Mad Mad News

Mad Truths | Mad Success

announced

Judicial Watch Sues Montgomery County Police for Records about Public Disturbances Outside Homes of Supreme Court Justices after Leak of Draft Dobbs Opinion

Filed Under: INVESTIGATIONS, Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) lawsuit for records from the Montgomery County Police Department concerning unlawful protests outside the homes of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Montgomery County Police Department (No. C-15-CV-23-001360)).

Judicial Watch filed suit in Montgomery County Circuit Court after the Montgomery County Police failed to respond to a June 16, 2022, Public Information Act (PIA) request for:

All records including email communications (including emails, complete email chains, and email attachments), memoranda, draft memoranda, reports, investigative reports, incident reports and other communications maintained by the Montgomery County Police Department and/or communicated with any of the below listed agencies, or employees of those agencies concerning protests, demonstrations, marches, pickets, or gatherings at the Montgomery County dwellings of Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

(1) The U.S. Marshals Service (domain usdoj.gov)

(2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation (domain fbi.gov)

(3) The Department of Justice (domain justice.gov)

(4) Maryland State Police (domain maryland.gov)

(5) Maryland Attorney General’s Office (domain oag.state.md.gov)

On May 2, 2022, Politico published a leaked draft what would soon be U.S. Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (No. 19-1392), a decision that would later overturn the court’s pro-abortion decisions Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1971)) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)).

Since the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion, leftists targeted conservative justices’ homes with protests in violation of federal law, which prohibits “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice … with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer.” Several justices received death threats and, on June 8, 2022, a heavily armed man was arrested outside Justice Kavanaugh’s home in Bethesda, and was charged with attempted murder.

Because the violations of the protest law protecting justices has yet to be enforced, Attorney General Merrick Garland was accused during a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing of politicizing the Justice Department and prosecuting conservatives more aggressively than liberals.

“For more than a year, the Montgomery County Police Department has unlawfully stonewalled Judicial Watch’s request for records and communications with the Biden administration about the dangerous and illegal protests that were trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices at their homes,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues Montgomery County Police for Records about Public Disturbances Outside Homes of Supreme Court Justices after Leak of Draft Dobbs Opinion appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch Sues Secret Service for Records on Aggression and Biting by President Biden’s Dog

Filed Under: INVESTIGATIONS, Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records of any incidents of aggression or biting by President Biden’s dog Commander. 

Judicial Watch filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the U.S. Secret Service, a component of Homeland Security, failed to respond adequately to a December 28, 2022, FOIA request (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:23-cv-00612)). Based upon a tip it received, Judicial Watch is Sasking for:

  • Any records related to incidents of aggression and bites involving the Biden family dog, “Commander,” including communications between Secret Service officials in the Uniformed and Non-Uniformed Divisions involved in White House operations and the Presidential Protection Division.

The Secret Service acknowledged receipt of the request and wrote in a January 20. 2023, letter that it had found responsive records and was processing them. At the time of the complaint, however, it had not produced any of the records.

Acquired in December 2021, Commander, a pure-bred German shepherd, replaced another German shepherd, Major, which left the White House following a series of attacks on Secret Service and White House staff.

In April 2022 Judicial Watch released records detailing multiple attacks and damages to United States Secret Service (USSS) members by Major at both the White House and Biden’s lake home in Wilmington, DE. The documents reveal that a member of USSS who was attacked by the dog was displeased that White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki misled the press about the incident.

In August 2021, Judicial Watch uncovered records from the Secret Service revealing Biden’s dog Major was responsible for many more biting incidents than the Biden White House had publicly acknowledged.

One email noted that “at the current rate an Agent or Officer has been bitten every day this week (3/1-3/8) causing damage to attire or bruising/punctures to the skin.”

“Judicial Watch already caught the Biden White House lying about their family dog attacking and injuring Secret Service and White House employees,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Now it seems their new dog is also out of control and the Secret Service is hiding records about the issue.”

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues Secret Service for Records on Aggression and Biting by President Biden’s Dog appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch Sues Homeland Security for Records on Censorship Meetings with Big Tech

Filed Under: INVESTIGATIONS, Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department Homeland Security (DHS) for records showing cooperation between the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) and social media platforms to censor and suppress free speech (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:23-cv-00552)).

