Tags Posts tagged with "Judicial Watch"

Judicial Watch

0 124
Atomic Bomb
They are stealing our jobs, our manufacturing, and now our nuke secrets too?

A government-owned nuclear laboratory with a lengthy history of security breaches is under fire again for mistakenly shipping radioactive material on a commercial cargo plane. It marks the latest of many shameful scandals at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, among the world’s largest science institutions and the nation’s key nuclear weapons research facility. The massive lab is charged with developing technology to reduce global threats and ensure the safety, security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

Judicial Watch has long monitored the Los Alamos National Laboratory and was heavily involved in exposing a Chinese communist scientist (Wen Ho Lee), who stole nuclear secrets from the facility back in 1999. The Bill Clinton Justice Department refused to prosecute Lee because then Attorney General Janet Reno claimed the accusations against him were racist. Judicial Watch represented the whistleblower, Notra Trulock, responsible for launching an investigation into Lee’s actions. Trulok was the Department of Energy’s (DOE) intelligence operations chief and Clinton administration officials defamed him by accusing him of being a racist to cover up Lee’s repeated and embarrassing security violations.

A multitude of scandals have rocked the facility since then and Judicial Watch has closely followed the government’s perpetual failure to adequately guard the lab’s highly classified material. A few years ago, a Los Alamos scientist and his wife, both contractors at the facility, stole “classified restricted data” involving nuclear weapons and passed it along to a foreign government that’s hostile to the U.S. The scientist, Pedro Leonardo Mancheron, is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Argentina and his wife, Marjorie, also an American citizen, did technical writing and editing at Los Alamos.

Both individuals had security clearances and passed the classified material to a person they believed to be a Venezuelan government official. The scientist admitted selling the information relating to the “United States’ national defense” and lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). His wife admitted communicating restricted data belonging to the United States to another person with reason to believe that the information would be used to secure an advantage to Venezuela. She also admitted lying to the FBI.

A few years earlier, Los Alamos officials sent top secret data relating to nuclear weapons via an open electronic mail network and police accidentally stumbled upon it in a drug dealer’s mobile home during a drug bust. The highly classified information included details of the actual characteristics of nuclear material used in weapons. The 1,500 highly classified nuclear weapons designs were stashed in a trailer park near the lab along with paraphernalia to manufacture methamphetamine. This was hardly an isolated incident. In the late 90s and early 2000 the facility became an embarrassment to the Energy Department. Revelations of theft, fraud, security lapses and lax oversight kept Los Alamos in the news and led to the release of an Energy Department document labeling it “a systematic management failure.”

The problem is not limited to Los Alamos. The nation’s other government-owned nuclear labs have also experienced decades of faulty management, weak security and lousy oversight. A few years ago, a federal audit blasted the government agency, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), responsible for securing the nation’s nuclear weapons—and the facilities where they are housed. Among the probe’s findings was that Los Alamos grants entire organizations or functional groups unauthorized access to nuclear weapons drawings, in violation of DOE rules.

At another New Mexico facility, Sandia National Laboratory, investigators found repeated instances of “ineffective management of classified nuclear weapons drawings, a situation that could lead to unauthorized changes to the drawings.” At the Pantex nuclear weapons assembly plant in Texas, officials couldn’t even find a chunk of the nuclear weapons that federal investigators picked from the stockpile for testing. Keep in mind that these are government facilities that supposedly operate with maximum security.

The latest incident at Los Alamos was reported this month in a local newspaper article that says procedures were not followed when shipping “special nuclear material” to facilities in California and South Carolina. The radioactive material had been packaged for ground transport, the article states, but was mistakenly shipped aboard a commercial cargo plane, a violation of U.S. regulations. “Employees have been fired and other personnel actions have been taken,” according to the story. Not surprisingly, officials at the facility declined to provide details about the actions against the negligent employees and downplayed it as a “mix-up.”

0 15
Green Kickback
I'm beginning to realize why all these political environmental schemes are really called "Green."

An electric car company that folded after taking millions of taxpayer dollars was founded by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, but the mainstream media is ignoring this pertinent fact. The Mississippi-based company, GreenTech, shut down in January but is back in the spotlight because this week the state’s auditor demanded the firm repay $6.4 million in public funds. Only a small Richmond, Virginia newspaper prominently reported McAuliffe’s ties to the scandal, stating in the headline that “Mississippi auditor demands $6.4M repayment from McAuliffe’s former electric car company.”

