FBI January 6 Abuses in Court!



[INSIDE JW]

Judicial Watch Victory: Federal Court Allows Lawsuit to Go Forward
over Magistrate’s Firing for Comments on Released Rapist’s Murder
of His Victim

[[link removed]]


Judicial Watch had a major First Amendment court win in an important
case involving life and death.

A federal judge ruled
[[link removed]]
that our lawsuit can go forward on behalf of former Virginia
Magistrate Elizabeth Fuller against officials in the Office of the
Executive Secretary of Magistrate Services for firing Fuller in
violation of her First Amendment rights.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria
Division, came in the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
we
filed in March 2022 (_Elizabeth Fuller v. Karl R. Hade, et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:22-cv-00218)).

On October 19, 2021, Fuller was fired from her position as magistrate
after commenting
[[link removed]]
to the _Alexandria Times_ as part of a discussion about the publicly
available outcome of her own 2020 complaint against a bondsman named
Man Nguyen.

The judge’s order states that the court “finds that [Fuller] has
sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation to survive a motion
to dismiss.”

> [Fuller’s] comments to the _Alexandria Times_ facially concern a
> matter of public interest. [Fuller’s] comments concerned the
> murder of Ms. Dominguez, which had received media attention and
> “fueled public debate about lenient law enforcement and bail
> practices in the Commonwealth of Virginia and nationwide.” Ms.
> Dominguez’s murder was even discussed by then-Virginia Delegate,
> now Virginia Attorney General, Jason Miyares during a floor debate
> on bail reform in the Virginia General Assembly. In her comments to
> the _Alexandria Times_, [Fuller] appeared to express her
> discontentment with the actions of Bouaichi, Nguyen, and the Circuit
> Court Judge, and her belief that Ms. Dominguez’s death was
> “entirely preventable if anybody in the process had been doing
> their job effectively.”
On or about January 13, 2020, Ibrahm Elkahi Bouaichi was arrested and
indicted by a grand jury for burglary with the intent to commit
murder, abduction, sodomy, strangulation, and rape of Karla Elizabeth
Dominguez Gonzalez. Notwithstanding the seriousness of these charges,
the Alexandria Circuit Court released Bouaichi on a $25,000 bond in
April 2020. Less than four months after his release on bail, Bouaichi,
on July 29, 2020, reportedly drove to Ms. Dominguez’ residence in
Alexandria, Virginia and shot and killed her outside her apartment
complex.

We pointed out in our initial complaint
[[link removed]


> In the immediate days following the news reports about Ms.
> Dominguez’ murder, [Fuller] learned from a police officer in the
> citizen lobby of the magistrate’s office that the vehicle and gun
> reportedly used by Bouaichi to murder Ms. Dominquez belonged to the
> surety bail bondsman, Man Nguyen, who posted the $25,000 bond for
> Bouaichi’s release in April 2020. On information and belief,
> bondsman Nguyen and the officer struck casual conversation while
> they were waiting in the citizens lobby when Nguyen said it was his
> gun and car that Bouaichi used to murder Ms. Dominguez, and that he
> had let Bouaichi stay at his house while he was away on vacation.
> The officer subsequently relayed the information to Plaintiff as
> part of casual conversation among friendly colleagues, outside any
> hearing or proceeding.
On August 6, 2020, Fuller, in her personal capacity, filed a
complaint with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Criminal
Justice Services, alleging that Nguyen violated rules and regulations
of his licensure as a surety bail bondsman. On September 1, 2020,
Nguyen’s surety bail bond license was suspended and revoked as a
result. Fuller understood that this concluded the matter.

More than a year later, the _Alexandria Times_ disclosed the contents
of Fuller’s complaint and other information obtained through a third
party’s Freedom of Information Act request regarding Nguyen’s
involvement and subsequently approached Fuller for comment about the
complaint in October 2021. Fuller commented as follows:

* Nguyen came to work in the days following the murder, nearly
boasting and joking about the fact that the gun and car belonged to
him and that Bouaichi had stayed at his home.
* “[Bondsman Nguyen] was telling this officer about what happened
and almost bragging about it. The officer said to me, ‘You will
never believe what he just said to me.’” “So I said, ‘I’ve
got to do something about it.’”

Five days after this story was published on October 7, Fuller was
placed on administrative leave, and she was fired on October 19, 2021
for violating Canon 3, Section B(6), which states: “[a] magistrate
shall abstain from public comment about a pending, impending or
concluded proceeding in any court or magistrate’s office.”

In early November 2021, Fuller filed a grievance appealing her
termination and asked for reinstatement, which was denied.

