter. The Boston City Council then
passed an ordinance that prohibited – and enforced with civil fines
– protests outside residences during certain hours. On Monday, April
25, 2022
[[link removed]],
Shannon Llewellyn was arrested
[[link removed]]
outside the mayor’s home and criminally charged for violating the
ordinance that only allowed for civil enforcement such as fines.

On September 6, a Boston judge ruled that Llewellyn was “wrongfully
arrested
[[link removed]

Among the newly obtained records is a February letter
[[link removed]]
to the city councilors from Mayor Wu proposing restrictions on
“residential picketing,” in which she declares that the city is
committed to protecting the right to protest.

On March 21
[[link removed]],
former Boston Police Captain Darrin Greeley
[[link removed]]
writes to
members of the police department: “NEW POLICY regarding Mayor's
HOUSE. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT - HEARING - DISREGARD THE CIVIL CITATION-THE
COURT WANTS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT HEARING.” [Emphasis in original]

On March 23, Lieutenant John Flynn
[[link removed]]
writes to
Superintendent Gerard Bailey
[[link removed]]
with the
subject line “municipal law
[[link removed]
regarding “city ordinances and rights of arrest.” Flynn includes a
November 2015 email he wrote explaining how civil ordinance violations
can be treated as misdemeanors.

On March 30, Ordinance 16-63
[[link removed]]
was adopted by the City Council, limiting protesting between 9 p.m.
and 9 a.m. outside of a residence.

On April 1, Robert Burke is cited
[[link removed]]
for targeted residential picketing. On April 4, Burke was identified
again
[[link removed]]
for the residential picketing, “willful violation of ordinance” of
criminal statute 16-63.

On April 4, five days after the ordinance was adopted, Greeley sends
an email
[[link removed]]
to several officers with the subject line “Response for Protest 17
Augustus Ave Roslindale:”

POLICY regarding the Mayor's HOUSE.

COMPLAINT - Civil HEARING - DISREGARD THE CIVIL CITATION-THE COURT
WANTS CIVIL COMPLAINT HEARING. If second subsequent time then add Mass
272.s 59 for Willful Violation of City Ordinance.

If we have protestors show up at the Mayor’s house the Patrol
Supervisor will respond. Please have Area E EDT’s [Emergency
Deployment Team] every morning and release if no protestors show up.

PUT ON BODY CAMERAS!

TARGETED PROTESTING 16.63 - 9:00 PM to 9:00 AM

The District 5 Patrol Supervisor will utilize the sound meter. There
is a brand new one in the District 5 DS office. VIOLATION IS ABOVE 70
decimals. PLEASE MAKE SURE IT IS WELL ABOVE 70 decimals AND HAVE IT
RECORDED ON AN OFFICERS BODY CAMERA.

The Patrol Supervisor will notify protestors with Officers present
with their body cameras on and video the Patrol Supervisor give an
oral warning to protestors - READ CITY ORDINANCE TARGETED PROTESTING
and to not use amplified devices and if it is before 9:00 AM that it
is in violation of City Ordinance 16.63 for protesting before 9:00
AM. If the protestors fail to comply with his oral warning to leave
and to not use bull horns, drums etc then please have the officers
with their body cameras activated, ask for the protestors
identification. The COMPLAINT FORM will be FILLED OUT, City Ordinance
Violation - 16.63 Targeted residential picketing and 16.26.8 - loud
amplification device in public space. The Civil hearing will be at
West Roxbury District Court. The Patrol Supervisor will make sure
the incident report has all elements of violation and tag all body
cameras and attempt to identify all suspects. We have a master list
of protesters that will help with identification.

If the protestors fail to give identification, then please have them
on body camera decline. We will identify through previous encounters
and booking photos etc.

West Roxbury Court will handle all civil complaints in Clerks Hearing
and issue fines, warnings etc. We will follow the policy and
guidelines of the Court and if an arrest is to be determined it will
be by the Court for violations of the ordinance.
On April 15, 2022, Officer Paul Joseph of the Internal Affairs
Division emails
[[link removed]]
Officer John Ezekiel:

I'm reaching out to you because it is my understanding that you teach
the City Ordinance class at the academy. I'm interested in what your
thoughts are on if a person could be arrested for a willful violation
of the Ordinance regarding targeted residential picketing Chapter XVI
Section 16-62: See attached document. Also what chapter and section
grants that power to arrest.

Further, regarding the use of an amplified device, what Law grants the
power of arrest for that city Ordinance violation.
On April 16, Joseph responds
[[link removed]


Any individual may be arrested for a City of Boston Ordinance
violation if they remain in wilful violation of that ordinance. I
always recommend that a citation (whether money or warning), report,
FIO, be written as proof that you have given the offender a warning.
Once that is done and the individual continues to violate that
ordinance, they would be considered in wilful violation. Typically you
may see the violation again at a future date and again the individual
may be subject to arrest. I always talk about reasonableness when
deciding how long is too long between violations. Generally a year is
a good measuring point.

This particular ordinance allows for an ascending fine, so the officer
may use his/her discretion and continue to fine as opposed to making
the arrest. Please note that the ordinance must be in presence to cite
and/or arrest. That said the knowledge of one, knowledge of all
applies. Example: If the individual is cited for their first offence
on Friday, April 15, 2022 by PO [police officer] Smith and then
commits the same offence in the presence of PO James on Monday, April
18, 2022, and PO James is aware that PO Smith cited the individual on
the 15th, then PO James may arrest for this violation or continue to
fine.