Most mainstream news outlets ignored the story altogether and a few kept McAuliffe’s name out the minimal coverage. Washington D.C.’s mainstream newspaper went with a lengthy wire service story that matter-of-factly mentions McAuliffe in the very last sentence. “Among former insiders is Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe,” the end of the article states. “He resigned as the firm’s chairman in December 2012 and said he divested his interest.” How convenient! The article omits that, as GreenTech founder, McAuliffe brokered the deal in which the company got millions in public funds by promising to invest $60 million locally and creating hundreds of new full-time jobs. That never happened and instead taxpayers got fleeced. Now Mississippi State Auditor Stacey Pickering is ordering that the money be repaid with interest and investigative costs. The exact figure is $6,360,019.60.

McAuliffe is a renowned Democratic fundraiser who made a fortune with shady investments in a telecommunications giant that went bankrupt. He started his fundraising career in Jimmy Carter’s 1979 reelection campaign and has raised big bucks for Democrats over the years, but not without controversy. McAuliffe was investigated for campaign-finance abuses during the 1996 presidential election and was deposed by the Senate committee investigating the matter. In 2002 the Virginia governor was investigated for his role in an unprecedented case of political profiteering for turning a $100,000 investment in telecommunications giant Global Crossings into an $18 million profit. The company later made the fourth-largest bankruptcy filing in history and McAuliffe insisted he only did “political work” for the company’s founder who, incidentally, donated $1 million to Bill Clinton’s Presidential Library.

In 2013, McAuliffe appeared on Judicial Watch’s most corrupt politicians list and last year Judicial Watch sued the governor on behalf of Virginia voters for signing an executive order to restore voting rights to about 206,000 convicted felons. In court proceedings, Judicial Watch argued that the blanket restoration of rights to felons violates “provisions of the Virginia Constitution mandating that voting rights may only be restored on an individual basis, following a particular, individualized review and a finding of sufficient grounds for restoring such rights.” Plaintiffs alleged that their votes and the lawful votes of other Virginians will be cancelled out or diminished by felons who are not eligible to vote under Virginia’s laws and constitution.

Though his pals in the mainstream media are keeping his name out of the GreenTech scandal, McAuliffe could still be in serious trouble. The Virginia paper that reported his key role in the bankrupt electric car company points this out: “McAuliffe’s office has said the governor has had no involvement with the company since stepping down as its chairman and divesting his financial stake. But the escalating standoff in Mississippi raises the likelihood that the business deal McAuliffe brokered could be headed toward a bitter end in court. Ending his four-year term as governor with a higher national profile and record as an exuberant pitchman for Virginia, GreenTech’s unraveling could dog McAuliffe amid speculation about a 2020 presidential bid.”

0 24
Homeless Man
Hey there buddy, you look down on your luck, can I interest you in some free college and democratic socialism?

Amid a deepening federal investigation of Jane Sanders, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ wife, Judicial Watch has obtained records that paint a rather disturbing personal portrait of a heartless spouse—and longtime political advisor—of the Democratic Socialist candidate for president of the United States. During the Obama administration, the FBI began investigating Jane for falsifying documents to obtain a $10 million loan to expand a now-defunct liberal arts college in a town where her husband once served as mayor while she was the school’s president.

The school, Burlington College, was in a small city with the same name in northwestern Vermont. It’s a quaint town of about 42,000 that sits on the eastern shoreline of Lake Champlain and prides itself on having “diverse, forward-thinking citizens” that are “steeped in arts and culture.” Jane was president of the troubled college from 2004 to 2011 and in 2010, she had an ambitious plan to expand the campus by 33 acres, despite low enrollment and financial difficulties. The then-president of Burlington College drastically overstated donation amounts in loan applications, according to the Vermont news website that broke the story, to obtain a $10 million loan. Jane indicated there was $2.6 million in pledged donations but the school only got $676,000 in four years.

The loan went through, some allege after her husband’s senatorial office pressured the bank to approve it, and Jane masterminded a deal to purchase an undeveloped, 32-acre parcel of land and a 77,000-square-foot facility from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. The purchase included a facility that served as a group home for disabled people and, under the terms of the deal, Jane was supposed to negotiate the transfer of the disabled residents before the school took over the property. Instead Jane tried to kick the disabled people out of their group home, records obtained by Judicial Watch show. The records, part of an ongoing Judicial Watch investigation into the Jane Sanders fraud case, include electronic mail exchanges between Jane when she was president of Burlington College and two former mayors of the city of Burlington.