We argue that Fuller’s firing was retaliation for protected speech
and that the judicial canon used to justify her firing doesn’t apply
to comments made about a public filing made in her personal capacity:

> At all relevant times, [Fuller] was engaged in constitutionally
> protected speech when she made the comments to the _Alexandria
> Times_, which undeniably addressed matters of public concern.

***

> [Fuller] enjoys the right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the
> First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This includes the
> right to comment to the _Alexandria Times_ on [Fuller’s] public
> complaint filed in her personal capacity about the misconduct of a
> bondsman and its outcome, and the system’s failure to protect a
> rape victim.
Simply put, Ms. Fuller embarrassed Virginia officials over their
deadly soft-on-crime bail policies. As the court noted, our client
commented on a serious public safety matter of widespread public
interest. The lawsuit will now proceed to discovery and we hope,
ultimately, to trial.

“I am so proud that Judicial Watch was so gracious to represent me
before the federal court to secure this important victory for my First
Amendment rights. This ultimately is not simply about whether or not I
have a job, but about an innocent rape victim who unjustly and
needlessly lost her life. It gives me hope that her story continues to
be heard through this case independent of the outcome,” Fuller said.

COURT HEARS OUR APPEAL REGARDING FBI’S JANUARY 6 COMMUNICATIONS WITH
BANKS

As the actions of the government on January 6, 2021, come under
increasing scrutiny, we are pursuing what appears to be an
unprecedented abuse of the financial privacy of thousands of Americans
by the FBI.

A hearing
[[link removed]]
was held
[[link removed]]
(audio) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Friday,
March 10, 2023, in our FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the Department of Justice for records of communication between
the FBI and several financial institutions about the reported transfer
of financial transactions made by people in DC, Maryland and Virginia
on January 5 and January 6, 2021(_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of
Justice_
[[link removed]
_(No. 1:21-cv-01216)).

The appeal was heard by a three-judge panel: Circuit Judge Wilkins,
and Senior Circuit Judges Rogers and Tatel. An audio of this
morning’s hearing can be found here:
[link removed]
[[link removed]]

We filed the appeal in November 2022, challenging a U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia decision allowing the FBI to
withhold records of communication between the FBI and several
financial institutions about the reported transfer of the financial
transaction records.

We asked for:

> All records of communication between the FBI and any financial
> institution, including but not limited to Bank of America, Citibank,
> Chase Manhattan Bank, Discover, and/or American Express, in which
> the FBI sought transaction data for those financial institutions’
> debit and credit card account holders who made purchases in
> Washington, DC, Maryland and/or Virginia on January 5, 2021, and/or
> January 6, 2021.
In our brief we argued:

> This appeal arises from what appears to be an unprecedented abuse of
> the financial privacy of thousands of Americans. Substantial and
> compelling evidence demonstrates that the FBI sought and received
> records from financial institutions of anyone who used a credit card
> or engaged in other transactions in the Washington, D.C. area on
> January 5 or 6, 2021. This would include many thousands of persons
> living in the Washington, DC area, including possibly members of
> this Court.
In our appeal, we pointed out that the lower court was mistaken when
it upheld
[[link removed]]
the FBI’s _Glomar _response (neither confirming nor denying the
existence of records) because the FBI previously acknowledged the
existence of the records in multiple ways. For instance, court records
filed in support of a criminal case include the FBI’s statement of
facts that provides the defendant’s address, which was obtained
through “his Bank of America account and recent Expedia
transactions.”

In another case, the FBI “confirmed that it obtained records from
PNC Bank and discusses in detail the multiple ways that it used the
financial data.”

Additionally, “financial records obtained from JP Morgan Chase bank
corroborate [the defendant] used a credit card issued in his name to
purchase gas and food en route to Washington, DC …”

We cited two additional cases where the FBI describes in publicly
available court records its use of financial records in the January 6
investigation.

We concluded:

> [Judicial Watch] more than adequately demonstrated that the FBI may
> have sought and received records from financial institutions of
> anyone who used a credit card or engaged in other transactions in
> the Washington, DC area on January 5 or 6. If so, this would be an
> unprecedented abuse of the financial privacy of thousands of
> Americans. [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request to investigate this
> should not be blocked by a meritless _Glomar_ response.
We will be sure to update you when the appeals court rules.

JUDICIAL WATCH FILES BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE TO ABORTION
DRUG

Judicial Watch filed an _amicus curiae_
[[link removed]]
(friend of the court) brief in support of Texas-based Alliance for
Hippocratic Medicine (AHM
[[link removed]])
in its lawsuit against
the Food and Drug Administration over the FDA’s approval of the
controversial abortion drug Mifeprex
[[link removed]]
(Mifepristone, formerly known as RU-486
[[link removed]]).
In
our brief, we describe the FDA’s approval process as “arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the
law.”