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (a component of DHS) failed to respond to a December 2022 request for:

Records and communications of Jen Easterly, Director, CISA; Christopher Krebs, Former Director, CISA; Matt Masterson, Former CISA Senior Cybersecurity Advisor; and Brian Scully, CISA Senior Cybersecurity Advisor, regarding:

  1. CISA facilitated or hosted USG-industry meetings with Meta (@meta.com); Facebook (@facebook.com); Twitter (@twitter.com); Wikimedia Foundation (@wikimedia.org); Pinterest (@pinterest.com); LinkedIn (@linkedin.com); concerning election security;
  2. Election Infrastructure Subsector Government Coordinating Council Meetings;
  3. Election Infrastructure Subsector Government Coordinating Council Joint MDM Working Group Meetings; and
  4. Preparatory meetings with any employees of the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Office of the Director of National Intelligence; National Security Agency; U.S. Secret Service; concerning any of the aforementioned USG-industry meetings and/or Coordinating Council Meetings.

On December 2, 2022, journalist Matt Taibbi used the social media platform Twitter to expose the “Twitter Files,” which include multiple mentions of the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency’s censorship activities.

A December 16 tweet thread includes:

37.Reports also came from different agencies. Here, an employee recommends “bouncing” content based on evidence from “DHS etc”

A supplemental tweet thread on December 18 reports:

2. In July of 2020, San Francisco FBI agent Elvis Chan tells Twitter executive Yoel Roth to expect written questions from the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), the inter-agency group that deals with cyber threats.

3. The questionnaire authors seem displeased with Twitter for implying, in a July 20th “DHS/ODNI/FBI/Industry briefing,” that “you indicated you had not observed much recent activity from official propaganda actors on your platform.”

9. He then sent another note internally, saying the premise of the questions was “flawed,” because “we’ve been clear that official state propaganda is definitely a thing on Twitter.” Note the italics for emphasis.

A March 9 tweet thread includes:

3. But Twitter was more like a partner to government. With other tech firms it held a regular “industry meeting” with FBI and DHS, and developed a formal system for receiving thousands of content reports from every corner of government: HHS, Treasury, NSA, even local police

4. Emails from the FBI, DHS and other agencies often came with spreadsheets of hundreds or thousands of account names for review. Often, these would be deleted soon after.

19. The same agencies (FBI, DHS/CISA, GEC) invite the same “experts” (Thomas Rid, Alex Stamos), funded by the same foundations (Newmark, Omidyar, Knight) trailed by the same reporters (Margaret Sullivan, Molly McKew, Brandy Zadrozny) seemingly to every conference, every panel.

Other “Twitter files” released by Elon Musk show that FBI pressure on “Russian disinformation” led to censorship:

San Francisco FBI agent Elvis Chan “[sent] 10 documents to Twitter’s then-Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth, through Teleporter, a one-way communications channel from the FBI to Twitter,” the evening before the release of the Post story.

The “Twitter files” show the FBI pushed Twitter to also censor countless Twitter users who tweeted concerns (and jokes) about election integrity just before the 2020 election.

In testimony before the “House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government” Taibbi reported extensive collusion between Big Tech and government, at all levels – including the Biden White House, the Democratic National Committee, and federal, state and local law enforcement – all meant to stifle free speech and withhold information from the American people.

In May 2022, the States of Missouri and Louisiana sued President Biden and several federal employees in their official capacities for violation of the First Amendment.

In one of the depositions in the case, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Cyber Branch for San Francisco Division of the FBI, Elvis Chan, testified he and fellow officials had weekly meetings with major social media companies to warn against Russian disinformation attempts ahead of the 2020 election. The lawsuit also produced Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency meeting minutes that discuss its attempts to manage information being posted by social media contributors.

The Twitter Files also mention a report titled The Long Fuse: Misinformation and the 2020 Election, which was prepared by the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), a left-leaning collective of organizations that worked with the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency on its censorship of online information during the 2020 election.

“There is an unholy conspiracy in the Biden administration to censor Americans in collusion with Big Tech,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This new Judicial Watch lawsuit shows the censorship abuse is furthered by unlawful secrecy and cover-ups.

Judicial Watch is heavily involved in countering government and Big Tech censorship. Buried within the Twitter Files are references and descriptions of meetings and communications Judicial Watch has been investigating through FOIA requests and lawsuits.

For example, Judicial Watch recently sued the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for records and communications maintained by its leadership, including Chairman Lina Khan, about Twitter and its owner Elon Musk. FTC document-demands to Twitter obtained by the House Judiciary Committee show onerous requests for all documents about Elon Musk and documents concerning Twitter’s work with journalists to disclose to the public the details about the government’s and Twitter’s censorship of American citizens. A House report titled “The Weaponization of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC): An Agency’s Overreach to Harass Elon Musk’s Twitter” details:

Twitter allowed … journalists, as part of their reporting on government censorship by proxy, to review internal communications and correspondence between Twitter employees and federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[T]he FTC’s first demand in its letter sent after the initial installment of the Twitter Files did not concern what private user information may have been at risk. Instead, the FTC demanded that Twitter “[i]dentify all journalists and other members of the media to whom” Twitter has granted access to since Musk bought the company. The FTC even named some of the specific journalists – “Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, [and] Abigail Shrier” – with whom Twitter has engaged on the Twitter Files. The FTC also demanded to know any “other members of the media to whom You have granted any type of access to the Company’s internal communications” for any reason whatsoever.