In a lengthy letter to the attorney (Todd Centybear) representing the group home for the disabled Jane indicates that she’s having trouble evicting the 16 residents from their building on the newly purchased property after the college had acquired the land. She writes: “It is simply not fair to expect the College to continue to carry the burden of the expenses associated with housing both your population and ours until February 2012.” The home for the disabled was being leased from the diocese and Jane was supposed to help relocate the residents, not evict them. The exchange shows, not only Jane’s heartlessness, but also her incompetence as the college president for not ensuring the negotiated transfer of those disabled people before the school took over the property.

In a separate email to then Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss, Jane forwards a laughable press release issued by the college announcing her resignation. “I wanted you to hear it from me,” she writes to the mayor. “It’s a good decision.” The press release announced that “In honor of her significant accomplishments, the College has given Sanders the title of President Emerita…” It adds that “The Board credits Sanders with negotiating the acquisition of its beautiful new 32-acre lakefront campus, a transformative achievement for the College.” In reality, the acquisition of that property bankrupted the College, and Sanders is now being investigated for bank fraud by the FBI for misrepresentations she made on loan documents to purchase the land for the campus.

Senator Sanders, who is up for reelection this year, hit the media circuit this week to defend his wife, assuring that she’s the most honest person he knows and that the investigation is politically motivated. “When you go after people’s wives that is really pathetic,” he said in a recent interview, adding that “it’s fairly pathetic that when people are involved in public life, it’s not only that they get attacked, but it’s their wives and their families that get attacked. That’s what this is about.” The couple lawyered up this week, hiring two prominent attorneys, one in Burlington and the other in Washington D.C. Also, this month, Jane launched a nonprofit organization, the Sanders Institute, to “revitalize democracy” with progressive policies aimed at racial and social justice as well as environmental and economic issues.

0 23
Doing Time
If you can't do the time, then don't leak memos of your meetings with Trump to the media... as the saying goes.

While, reports have come about indicating that Comey had testified to the Congress that he did in fact took notes on a computer during his meetings with President Trump, and has might as well taken them with him, when he was asked to quit office.

Tom Fitton, President Judicial Watch has released a letter demanding of the FBI to recover informaitot that former FBI Director James Comey had allegedly leaked to the media and then unlawfully removed from the Bureau’s records.

“As you are well aware, former FBI Director James Comey gave sworn testimony last week before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,” wrote Fitton in a June 14 letter.

“Among other things, Mr. Comey confirmed that, while in office, he created various memoranda regarding his meetings with President Trump.”

Although, Comey had declined to refer to Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, last year, took government related classified information with him, when he left office.

“Mr. Comey also confirmed that, after his departure from the FBI, he provided at least some of these memoranda to a third party, Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman, for the purpose of leaking them to the press,” said Fitton.  “Various media outlets now have reported that Professor Richman has provided these memoranda to the FBI. It is unclear whether he still retains copies of the memoranda.”

“These memoranda were created by Mr. Comey while serving as FBI director, were written on his FBI laptop, and concerned official government business,” Fitton added.

“The fact that Mr. Comey removed these memoranda from the FBI upon his departure, apparently for the purpose of subsequently leaking them to the press confirms the FBI’s failure to retain and properly manage its records in accordance with the Federal Records Act.

Even if Mr. Comey no longer has possession of these particular memoranda, as he now claims, some or all of these memoranda may still be in possession of a third party, such as Professor Richman, and must be recovered. Mr. Comey’s removal of these memoranda also suggests that other records may have been removed by Mr. Comey and may remain in his possession or in the possession of others. If so, these records must be recovered by the FBI as well.

As you may be aware, the Federal Records Act imposes a direct responsibility on you to take steps to recover any records unlawfully removed from the FBI. Specifically, upon learning of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency,” you must notify the Archivist of the United States. 44 U.S.C. § 3106. Upon learning that records have been unlawfully removed from the FBI, you then are required to initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records. Id.

In the event you fail to take these steps, you should be aware that Judicial Watch is authorized under the law to file a lawsuit in federal district court seeking that you be compelled to comply with the law. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Kerry, 844 F.3d 952, 955 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282,296 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Please advise us no later than June 26, 2017 if you intend to take the action required under the law. If we do not hear from you by that date, we will assume that you do not intend to take any action. Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

While, it has been highlighted time and again that document leakers, if fund could be charged, yet it is to be noted that this isn’t the first time that the Trump administration has experienced leak of information, during their short time in the office.