M.G.L 272 sec. 59 allows a police officer to make an arrest for an
ordinance violation.
On April 25, Sgt. Pete McCarthy sends an email
[[link removed]]
to fellow officers:

Gentlemen,

Just wanted to make sure that you were all aware that a protester was
arrested this morning outside the Mayor's house. Going forward anyone
who violates 272/ 59 (Wilful Violation of a City Ordinance) is going
to be subject to possible arrest. E-5 wanted us to make sure that the
last half and day EDT's [Emergency Deployment Teams] are aware that
they will be called out and will be there in a timely fashion.

Thanks,

Pete
These documents, which had to be forced out through a lawsuit, show
that Boston officials were, contrary to law, desperate to jail
protestors opposed to Mayor Wu’s draconian vaccine and mask
mandates.

RECORD AMOUNTS OF FENTANYL ENTERING VIA MEXICO, 323% SPIKE IN ONE
REGION

Fentanyl overdoses have become
[[link removed]]
the No. 1 cause of death among U.S. adults aged 18-45. More adults
between 18 and 45 died of fentanyl overdoses in 2020 than COVID-19,
motor vehicle accidents, cancer and suicide.

Contributing to this is the tsunami amounts of this coming across our
unsecured southern border, as our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]].


American federal agents have seized more than 10,500 pounds of the
deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl along the Mexican border this fiscal
year with one U.S. border region seeing an astounding 323% increase
[[link removed]]
in the last three years. The most recent Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) figures
[[link removed]]
also show
that more than 148,000 pounds of methamphetamine, 54,000 pounds of
cocaine, and 1,500 pounds of heroin have also been seized this fiscal
year which ends in September. At this rate fentanyl is set to surpass
last year’s seizures of 11,203 pounds, a stark reminder that illegal
immigration is hardly the only threat along the southwest border.

CBP’s Air and Marine Operations (AMO) already shattered
[[link removed]]
last year’s fentanyl record, snatching 1,108 pounds compared to 786
in all of 2021. The CBP division has about 1,800 federal agents, 240
aircraft and 300 marine vessels. The maritime and aviation law
enforcement branch has also confiscated more than 151,000 pounds of
cocaine, 51,000 pounds of marijuana 7,300 pounds of methamphetamines
and 373 pounds of heroin this year. The record loads of fentanyl
smuggled into the U.S. by Mexican drug cartels are especially
worrisome because the synthetic opioid is 50 times more potent than
heroin and 100 more potent than morphine, according to the Drug
Enforcement Administration
[[link removed]]
(DEA), the federal agency of around 10,000 charged with enforcing the
nation’s controlled substances laws and regulations. “Fentanyl is
the single deadliest drug threat our nation has ever encountered,”
DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said recently. “From large cities to
rural America, no community is safe from the presence of fentanyl.”

The agency also warns that Mexican drug cartels are driving up
addiction among kids and young adults with “rainbow fentanyl
[[link removed]
pills and powder that come in bright colors and shapes similar to
candy and blocks that resemble sidewalk chalk. Just a few weeks ago,
federal agents in the Nogales, Arizona port of entry seized more than
15,000 colored fentanyl pills “with the appearance of candy
[[link removed]
CBP Nogales Director Michael Humphries said the candy appearance is a
trend that targets youth. Most of the nation’s 107,622 drug
overdoses in 2021 involved synthetic opioids like fentanyl, according
to the Centers of Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC). The DEA
says the majority of fentanyl in the U.S. is supplied by Mexico’s
Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG).

Border crossings in San Diego take the prize, earning the region the
title of “national epicenter for fentanyl trafficking.” More
deadly fentanyl is being confiscated by border agents in the area than
at any of the nation’s more than 300 ports of entry, according to
the Department of Justice (DOJ). A few weeks ago the agency disclosed
that in the first nine months of fiscal year 2022 (October through
June), CBP seized 5,091 pounds of fentanyl, which at the time amounted
to about 60% of the 8,425 pounds of fentanyl seized around the entire
U.S. The seizures involved ports of entry in San Ysidro, Otay Mesa,
Tecate Andrade, Calexico, Imperial Beach, Chula Vista Brown Field El
Cajon, Campo, Boulevard, San Clemente and Murietta. The area’s top
federal prosecutor said the “amount of fentanyl we are seizing at
the border is staggering,” and that the number of fentanyl-related
deaths in his district is unprecedented.

The U.S. government has long documented that Mexican drug cartels are
the greatest criminal threat to the country. Federal authorities
classify them as Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCO) and not
even a global pandemic could slow them down. Cartels found a way to
adjust to restrictions imposed by COVID-19 to flood the country with
illicit drugs. Huge loads still reached communities around the nation
as deaths and seizures rose sharply and Mexican TCO’s increased drug
availability, according to the DEA’s National Drug Threat Assessment
[[link removed]]
(NDTA). Nine Mexican TCOs have the greatest drug trafficking impact on
the U.S., according to the DEA. Among them are the Sinaloa and Juárez
cartels, Los Zetas, La Familia Michoacána, Los Rojos and Guerreros
Unidos. The TCOs maintain drug distribution cells in cities across the
U.S. that report to leaders in Mexico and dominate the nation’s drug
market. In a Homeland Threat Assessment
[[link removed]],
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explains that Mexican
cartels pose the greatest threat to the U.S. because of their ability
to control territory and co-opt parts of government, particularly at a
state and local level. “They represent an acute and devastating
threat to public health and safety in the Homeland and a significant
threat to U.S. national security interests,” the DHS writes in the
document.
Until next week...



[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU02"
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]]