In February, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against HHS for records on pressuring Big Tech to censor “COVID misinformation,” specifically with regard to any communications made between the Surgeon General’s communications director and social media companies — Twitter, Facebook, etc. — regarding COVID-19 vaccines. The Twitter Files reveal how the pharmaceutical industry lobbied social media over COVID vaccine content.

Also in February, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records of communication related to the work of the Election Integrity Partnership that could detail coordinated censorship activities. One section of the Twitter Files calls the FBI “Twitter’s Subsidiary,” illustrated by an episode where Twitter, one day just prior to the 2020 election, received so many moderation (censorship) requests from the FBI that a Twitter executive congratulated staffers at the end for completing the “monumental undertaking.”

In January 2023, not long after the Twitter Files were made public, Judicial Watch sued the DOJ for records of communications between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and social media sites regarding foreign influence in elections and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Announcing the lawsuit, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “The FBI was literally paying Twitter to censor Americans just before the 2020 election … they are now covering up their misconduct.”

In November 2022, Judicial Watch sued the DHS for all records of communications between CISA and the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), which reportedly was active during the 2022 midterm elections. Among the news outlets flagged by EIP were websites for Just the News, New York Post, Fox News, Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Epoch Times and Breitbart. A week later, in a Senate floor speech, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) described revelations from the Twitter Files about Twitter and 2020 election interference, and other instances of Biden administration collusion with social media firms to censor and withhold information from the American people.

In September 2022, Judicial Watch sued the Secretary of State of the State of California for censoring a Judicial Watch election integrity video.

In April 2021, Judicial Watch published documents revealing how California state officials pressured social media companies (Twitter, Facebook, Google (YouTube)) to censor posts about the 2020 election.

In May 2021, Judicial Watch revealed documents showing that Iowa state officials pressured social media companies Twitter and Facebook to censor posts about the 2020 election.

In July 2021, Judicial Watch uncovered records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that revealed that Facebook coordinated closely with the CDC to control the COVID narrative and “misinformation” and that over $3.5 million in free advertising given to the CDC by social media companies.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues Homeland Security for Records on Censorship Meetings with Big Tech appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch Sues Biden Administration for Extradition Records of Illegal Alien Who Ran Over and Killed Brother of Judicial Watch Client in Chicago

Filed Under: INVESTIGATIONS, Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department and the State Department for extradition records of illegal alien Saul Chavez, who ran over and killed William “Denny” McCann, the brother of Judicial Watch client Brian McCann (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al. (No. 1:23-cv-00701

The lawsuit was filed after both the Justice Department and the State Department failed to respond adequately to similar FOIA requests submitted on February 1, 2023, for access to Chavez’s extradition records.

Judicial Watch explained to the court:

In June 2011, Saul Chavez ran over and killed William “Denny” McCann, brother of Judicial Watch client Brian McCann. At the time, Chavez was an unlawfully present criminal alien and had just completed a two-year term of probation for a 2009 DUI conviction. Chavez was charged with felony aggravated driving under the influence but was released by the Cook County Sheriff’s Office in November 2011 despite an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer. Chavez subsequently fled to Mexico …

Chavez was extradited from Mexico in December 2022.

Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the State Department for Chavez’s extradition records, which include, but are not limited to “correspondence between the Office of the Legal Adviser and the U.S. Department of Justice, state and federal authorities in the U.S.,” as well as “copies of court records of the legal proceedings” and “committal documents, such as the extradition order, affidavit of waiver, legal briefs and hearing transcript, decision memo to the Secretary of State or to his or her Deputy, and the surrender warrant.”

To date, the State Department has failed to respond – let alone produce records – to Judicial Watch’s request.

The Justice Department denied the request outright, citing, among the other reasons, the privacy interests of the criminal Chavez.

In July 2015, Brian testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing titled “Oversight of the Administration’s Misdirected Immigration Enforcement Policies: Examining the Impact on Public Safety and Honoring the Victims.” Brian McCann explained:

Denny was crossing Kedzie Avenue on a marked crosswalk four years ago and was violently struck by a drunk driver who dragged Denny under his car for a block in an attempt to flee before Denny died. The family was notified by the Chicago Police and the killer was placed into custody and charged with aggravated DUI causing death. Two days later ICE issued a detainer because the young man was an illegal alien with a prior felony. The family was assured by the Cook County prosecutor that the defendant would not be allowed to post bail and be released. Three months later the Cook County Board passed the ordinance that effectively requires the sheriff to ignore detainers. During the intervening weeks after Denny’s violent death, Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle and former mayoral candidate and Commissioner Jesus Garcia pushed for the ordinance and rammed it through on September 7, 2011. Two months later the killer made bail and absconded to Mexico.