0 19
Border Crossing
"Here, I filled this bag with gatorade and chips for your crossing, enjoy your tax-free stay in the USA!"

Despite President Trump’s pledge to tighten border security Border Patrol agents in one of the nation’s busiest sectors for illegal immigrants and drugs were ordered this week to stand back after a surveillance camera recorded a group entering the U.S. from Mexico, federal law enforcement sources told Judicial Watch. The incident occurred in the vast desert terrain between Arizona and Mexico, Border Patrol officials said.

An agency Buckeye camera operated out of a mobile truck recorded the illegal crossers entering through Nogales, a town of around 20,000 adjacent to the Mexican state of Sonora. The video camera is used by the Border Patrol to monitor areas for illegal crossings and can be panned to follow crossers’ movements, sources told Judicial Watch.

Upon crossing the border, the group of illegal immigrants entered what the feds refer to as a “Samaritan camp,” according to a Border Patrol official who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation from Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly’s management team. The special camps are operated by an Arizona-based open borders advocacy group called No Más Muertes (No More Deaths) and consist of several trailers on private property. The nonprofit’s mission is to end death and suffering in the Mexico-U.S. borderlands and enact immigration reform in America.

Besides the “Samaritan camps” along the Mexican border, the organization leaves water, food, blankets and other supplies along trails used by illegal immigrants to travel north. No Más Muertes also has staff in Mexico to provide phones for deportees and assistance, including first aid, for northbound migrants.

Although the organization’s sanctuary trailers are situated on the U.S. side of the border, federal agents are legally allowed to enter the property and remove the illegal crossers, law enforcement sources confirm. “If agents observe illegal conduct, apprehension does not require a warrant,” a federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the matter told Judicial Watch. In this case, probable cause had been established by the unlawful conduct observed by Border Patrol agents via the high-tech Buckeye camera. Instead of entering the property as legally allowed and removing the illegal aliens, agents were ordered to “negotiate” with the occupants,” Border Patrol officials said.

Photos produced by the surveillance camera were also produced to Judicial Watch by outraged Border Patrol officials who say Obama-era, open borders policies are still being implemented by Kelly’s management team. “Instead of proactively patrolling a porous and volatile border, Border Patrol resources are being utilized on the perimeter of the property to thwart any further incursions into or retreats from the sanctuary camp,” according to a law enforcement source involved in the Nogales incident.

Veteran agents say, that although Trump promised to toughen up security along the porous and increasingly violent Mexican border, for unknown reasons his DHS secretary continues to implement Obama sanctuary policies. There is a great concern among rank-and-file agents that these passive, limited enforcement policies increase the risk to agents and decrease the deterrence of the Trump border strategy.

Just a few weeks ago, Kelly stripped Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents of their independent enforcement authority by implementing a new policy that requires a supervisor’s permission to issue a detainer for illegal aliens suspected of crimes. Judicial Watch obtained the document outlining the new policy, which federal agents say is a constraint that creates a bottleneck and hampers their ability to take efficient on-site action against criminals in the country illegally.

0 29
Border Sentry
Vigilance and an honest day's labor - No wonder Democrats hate our Border Patrol agents!

National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd is under investigation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for reporting corruption and misconduct in agency management, including a disturbing order issued to officers directing them not to patrol a vulnerable stretch of the northern border with Canada. Judicial Watch has obtained government documents and interviewed numerous sources with direct knowledge of the situation, which appears retaliatory.

The ordeal began in mid-April when Judd, who heads the union that represents some 16,000 Border Patrol agents nationwide, denounced a directive to agents to purposely leave a 40-mile section of the Havre Sector in Montana unsecured. The Havre station covers approximately 108 miles of international border with Canada and much of it is sparsely populated.

A conservative news outlet obtained a document from a Havre Sector Border Patrol manager ordering agents to leave 40 miles of Montana border open and unpatrolled. In an article, various Border Patrol agents blamed Obama-era policies and widespread corruption in the Havre Sector’s upper management. One agent said criminal cartels exploit border weaknesses daily so they’re certain to exploit such a large area of open and unpatrolled border.