We filed the brief in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas Amarillo Division in the case of _Alliance for
Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration_
[[link removed]]
(No. 2:22-cv-00223-z).

Judicial Watch points out the Clinton administration’s use of
political pressure to force the drug through the approval process:

> The evidence uncovered of [the FDA’s] true motivation for their
> decision to approve Mifeprex is eye-opening and shows the [Clinton]
> administration and FDA applying political pressure on not only
> international corporations, but on international governments – all
> for a drug to kill prenatal human beings. The evidence also shows
> the intricate political and corporate machinations spent in the
> service of promoting a drug that has nothing to do with women’s
> health. [The FDA] pressured both Roussel, a French company, and
> Hoechst AG, the German pharmaceutical company and majority
> shareholder of Roussel, to bring the abortion pill to the U.S.

***

> In a November 15, 1993 letter from Donna Shalala, HHS Secretary to
> the White House, she states that “Dr. Kessler [FDA Commissioner]
> and I have taken steps to persuade Roussel Uclef and Hoechst to
> change their position.”

***

> The [Clinton administration] and the FDA were willing to place
> political pressure on two foreign governments [France and Germany]
> to accomplish the task of approving an abortion pill. This was not a
> life-saving medication or a drug that cured cancer. This was a drug
> which was being sought for one purpose and one purpose alone: the
> intentional death of prenatal humans. And for what reason? The
> ability to satisfy a financially and politically powerful group of
> abortion advocates.
Our brief explains that the FDA improperly weakened safety
restrictions regarding Mifeprex over the years:

> In a congressional hearing after the 2000 approval of Mifeprex, the
> FDA asserted that it chose to approve mifepristone [and] to maintain
> more stringent safety restrictions on the drug…. This included the
> requirement that the drug be administered “by or under the
> supervision of a physician” who met several qualifications.

***

> [H]istory shows that in the first decade of post-approval use, the
> FDA _increased_ Mifeprex safety requirements. [Emphasis in original]
> … Yet, despite these very public safety concerns, the [Obama] FDA
> significantly revised the Mifeprex labeling and REMS in 2016 and
> _reduced_ the safety requirements. [Emphasis in original] These
> changes included significantly altered dosage, removal of the
> follow-up medical visit, removal of the requirement to take the drug
> in a doctor’s office, and expansion of the use through 70 days
> gestation. Also of significance and concern, the FDA modified the
> REMS [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] to require reporting
> of only deaths attributable to the drug. No longer would
> hospitalizations, transfusions, or other serious adverse events need
> to be reported.

***

> In 2021, using the COVID-19 pandemic as a tool, abortion proponents,
> led by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
> “(ACOG”), sued the FDA to dispense with the REMS in-person
> medical visit as a prerequisite for obtaining Mifeprex and permit
> the drug to be mailed…. With the pandemic declared over by
> President Biden on September 18, 2022, the foundation of concern for
> in-person medical visits should have ended. Instead, the FDA
> maintained its temporary suspension and continued permitting
> Mifeprex to be mailed. Then on December 16, 2022, the [Biden] FDA
> permanently removed the [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy]
> requirement for any in-person medical visits.
Our brief alleges that the FDA, in approving Mifeprex, did not
demonstrate as required under law, (1) pregnancy was a “serious or
life-threatening illness” or a “disease,” and (2) that the drug
“provided a meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing
treatments.”

The chemical abortion drug would never have been approved but for
pro-abortion politics. Pregnant mothers and their unborn children will
continue to be harmed and maimed unless the courts require the FDA to
follow the law.

In an effort to appease pro-abortion activists, the Clinton FDA
hastily approved the abortion pill on September 28, 2000. We
immediately filed a FOIA request and then battled the government in
court to force the release of documents pertaining to the decision to
approve the drug. We successfully obtained over 9,000 pages of records
and then fought the agency over withheld records.

In May 2006, we released a special report
[[link removed]]
containing documents that shed light on the Clinton administration’s
push to get the abortion drug to market in the United States.

In 2007, we received 175 pages
[[link removed]]
of documents
pertaining to the abortion pill RU-486 that had previously been
withheld by the FDA. According to the records, the China-based Hua
Lian Pharmaceutical Company manufactured RU-486 at the time of
approval. This seems to be the first official document confirming that
the abortion drug had been manufactured in China. The records also
indicated the extent to which the pro-abortion lobby was involved in
the approval process. For example, one of the trials used by the FDA
to justify its decision was conducted by Dr. Suzanne Poppema,
president of the National Abortion Federation. Another trial was
performed by Dr. Daniel Mishell, a senior scientist for RU-486’s
then-patent holder, the Population Council.