“My family and I continue to seek justice for Denny. Now that he has been extradited from Mexico, we are one step closer. But, we still want to know: what took so long? With the help of Judicial Watch, we hope to find out,” said Brian McCann.

“Denny McCann was killed by an illegal alien with a prior felony – and then that criminal was released and fled to Mexico as a result of Chicago’s lawless and deadly sanctuary policies,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And to make matters worse, the Biden administration is unlawfully hiding records about why it took over a decade to extradite from Mexico this murderous criminal.”

During his effort to obtain justice for his brother’s violent death, Judicial Watch filed suit on behalf of Brian McCann against the Cook County Sheriff in April 2013, asking the court to order the sheriff’s department to carry out its legal duties under federal immigration law. Chavez had been charged with felony aggravated driving under the influence but was released by the sheriff from a Cook County jail in November 2011 despite an ICE immigration detainer. The case was dismissed by the circuit court and afterward, in March 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

In March 2021, Judicial Watch’s taxpayer lawsuit against the San Francisco Sheriff’s sanctuary policy uncovered that over 2,400 criminal illegal aliens were released under the department’s policy on communications with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about criminal illegal aliens in the Sheriff’s custody.

Judicial Watch also just uncovered how, until recently, the Biden administration had been diverting 150-200 Federal Air Marshals monthly to the Mexican border to provide illegal immigrants with welfare checks, transportation, and other basic services. This practice reduced their capacity to perform their original mission of air transportation security. The Federal Air Marshal Service, which operates under the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), was created after 9/11 to prevent another terrorist attack. Judicial Watch’s exposure of this security issue to the public helped force the Biden administration to returnthe Federal Air Marshals to their regular duties.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues Biden Administration for Extradition Records of Illegal Alien Who Ran Over and Killed Brother of Judicial Watch Client in Chicago appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch Victory: Colorado Agrees to Settle Lawsuit over Ineligible Voters; Agrees to Extensive Reporting and Review of Voter Roll Clean Up Efforts

Filed Under: INVESTIGATIONS, Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that Colorado’s secretary of state agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging that Colorado failed to remove ineligible voters from its rolls. As part of its settlement Colorado will report to Judicial Watch on its yearly progress in cleaning up its rolls for the next six years. Since Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit, Colorado voter roll removals increased by 78%, from 172,379 to 306,303 per reporting period.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in October 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of itself and three residents of Colorado, alleging that the state had failed to clean its voter rolls as required by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Griswold, et al.(No. 20-cv-02992)). In August 2021, the court ruled that Judicial Watch’s lawsuit could proceed. Judicial Watch was later joined in its lawsuit by the American Constitution Party of Colorado and the Libertarian Party of Colorado.

The lawsuit alleged that high registration rates and other voter roll metrics “indicate an ongoing, systemic problem with Colorado’s voter list maintenance efforts.” Judicial Watch sought a court order declaring that Colorado and its secretary of state violated the NVRA and ordering them to “develop and implement a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the registrations of ineligible registrants from the voter rolls in Colorado.”

The number of outdated registrations removed by Colorado under a key NVRA provision increased after Judicial Watch filed suit, from 172,379 registrations for the reporting period ending in 2018 to 306,303 registrations for the period ending in 2022—an increase of 78%. The settlement agreement requires Colorado to provide Judicial Watch its most recent voter roll data for each Colorado county each year for six years. This data is to include:

  • The total number of registered and eligible voters, active voters, and inactive voters.
  • The total number of address confirmation notices sent to Colorado voters pursuant to the NVRA, the number received back confirming or changing an address, and the number that were undeliverable or not returned.
  • The total number of registrations addresses removed pursuant to key provisions of the NVRA.

“Coming on the heels of a massive voter roll clean up in Colorado thanks to our lawsuit, this settlement agreement is a major victory for all Colorado voters,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Simply put: Cleaner voter rolls mean cleaner elections.”

Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.

In February Los Angeles County confirmed removal of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since last year under the terms of a settlement agreement in a federal lawsuit that Judicial Watch filed in 2017.

Judicial Watch settled a federal election integrity lawsuit against New York City after the city removed 441,083 ineligible names from the voter rolls and promised to take reasonable steps going forward to clean its voter registration lists.

Kentucky also removed hundreds of thousands of old registrations after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

In February 2022, Judicial Watch settled a voter roll clean-up lawsuit against North Carolina and two of its counties after North Carolina removed over 430,000 inactive registrations from its voter rolls.

In March 2022, a Maryland court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch’s challenge to the Democratic state legislature’s “extreme” congressional gerrymander.