The federal officers spoke on the condition that their identity be kept anonymous, clearly because they feared retaliation. However, Judd, a veteran Border Patrol agent, went on the record and now DHS is going after him. In the news story Judd revealed that in recent years the Havre sector has seen more complaints than any other sector.

The union chief also criticized DHS Secretary John Kelly for endorsing Obama-era open border policies and condoning his predecessors’ (Janet Napolitano and Jeh Johnson) failures. Judd also said this in the article: “President Trump is the president of the common citizen and the choice of the rank-and-file Border Patrol Agents; unfortunately there are those highly paid career managers who want to believe they’re above everyone else — up to and including the President of the United States.”

Secretary Kelly’s DHS management team responded by launching an investigation into Judd, accusing him of “unauthorized disclosure of law enforcement information” in the news story referenced above. In a letter to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Border Patrol Council’s legal division writes that nothing in the article qualified as law enforcement sensitive information, though such disclosures are protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) as well as the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA).

The article did not specify the exact location of the 40 miles, whether the 40 miles was contiguous or even the Border Patrol station within the Havre Sector where the order was given, the letter states. “Based upon the law, DHS/OIG cannot legally sustain any allegation that Mr. Judd improperly disclosed law enforcement information,” the letter says. “Also, we understand that DHS/OIG is only the investigatory body responsible for gathering the facts and that any threatened or actual personnel action would be taken by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. As a result, we are forwarding this memorandum to CBP as well as the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to ensure that no threatened or actual personnel action be taken against Mr. Judd.”

Originally, the agency watchdog launched a probe into allegations of corruption divulged by Judd in an electronic mail to Border Patrol Chief Ronald Vitiello and Associate Chief Rodolfo Karisch. In the email, titled “Allegation of Corruption,” Judd cited evidence he believed showed that an operations change at the Havre Sector was “due to either corruption, retaliation, or for political purposes.” Judd expressed concern for the safety of agents as well as the public and the DHS OIG launched a criminal investigation into Havre Sector management officials.

At some point in the corruption probe of Havre Sector management, the watchdog initiated an administrative investigation into Judd for reasons that aren’t clear. Judicial Watch reached out to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the 60,000-employee agency that encompasses the Border Patrol, but calls went unanswered. The administration’s official reason for going after Judd is the “unauthorized disclosure of law enforcement information.” In a document obtained by Judicial Watch, the DHS OIG warns Judd that he may be subject to disciplinary action that includes termination.

0 15
Robert L. Rosebrock arrested

Judicial Watch today announced it filed a series of motions alleging constitutional and other legal deficiencies in the extraordinary prosecution of its client, Robert L. Rosebrock, a Vietnam-era veteran who faces federal criminal charges for purportedly displaying two four by six inch American Flags above a Veterans Affairs (VA) fence on Memorial Day, May 30, 2016. Judicial Watch’s team of attorneys recently filed:

A motion to suppress statements Rosebrock allegedly made to a VA police officer during a custodial interrogation of Rosebrock without advising him of his Fifth Amendment rights, as required by Miranda v. Arizona.

Two motions to dismiss the “flag posting” charge and two photography-related charges against Rosebrock on First Amendment and other constitutional grounds.
A motion to dismiss all charges against Rosebrock on the grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution and retaliation for Rosebrock’s having exercised his First Amendment rights.

The photography-related charges stem from allegations that Rosebrock took photographs of VA police on Memorial Day 2016 and Sunday, June 12, 2016, without VA permission. Rosebrock is alleged to have taken unauthorized photographs of a VA police officer on Memorial Day 2016 as the officer took him into custody, interrogated, and cited him for purportedly displaying the two napkin-sized American Flags on a VA fence. Rosebrock also is alleged to have taken unauthorized photographs of VA police officers handcuffing conservative activist Ted Hayes on June 12, 2016 after Hayes purportedly displayed an American Flag on the same VA fence. Hayes, dressed as “Uncle Sam,” was not charged with any wrongdoing despite being detained and handcuffed.

The case, United States of America v. Robert L. Rosebrock, (CC11, 4920201; 4920202; 6593951), will be heard by U.S. Magistrate Judge Steve Kim in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judicial Watch attorney Sterling E. Norris, a former Los Angeles County deputy district attorney, and Los Angeles-based defense attorney Robert Patrick Sticht are representing Rosebrock.

