Tag: Americas

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: Court Awards Judicial Watch $21,578 in Fees and Costs in Fani Willis Lawsuit
OUTRAGE: Minnesota Supreme Court’s Rejects Lawsuit Challenging Woke Racist Minneapolis Teachers’ Contract
Even in Sanctuary States, Illegals Commit Fraud to Get a Driver’s License

 

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: Court Awards Judicial Watch $21,578 in Fees and Costs in Fani Willis Lawsuit

The Superior Court in Fulton County, GA, issued an order granting $21,578 “attorney’s fees and costs” in our open records lawsuit for communications Willis had with Special Counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6 Committee. The order followed a previous order finding that Willis was in default in the lawsuit.

We filed this lawsuit in March 2024 after Willis falsely denied having any records responsive to our earlier Georgia Open Records Act (ORA) request for communications with Special Counsel Jack Smiths office and/or the January 6 Committee (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Fani Willis et al. (No. 24-CV-002805)).

After finding Willis in default, the court ordered a hearing on December 20, which resulted in the latest order finding Willis liable for fees and expenses that “shall be paid within two weeks of the entry of this Order.” The order recounts the timeline of events after we filed our records request:

Plaintiff [Judicial Watch] submitted an Open Records Act (ORA) request to Defendant on 22 August 2023 by way of Fulton County’s ORA on-line “portal”. That same day, Plaintiff received confirmation that its request had been delivered and would be channeled to the “appropriate department” (presumably the District Attorney’s Office). The following day, the County’s Open Records Custodian sent Plaintiff [Judicial Watch] an email confirming that the District Attorney’s Office had received the inquiry and asking Plaintiff to “simplify” its ORA [Open Records Act] request…. Literally five minutes later, before any simplification had occurred, Plaintiff received a second e-mail from the Records Custodian: “After carefully reviewing your request. (sic) We do not have the responsive records.”

This response was perplexing and eventually suspicious to Plaintiff, given that Plaintiff subsequently uncovered through own effort at least one document that should have been in the District Attorney’s Office’s possession that was patently responsive to the request.

***

Defendant [Willis] ultimately defaulted and this Court entered an Order on 2 December 2024 directing Defendant “to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials” and to provide any responsive records that were not legally exempted from disclosure….

Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s 2 December Order consisted of an undated, unsigned two-page memo to Plaintiff from Defendant’s “Open Records Department.” … In this memo, Defendant announced that there still were no records responsive to one set of Plaintiff’s requests (communications with former Special Counsel Jack Smith) but that there were in fact records responsive to Plaintiff’s second set of requests (communications with the United States House January 6th Committee) – but those were exempt from disclosure….

Despite having previously informed Plaintiff four separate times that her team had carefully searched but found no responsive records, now there suddenly were – but they were not subject to disclosure under the ORA….

The ORA is not hortatory; it is mandatory. Non-compliance has consequences. One of them can be liability for the requesting party’s attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.

The court concludes its criticism of Willis’ actions, stating:

Most basically, by operation of law Defendant acknowledged violating the ORA when she defaulted. But actual evidence proves the same: per her Records Custodian’s own admission, the District Attorney’s Office flatly ignored Plaintiff’s original ORA request, conducting no search and simply (and falsely) informing the County’s Open Records Custodian that no responsive records existed. We know now that that is simply incorrect: once pressed by a Court order, Defendant managed to identify responsive records, but has categorized them as exempt. Even if the records prove to be just that – exempt from disclosure for sound public policy reasons – this late revelation is a patent violation of the ORA. And for none of this is there any justification, substantial or otherwise: no one searched until prodded by civil litigation.

Given this, the Court finds that relevant and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation are properly awardable to Plaintiff … Defendant is thus liable to Plaintiff for $21,578 pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-73(b). That amount shall be paid within two weeks of the entry of this Order.

In early December, Willis finally admitted to having records showing communications with the January 6 Committee but refused to release all but one document in response to the court order that found her in default. She cited a series of legal exemptions to justify the withholding of communications with the January 6 Committee. The only document she did release is one already public letter to January 6 Committee Chairman Benny Thompson (D-MS).

We subsequently filed a motion asking the court to appoint a special master to oversee her search for records in our lawsuit and that the court conduct an in camera (private) inspection of any records found.

We stated in our motion that Willis’ response to the order “makes no showing that the search was diligent. Based on her previous searches in this matter, it probably was not diligent. Likewise, she provided no list or even a general description regarding any responsive records she has elected to withhold. Without a list or description, it is impossible to evaluate what, if any, exemptions or exceptions are applicable, as she now contends.”

Regarding the appointment of a special master, we state:

Willis by her own admission conducted at least three searches before finding any responsive records not already supplied by [Judicial Watch]. She did not even bother to conduct a search until the Complaint was filed. Her records custodian says he does not know the Cellebrite [digital investigations] equipment he apparently had a hand in ordering can be used to search cell phone texts and other data…. Moreover, the custodian had no standard practice for conducting searches and keeps no records of the methods used in a given search.

The foregoing gives rise to grave suspicion that all responsive records have not been found. The Court should appoint a special master to supervise and monitor the record searches. The special master should have authority to audit searches and conduct searches herself. She also should have authority to hire such consultants and experts as may be needed to execute her commission. The special master should make a recommendation to the Court as to how her fees and expenses should be allocated among the parties, taking into consideration whether she finds responsive records that Willis should have found but did not.