In May 2022, Judicial Watch sued Illinois on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two other registered Illinois voters to stop state election officials from extending Election Day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads its election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

###

The post Judicial Watch Victory: Colorado Agrees to Settle Lawsuit over Ineligible Voters; Agrees to Extensive Reporting and Review of Voter Roll Clean Up Efforts appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch: Records Show Air Force Academy Focus on Anti-American Critical Race Theory Training of Cadets – Academy Head Ties Cadets to Racism and Social Injustice

Filed Under: INVESTIGATIONS, Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received 167 pages of records from the U.S. Department of Defense which show the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) has made race and gender instruction a top priority in the training of cadets.

The records include recommendations that the USAFA considers “Behavioral Science 362, ‘Class, Race, Gender, and Sexuality’ as a core class,” that all curriculum be reviewed for “D&I” (diversity and inclusion) topics, and that all cadets and staff be educated in “specific D&I concepts and skills in order to decrease incidents of microaggressions, unconscious bias, etc.”

Judicial Watch obtained the records in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc. (STARRS) against the U.S. Department of Defense for Air Force Academy records regarding “systemic racism,” as well as records of critical race theory at the Academy (Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc. v U.S. Department of Defense (No. 1:22-cv–02894)).

In the introduction to the September 21, 2020, “U.S. Air Force Academy Internal Racial Disparity Review,” Superintendent Lt. General Jay Silveria writes:

Systemic racism exists in our society. Identity groups, whether based on race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability, have all experienced less-than-equal treatment in our nation, both historically and persisting in the present day. Ongoing events across our nation and around the world are a stark reminder that racism and social injustice continue to afflict our society. We must acknowledge that at USAFA we are not immune to these issues. What happens outside our gates also happens across our installation, and throughout the Cadet Wing. We would be naive to think otherwise, and negligent to ignore the impact of racism and injustice on our cadets, our permanent party and their families and our entire USAFA community.

Our military superiority relies on an incredibly diverse force of innovative individuals who mustwork cohesively as a team. There is no place in our words or actions for discrimination or racialbias of any kind, nor can we allow these behaviors to persist in the culture of our institution. Adisregard for dignity and respect is corrosive to mission success, and will not be tolerated. Toaddress these issues we must each, and as a cohesive team, look inward to continually examineourselves and our institution for the prevalence of racism, discrimination, and injustice.

To that end, I directed what I hope will be an enduring, lasting effort to promote racialunderstanding and diversity in the context of leadership. These actions included theestablishment of a Critical Conversations Working Group (CCWG), led by the Center forCharacter Development (CCLD), to facilitate recurring USAFA-wide critical conversations forcadets and permanent party. In addition, my Director of Staff and the Director of EqualOpportunity co-chaired an internal assessment and review for biases within our policies,processes, practices, curriculum, and artifacts. The objective of the assessment was to identifyracial disparities unique to USAFA.

Under a heading “Limitations” in the “Purpose and Context” section the review states:

We must continually work to build future leaders and reinforce the principles that underpin our “Leader of Character” framework- living honorably, lifting others, and elevating performance- in the context of equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion, and respect for others. As an institution that develops officers to lead a diverse force, USAFA must instill these principles in those we teach and lead. These young men and women will ultimately shape the future culture of our military, and in turn influence the larger American society. As such, there is no place in our words and actions for discrimination or racial bias of any kind at USAFA, or in our Air and Space Forces.

Within the section titled “Diversity and Inclusion at USAFA [U.S. Air Force Academy],” under the heading “Additional Data Sources,” the review cites a 2020 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) survey of cadets in the Class of 2024:

The survey collected information on student’s opinions on racial understanding, racial discrimination, preferential treatment (based on race/ethnicity), and other D&I (diversity & inclusion) related topics. Cursory analysis of the CL24 responses indicates:

  • 16% of our incoming cadets find that helping to promote racial understanding is notimportant ( 17% of Caucasian cadets, 15% of Minority cadets). The remainder of thecadets responded that it was somewhat important (38%), very important (28%), oressential ( 18 %).
  • 24% of our incoming cadets agreed that racial discrimination is no longer a majorproblem in America. The remainder of the cadets disagreed with that statement.
  • 75% of our incoming cadets rated themselves as average or above average whencomparing themselves to the average person their own age in terms of theirunderstanding of others.
  • One question asked whether the student agrees/disagrees whether individuals fromdisadvantaged social backgrounds should be given preferential treatment in collegeadmissions. 65% of the Caucasian and 45% of the Minority cadets disagreed while 35%of the Caucasian and 55% of the Minority cadets agreed with that statement.