The fence is part of the “Great Lawn Gate” entrance to the Los Angeles National Veterans Park, a public park on the corner of Wilshire and San Vincente Boulevards in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles. The gate and park are part of a larger, 388-acre parcel that includes the Veterans Home of West Los Angeles.

Rosebrock (below), 74, along with fellow veterans, Hayes and others, have been assembling at the site nearly every Sunday and Memorial Day since March 9, 2008, to protest what they believe is the VA’s failure to make full use of the valuable West Los Angeles property for the benefit and care of veterans, particularly homeless veterans.

Deeded to the federal government in 1888 for the specific purpose of caring for disabled veterans, the property includes the veterans’ home, but also entirely unrelated uses such as a stadium for UCLA’s baseball team, an athletic complex for a nearby private prep school, a golf course, laundry facilities for a nearby Marriott hotel, storage and maintenance facilities for 20th Century Fox Television’s production sets, the Brentwood Theatre, soccer practice and match fields for a private girls’ soccer club, dog park, and a farmer’s market.

VA officials previously told Rosebrock that a federal regulation allowed hanging the American Flag and POW/MIA flags on the “Great Lawn Gate” fence, and Rosebrock, Hayes and others hung as many as 30 full-size America Flags at the fence at the same time without incident.

Rosebrock faces up to six months’ imprisonment if found guilty on any of the three charges.

A hearing on Rosebrock’s motions is scheduled for March 7, 2017, in Los Angeles, CA. Rosebrock’s trial had also been set for March 7, but the court has delayed the trial.

“We still hold out hope that Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice will put an early and deserved end to this case,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Rosebrock’s rights have been repeatedly and needlessly violated. No public good can be served by prosecuting a 74-year-old veteran over the placement of two small American Flags at the entrance to a park honoring veterans on Memorial Day.”

0 19
Will the Court pierce Anthony Weiner's laptop in the Emailgate Scandal?

Judicial Watch today announced a hearing will be held Tuesday, March 7, 2017, regarding Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails that were sent or received during her tenure from February 2009 to January 31, 2013, as well as all emails by other State Department employees to Clinton regarding her non-‘state.gov’ email address (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)). The case is before Judge James E. Boasberg.

Items of discussion at the hearing will be the emails of Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, Abedin’s estranged husband. Judicial Watch also will be seeking answers as to the timing of the release of Clinton’s emails that were recovered by the FBI in its investigation of the server used by Clinton and others.

The State Department has previously been ordered to produce documents to Judicial Watch, and is currently processing 500 pages per month from disk one of seven available disks. At the upcoming hearing, the State Department must address the number of documents subject to FOIA on the remaining disks.

The hearing details are:

Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Time: 9:30 a.m. ET

Location: Courtroom 21

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

333 Constitution Ave NW

Washington, DC 20001

The lawsuit was originally filed in May 2015.

0 22

Will Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice (DOJ) continue wasting taxpayer dollars to criminally prosecute a 74-year-old U.S. Army veteran for posting two American Flags in a southern California Veterans Administration facility?

The absurd case was initiated under President Obama, but is set to go to trial in federal court next month under new DOJ leadership. The military veteran faces up to six months in jail for the ghastly offense of affixing Old Glory at a site honoring those who served their country.

Judicial Watch reached out to Sessions’ office but has not heard back from the new Attorney General after various attempts via telephone and electronic mail with the DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs.

Here’s some background; U.S. Army veteran Robert Rosebrock posted a pair of four-by-six-inch American Flags on the outside fence of a VA facility in West Los Angeles on Memorial Day in 2016. The fence is part of the “Great Lawn Gate” and marks the entrance to the Los Angeles National Veterans Park.

The public facility is part of a larger, 388-acre parcel that includes the Veterans Home of West Los Angeles. Since 2008, Rosebrock and a group of fellow veterans have assembled at the gate weekly and on Memorial Day to protest the VA’s failure to make full use of the property to benefit veterans, particularly those who are homeless.

The parcel was deeded to the federal government in 1888 for the specific purpose of caring for disabled veterans. Though it includes the veterans’ homey, the property is also used for a number of unrelated causes.

Among them is a stadium for the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) baseball team, an athletic complex for a nearby private high school, laundry facilities for a local hotel, storage and maintenance of production sets for 20th Century Fox Television, the Brentwood Theatre, soccer practice and match fields for a private girls’ soccer club, a dog park, and a farmer’s market.