In October 2022, we also sued
[[link removed]]
HHS for
records regarding drug stability test results, new drug applications
and related materials of the abortion drug Mifeprex
[[link removed]]
well as requests for reviews and assessments of the manufacturing
facilities DANCO and GenBio where the abortion pills are produced.

We will report back to you as court events warrant!

DHS INVITES STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM TO TOUR U.S. MARITIME SECURITY
FACILITIES

Here’s a jaw-dropping acknowledgement that Biden administration has
placed ideology over national security.. Our _Corruption Chronicles_
blog reports
[[link removed]]
that Cuban officials were granted special access to sensitive
facilities:

> As if the Mexican border crisis were not sufficiently compromising
> national security, the Biden administration invited officials from a
> communist country that appears on the government’s list
>
[[link removed]
state
> terrorism sponsors to tour sensitive U.S. maritime security
> facilities. The bizarre secret jaunt was scheduled last week to
> grant a delegation from Cuba’s Border Guard and Ministry of
> Foreign Affairs access to the nation’s Coast Guard Headquarters in
> Washington D.C. as well as port facilities in Wilmington, North
> Carolina. Cuba appears on the State Department list of terrorist
> nations along with Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Cuba has a long
> history of providing advice, safe haven, communications, training,
> and financial support to guerrilla groups and individual terrorists,
> according to the State Department. Furthermore, Cuba maintains close
> and collaborative ties with designated state sponsors of terror such
> as Iran and North Korea and the communist island harbors multiple
> fugitives who committed or supported acts of terrorism in the United
> States.
>
> It makes no sense for any administration, Democrat or Republican, to
> grant an adversary with a history like Cuba’s access to essential
> Homeland Security facilities, especially at a time when the country
> is getting slammed with unknown foreigners entering illegally in
> droves. Apparently, the excursion was part of the International Port
> Security Program
>
[[link removed]],
> which seeks to reduce risk to U.S. maritime interests, including
> American ports and ships, and facilitate secure maritime trade
> globally in partnership with global maritime trading partners.
> “Through international port visits, the discussion and sharing of
> port security best practices and the development of mutual interests
> in securing ships coming to the United States enhance both U.S. port
> security and the security of the global maritime transportation
> system,” according to the U.S. Coast Guard’s description of the
> program.
>
> However, none of that should apply to Cuba, which also harbors
> dozens of fugitives and terrorists from American justice. Among them
> is Joanne Chesimard, who appears on the FBI’s most wanted
> terrorist list
>
[[link removed]
> is also known by her Black Panther name of Assata Shakur. Chesimard
> was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted by a jury of
> the 1979 murder of a New Jersey State Trooper. With the help of
> fellow cult members, she escaped from jail and fled to Cuba.
> Chesimard is among the targets of bipartisan legislation
>
[[link removed]]
> introduced last year to force Cuba’s communist government to
> extradite more than 70 fugitives receiving safe haven on the island.
> “It is unacceptable that the Cuban regime continues to harbor
> criminals responsible for committing heinous acts in the United
> States, including terrorist bombings, murdering American police
> officers, hijacking planes, and trafficking arms,” said Democrat
> Bob Menedez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
> when the bill was introduced. The veteran lawmaker added that “the
> families of the victims of these fugitives, including many in my
> home state of New Jersey, have spent decades unable to find closure
> and see justice done as a direct result of the Cuban regime’s
> actions.”
>
> Thanks to his Republican Senate colleague, Marco Rubio of Florida,
> the recent Coast Guard tour was cut short and the Cuban delegation
> only visited port facilities in North Carolina. In a letter
>
[[link removed]]
> to the president Rubio demanded that the visit be canceled and that
> Biden provide an explanation for sharing the nation’s security
> protocols with a foreign adversary. The senator reminds the
> commander-in-chief that Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism for its
> broken commitments to cooperate with U.S. counter-terrorism efforts
> and its continued support of the Maduro narco-regime in Venezuela,
> Revolutionary Armed Forces of Cuba (FARC) and the National
> Liberation Army (ELN) in Colombia. “Both of these foreign
> terrorist organizations carry out attacks against civilians and
> engage in narcotics trafficking that bring cocaine, fentanyl and
> other drugs to our shores,” Rubio writes. “It is unconscionable
> that you would allow security operatives from Cuba – a State
> Sponsor of Terrorism that actively cooperates with narcotics
> traffickers, China, Russia, and Iran – the opportunity to access
> sensitive national security installations and maritime security
> protocols.”

Until next week,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%;height:auto;" alt="advertisement"></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 - 2023, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]