Later in that section, under the heading “Equal Opportunity (USAF/EO,” the Air Force Academy’s Equal Opportunity office recommends the Academy:

Consider implementing Behavioral Science 362, ‘Class, Race, Gender, and Sexuality’ as a core class or pulling the content into shorter transition-week training opportunities spread across a cadet’s USAFA career. The material is highly regarded by cadets and graduates, and the information could be implemented on a larger scale (to include training for basics and sessions for each year group) to help cadets mature into D&I professionals for the Air Force.

In the section titled “The Way Forward,” the review introduces a “Triple Threat Group,” which was established in June 2020 “after national conversations surrounding police brutality, release of news articles addressing racial disparities in the AF discipline system, and the height of racial tension.” The review continues: “Triple Threat’s ongoing efforts align theory and considerations on how USAFA could address racial tension and unrest using a 3-tiered, ‘triple threat’ approach of Acknowledgment, Action, and Advocacy. In clarifying the need to address this issue, as well as to demonstrate the importance of these efforts, Triple Threat solicited shared stories from current cadets and graduates from the past year that captured realities and perceptions that bring awareness to the ‘Black experience” at USAFA [U.S. Air Force Academy].”

Also in that section of the review is a heading titled “Recommendations” that includes:

  • Ensure Diversity and Inclusion is incorporated into USAFA [U.S. Air Force Academy] guidance and policy. [Academy’s] Diversity and Inclusion plan must be updated as a strategic document guiding D&I [diversity and inclusion] efforts across the institution.
  • Expand the DF-led [dean of faculty] curriculum review to ensure all [Academy] curriculum, as identified under the Course of Instruction, is reviewed for D&I [diversity and inclusion]topics.
  • Educate and train cadets and staff on more specific D&I [diversity and inclusion] concepts and skills in order to decrease incidents of microaggressions, unconscious bias, etc., and enhance retention/inclusion. In addition, we must train our leaders across the institution on how to facilitate critical conversations on racial issues within their workplaces, so all Airmen can bring their full selves to work and leaders can create more inclusive spaces. Correlated to this effort is the need to develop a more robust racial bias incident reporting system with associated accountability and rehabilitation processes to restore relationships in the event biases or microaggressions are experienced.

In the “Triple Threat Proposal,” appendix, the review calls for “Cultural Immersion Movie Nights:”

Cultural Immersion Movie Nights is an initiative we propose to be held at Arnold Hall throughout the academic semesters. This initiative will allow cadets and permanent party to learn about racism, racial discrimination and the several historical events and policies that have impacted minorities through cinema. The goal is to help inform all members at this institution of the cultural history of other races and thus bring greater unity and understanding of other groups within the Cadet Wing.

The recently obtained documents also include an August 17, 2021, email, in which the sender and recipients are redacted, that discusses required textbook readings on “prejudice and discrimination,” which includes:

Identify examples of prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination.

Describe how explicit and implicit prejudice differ.

Describe some of the social, emotional, and cognitive roots of prejudice.

The email goes on to state that Academy cadets were “asked to watch a video of the well-known ‘Brown Eyes/Blue Eyes’ demonstration.”

According to STARRS President and CEO Dr. Ronald J. Scott, Jr., Colonel, USAF, Retired, USAFA ’73: “Diversity, equity, and inclusion training stems from Marxist-inspired ideology known as critical race theory. While attractive to those who believe in justice and equal opportunity, it empowers those who hold positions of authority or influence to coerce others into compliance. This phenomenon is what C.S. Lewis wrote about when he grouped people into ‘the conditioners’ and ‘the conditioned’ in his 1940s book ‘The Abolition of Man.’”

“These documents show our military and its rising leadership are under attack from within. The documents confirm U.S. Air Force Academy leadership is obsessed with anti-American critical race theory and seeks to punish and smear cadets through leftist indoctrination programs,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch lawsuits and FOIA requests on critical race theory and other leftist extremism are extensive:

In November 2022, Judicial Watch separately sued the Air Force Academy for training material records on critical race theory.

In July 2022, Judicial Watch sued the Department of Defense for  records related to the United States Naval Academy (USNA) implementing critical race theory (CRT) in the training of naval recruits

In August, Judicial Watch’s client David Flynn, who was removed from his position as head football coach after exercising his right as a parent-citizen to raise concerns about critical race theory and Black Lives Matter propaganda in his daughter’s seventh-grade history class, settled his civil rights lawsuit against his former employers at Dedham Public Schools. As part of the settlement, the Superintendent of Dedham Public Schools, Michael Welch, acknowledged “the important and valid issues” raised by Flynn and specific changes in school policies because of Flynn’s complaint, including banning teachers from promoting Black Lives Matter to students online.