Rosebrock and his veterans group were previously advised by VA officials a federal regulation allowed the hanging of the American Flag and the POW/MIA (Prisoner of War/Missing in Action) flag on the “Great Lawn Gate” fence and dozens of full-size American Flags appeared on the fence at once without incident. But the VA later claimed that it erred in allowing the flags because it incorrectly interpreted the applicable regulation.

Since then, the VA has cited Rosebrock for violating the provision on more than 15 occasions, but the charges were always dropped until now. Read the flag citation here. The feds are also criminally prosecuting Rosebrock for taking pictures of a VA Police officer while the officer detained and cited him for posting the two small American Flags on the fence. A separate count charges him with taking photos of a conservative African-American activist, dressed as Uncle Sam, being handcuffed for hanging a large American Flag on the same fence. The activist, Ted Hayes, was not charged with any wrongdoing though he was detained and cuffed like a criminal.

Various federal courts and the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ have recognized a First Amendment right to record police activity. In fact, in 2012 the DOJ ordered the Baltimore City Police Department to adopt policies that “affirmatively set forth the First Amendment right to record police activity,” yet that same agency is prosecuting Rosebrock for recording police at the VA.

“Recording governmental officers engaged in public duties is a form of speech through which private individuals may gather and disseminate information of public concern, including the conduct of law enforcement officers,” the DOJ writes in its mandate to Baltimore Police. The measure is intended to apply to other law enforcement agencies nationwide.

Rosebrock’s trial is scheduled for March 7 in a Los Angeles federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. Judicial Watch and Los Angeles attorney Robert P. Sticht are representing Rosebrock served in the U.S. Army in the 1960s at the Schofield Barracks in Hawaii.

0 13
So who is corrupt here?

An update from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

For many years we have fought to restore integrity to elections in the United States, fighting both the Obama Justice Department and its leftist allies, such as the well-funded ACLU. You can sample our efforts here.  Finally the issue of election integrity has new national prominence thanks to President Donald Trump’s call for an investigation into illegal voting.

I wrote about this for The Daily Caller:

Leftists and their media outlets have been all too eager to dismiss President Donald Trump’s charge that as many as 5 million illegal aliens voted in the 2016 presidential election, enough to easily swing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.

Many of these pundits, backed by an army of so-called “fact-checkers,” would have you believe that the number of illegals who are registering to vote and voting is insignificant. Oh, there may be the occasional, misguided “undocumented worker” who inadvertently wanders into the election booth, they seem to suggest. But, surely, not enough to make any difference.

Anyone who thinks that needs to think again.

There are a total of 43 million noncitizens currently living within U.S. borders. Of these, approximately 12 million are illegal aliens. Not only are there well-documented reasons to believe that many of them may be violating election integrity, the fact is many on the left are more than happy to see them do so. A Rasmussen Reports poll last year found that 53 percent of the Democratic Party supports allowing illegal aliens to vote.

Part of the problem is that election laws in the United States are a complicated hodgepodge of federal, state, and local rules, regulations, and red tape. Generally speaking, it is illegal for any noncitizens to cast a vote in any election, and those who do are at least theoretically subject to criminal penalties if they are caught.

But many states do not have a voter ID requirement. Worse yet, many states do not even have a requirement to certify citizenship, other than saying out loud that you are a citizen. All too many of the systems that are in place to prevent unlawful voting are either nonexistent or are so weak that they are useless. We are naïve to think that the millions of people who are present in the United States illegally are all resisting the temptation to cast unlawful votes, especially when so much is at stake – including their being able to continue illegally residing within our borders.

As I point out in my book, Clean House, in 2014 a disturbing study by political scientists at Old Dominion found that 6.4 percent of foreign nationals residing in the United States voted in the 2008 presidential election. If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election were applied to 2016 — 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally, with probably 1.13 million voting for Democrats.

Add to that the 2012 Pew Research Center study noting that “approximately 2.75 million people have active registrations in more than one state.” On top of that, the study revealed, more than “1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as active voters.” Combine those figures with the number of aliens the Old Dominion study cites, and the Trump allegations may not be so far out of line.

A full-scale, non-partisan federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue.  I’m not aware of any systematic federal investigation of voter fraud – ever.  Initially, such an investigation would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals. Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity team, headed up by Robert Popper, former Deputy Chief of the Voting Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, would be more than happy to help.

Of course we’ll keep you updated on our efforts and those of the Trump administration.

Social Media