Also in August, Judicial Watch sued on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a teachers’ contract that provides discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities. The lawsuit was filed against the superintendent of the Minneapolis Public Schools, the Minneapolis Public Schools, and the Minneapolis Board of Education for violating the Equal Protection Guarantee of the Minnesota Constitution.

In June, Judicial Watch received records revealing critical race theory instruction at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. One training slide contains a graphic titled “MODERN-DAY SLAVERY IN THE USA.” [Emphasis in original]

Records produced in April 2022 from the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) show the government agency responsible for regulating credit unions required “inclusion and unconscious bias training” for the agency’s employees and contractors and offered advice on how to recognize and address alleged “microaggressions” in the workplace.

Records produced in February 2022 from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) included a PowerPoint presentation titled “Race and gender based microaggressions” that was used for training at the organization.

Two sets of records obtained by Judicial Watch in November 2021 related to the teaching of critical race theory in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), Maryland’s largest school system, included a training course with information about a book titled “Antiracist Baby” that introduces the youngest readers to “the concept and power of antiracism,” and says it’s the “perfect gift” for “ages baby to age 3.”

Records from Loudoun County, VA, obtained in October 2021 revealed a coordinated effort to advance critical race theory initiatives in Loudoun County public schools despite widespread public opposition.

A training document provided to Judicial Watch in October 2021 by a whistleblower in the Westerly School District of Rhode Island, details how its schools are using teachers to push critical race theory in classrooms. The training course was assembled by the left-leaning Highlander Institute and cites quotes from Bettina Love, from whom the Biden administration distanced itself publicly after her statements equating “whiteness” to oppression.

Records produced in June 2021 by Wellesley Public Schools in Massachusetts confirmed the use of “affinity spaces” that divide students and staff based on race as a priority and objective of the school district’s “diversity, equity and inclusion” plan. The school district also admitted that between September 1, 2020, and May 17, 2021, it created “five distinct” segregated spaces.

Heavily redacted records obtained by Judicial watch in May 2021from Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland included documents related to their $454,000 “Anti-racist system audit” and critical race theory classes. Students were taught that the phrase “Make America Great Again” was an example of “covert white supremacy.”

###

The post Judicial Watch: Records Show Air Force Academy Focus on Anti-American Critical Race Theory Training of Cadets – Academy Head Ties Cadets to Racism and Social Injustice appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch Victory: Court Rejects Argument of Terrorist-Tied Qatar and Orders Release of Documents About Its Funding of Texas A&M

Filed Under: INVESTIGATIONS, Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced a victory today in the District Court of Texas for Travis County where it filed a petition on behalf of its client Zachor Legal Institute under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA), seeking information about potential influence by the Qatar government’s funding of certain Texas A&M University programs and a Texas A&M campus in Education City, Al Rayyan, Qatar (Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development v. Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General (No. D-1-GN-18-006240)).

 Zachor Legal Institute is a U.S.-based advocacy group dedicated to combatting the spread of anti-Semitism. Zachor made requests under the TPIA for information about the funding or donations made to Texas A&M by the government of Qatar and agencies and subdivisions of the government of Qatar. Qatar controversially has aligned itself with Islamic terrorists and extremists which has placed it at odds with the United States, Israel and other U.S. allies in the Middle East.

Zachor’s initially pursued information related to the funding of the Texas A&M campus in Qatar in 2018. Zachor’s sought to determine how Texas A&M was able to establish a degree-conferring campus in Qatar without the Texas Legislature’s permission or involvement.

In 2018, Qatar filed a lawsuit to prevent disclosure of its funding information. Judicial Watch countered with the argument that neither the Qatari government nor any of its agencies are protected by exceptions under Texas law and that federal law “expressly makes the requested information public.”

 Texas A&M claimed making the records public would reveal confidential donor information. Judicial Watch countered this argument by pointing out the law only protects private donors, not donations from a foreign government body, specifically the Qatar Foundation. The Qatar Foundation “was created by the Emir of Qatar, is Chaired by his consort, and is sponsored and supported by the government of Qatar, a monarchy. At no point did the Qatar Foundation demonstrate that it is not an agency or subdivision of the government of Qatar.”

 After reviewing the briefing, the arguments, and the evidence, including the documents submitted by the Qatar Foundation, Judge Amy Clark Meachum ruled in favor of Judicial Watch and the Zachor Legal Institute and ordered that the documents be made public.   

“The court was right to reject the arguments of Qatar that sought to hide information about the foreign government’s funding of Texas A& M,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This case has been a multi-year court battle against a foreign government entity tied to Islamist terrorism – so this latest victory is sweet.” 

“Zachor Legal Institute is grateful for the incredible support and skill of the entire Judicial Watch team,” said Marc Greendorfer, President of Zachor Legal Institute. “We now look forward to receiving the records that Qatar has spent the last four-plus years blocking from public review. While Qatari agents have a history of refusing to comply with lawful orders in the United States, such as Al Jazeera’s continuing refusal to comply with the Department of Justice’s 2020 order to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, we will not stop our inquiries into what Qatar is doing in the United States. We hope that Qatar will end its interference with American institutions now that Judicial Watch has once again compelled transparency in government.” 

Judicial Watch was assisted in this case by Jennifer S. Riggs of Riggs & Ray, P.C. in Austin, Texas.

###

The post Judicial Watch Victory: Court Rejects Argument of Terrorist-Tied Qatar and Orders Release of Documents About Its Funding of Texas A&M appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch Sues Federal Trade Commission for Communications about Twitter Owner Elon Musk

Filed Under: INVESTIGATIONS, Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for communications of its chair, Lina Khan, regarding Twitter and Twitter’s owner Elon Musk (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (1:23-cv-00692 (ABJ)) 

Judicial Watch sued after the Federal Trade Commission failed to respond to a November 14, 2022, FOIA request for:

Records and communications maintained by Lina Khan, Chairperson, U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) including memoranda, reports, briefings, hand-written notes, email communications, email chains, email attachments and other form of records or communications exchanged regarding or referring to Mr. Elon Musk, CEO, Twitter, or the company Twitter with the below named individuals:

(a)            Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips

(b)            Commissioner Christine S. Wilson

(c)            Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter

(d)            Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya

 Khan, nominated by President Biden in March 2021, has reportedly been aggressive in investigating Twitter after its purchase by Elon Musk in October 2022. According to the New York Post:

The Federal Trade Commission has asked Twitter to turn over internal communications related to owner Elon Musk, detailed information about layoffs and other business decisions as part of an investigation into the social media company, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday citing documents.

The FTC, chaired by Lina Khan, sent 12 letters to Twitter and its lawyers since Musk’s takeover in October. It also asked the company to “identify all journalists” who were granted access to company records and to provide information about the launch of the revamped Twitter Blue subscription service, the report said.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Federal Trade Commission’s letters to Twitter “were obtained by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, which published excerpts of them Tuesday in a staff report about the FTC’s investigation.” 

“The leftists now running the Biden administration don’t hesitate to use the power of the state to silence their critics,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “And we will use the power of the courts to expose them.”

Judicial Watch is heavily involved in countering government and big tech censorship.

In February it filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records of communication related to the work of the Election Integrity Partnership that could detail coordinated censorship activities.

In a separate lawsuit, Judicial Watch is suing the DHS for all records of communications between the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) and the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), which was reportedly active during the 2022 midterm elections. Among the news outlets flagged by EIP were websites for Just the News, New York Post, Fox News, Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Epoch Times and Breitbart.

Judicial Watch recently sued the DOJ for records of communications between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and social media sites regarding foreign influence in elections, as well as the Hunter Biden laptop story.

In September 2022, Judicial Watch sued the Secretary of State of the State of California for  censoring a Judicial Watch election integrity video.

In April 2021, Judicial Watch published documents revealing how California state officials pressured social media companies (Twitter, Facebook, Google (YouTube)) to censor posts about the 2020 election.

In May 2021, Judicial Watch revealed documents showing that Iowa state officials pressured social media companies Twitter and Facebook to censor posts about the 2020 election.

In July 2021, Judicial Watch uncovered records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which revealed that Facebook coordinated closely with the CDC to control the COVID narrative and “misinformation” and that over $3.5 million in free advertising given to the CDC by social media companies.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues Federal Trade Commission for Communications about Twitter Owner Elon Musk appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch: Federal Appeals Court Hears Challenge To FBI’s Withholding of Communications with Banks Regarding January 6 Disturbance

Filed Under: INVESTIGATIONS, Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that a court hearing was held (audio) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Friday, March 10, 2023, in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (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 (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: https://www.youtube.com/live/Hfa6qg4SEyA 

Judicial Watch filed its 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 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of the financial transaction records.  

Judicial Watch 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 its appellate brief, Judicial Watch 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 its appeal, Judicial Watch pointed out that the lower court was mistaken when it upheld 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 …” 

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

Judicial Watch 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. 

### 

The post Judicial Watch: Federal Appeals Court Hears Challenge To FBI’s Withholding of Communications with Banks Regarding January 6 Disturbance appeared first on Judicial Watch.

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

Filed Under: INVESTIGATIONS, Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal judge ruled that its 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 filed in March 2022 by Judicial Watch (Elizabeth Fuller v. Karl R. Hade, et al. (No. 1:22-cv-00218)).

On October 19, 2021, Fuller was fired from her position as magistrate after commenting 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.

Judicial Watch pointed out in its initial complaint:

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.

Judicial Watch argues 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,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “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,” stated Liz Fuller.

###

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