Fani Willis’s response to our request for a special master is due January 16, 2025.

Fani Willis flouted the law, and the court is right to slam her and require, at a minimum, the payment of nearly $22,000 to Judicial Watch. But in the end we want the full truth on what she was hiding – her office’s political collusion with the Pelosi January 6 committee to ‘get Trump.’”

 

OUTRAGE: Minnesota Supreme Court’s Rejects Lawsuit Challenging Woke Racist Minneapolis Teachers’ Contract

In August 2022, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a teachers’ contract that provides discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities. We alleged that the contract violated the Equal Protection Guarantee of the Minnesota Constitution.

The school district, supported by the teachers and other public employee unions, asserted that Minnesota taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the illegal spending of taxpayer money by government officials.

A court of appeals upheld our victory in that suit.

However, the Minnesota Supreme Court has now rejected our lawsuit.

This is beyond the pale. Minneapolis Public Schools is unabashedly discriminating against teachers based on their race, and the school district is using taxpayer dollars to do so.

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s disgraceful decision not only threatens teachers’ jobs but also prevents Minnesota taxpayers (present and future) from holding their government to account. This woke, racially discriminatory contract cannot stand.

We will ask the Trump administration to investigate this blatant civil rights violation and take all necessary steps to ensure teachers do not lose their jobs because of their race.

 

Even in Sanctuary States, Illegals Commit Fraud to Get a Driver’s License

The lawlessness around the Biden border invasion and sanctuary policies across the land is epic, as our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.

As if it were not bad enough that over a dozen states grant illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, a criminal ring has for years exploited the security vulnerabilities of the leftist policies to obtain licenses for undocumented migrants who live in jurisdictions that do not offer the benefit. For about $1,400, illegal aliens living in states that prohibit them from obtaining the cards, fraudulently secured them in New York and Massachusetts—both sanctuary states—with the help of five individuals. Federal authorities recently charged them with several crimes, including conspiracy to unlawfully produce and possess with intent to transfer identification documents and possession with intent to use or transfer unlawfully obtained identification. One of the suspects was also charged with furnishing a false passport.

The scheme operated for four years before authorities finally busted it and the criminals conspired to fraudulently apply for licenses for over 1,000 illegal immigrants. They obtained driver’s licenses for more than 600 migrants and collected at least hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a federal indictment that says the defendants fabricated and falsified bank statements and bills to make it appear to the New York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that illegal aliens resided in the state and to falsely make it appear to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) that undocumented aliens lived at various addresses in that state. They also created fake driving education certificates of completion and forged the signatures of driving school staff to make it appear that migrants completed the required curriculum.

The operation was well organized and complex, according to federal authorities, because obtaining a driver’s license in either state requires residents to first earn a learner’s permit that consists of a written test. Applicants can take the test online if they provide a photo of themselves completing it and once the learner’s permit has been issued applicants have to finish a driving course before taking the actual test required to get a license. The defendants took the written test online and used photos of the migrant applicants to appear as if they were taking it. Then they provided fake certificates of completion and other false documents to New York DMV and Massachusetts RMV employees that believed the illegal immigrants lived in those states. The defendants would drive the migrants to apply for the license and have the cards mailed to local addresses where they would retrieve the licenses mailed by the state agencies. Though the ring has been disrupted, “the investigation remains ongoing,” according to a statement issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the District of Massachusetts.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses if they provide documentation such as a foreign birth certificate, foreign passport or consular card and evidence of residency in that state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. They include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. In late 2023 Minnesota’s measure, known as Driver’s Licenses for All, became the latest to go into effect. At the time officials estimated that about 80,000 illegal immigrants who were previously disqualified from obtaining the cards in the North Star state would be allowed to get them. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ running mate, said ensuring that drivers are licensed and carry insurance makes the roads more secure for all Minnesotans. “As a longtime supporter of this bill, I am proud to finally sign it into law, making our roads safer and moving us toward our goal of making Minnesota the best state to raise a family for everyone,” the Democrat lawmaker said when he proudly signed the measure.

As this federal case illustrates, policies enacted by local sanctuary governments to benefit illegal aliens can be easily exploited and go against federal laws meant to protect the nation’s citizens and legal residents. Furthermore, there is no evidence that giving undocumented migrants driver’s licenses makes “roads safer” as Walz claims.

 

Until next week,

Source: Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it sued the California Coastal Commission for records about the decision to prohibit more Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) rockets from launching out of Vandenberg Space Force Base (Judicial Watch Inc. v. California Coastal Commission (No. CPF-24-518820)). A member of the Commission specifically tied her vote against Musk and SpaceX to Musk’s support for President Trump.

The petition was filed in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco after the Coastal Commission failed to comply with an October 16, 2024, California Public Records Act request by Judicial Watch for records and communications of commissioners regarding SpaceX, Elon Musk, Starlink, Donald Trump, and rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base.

On October 15, 2024, SpaceX sued the California Coastal Commission citing that the agency “egregiously and unlawfully overreaching its authority” when it “engaged in naked political discrimination,” punishing “a company for the political views and statements of its largest shareholder and CEO,” who is Elon Musk.

The suit recounts an extensive history of SpaceX launches of the Falcon 9 rockets from Vandenberg: “For decades, the Commission has, without fail, agreed with the longstanding position of the U.S. Department of the Air Force (Air Force) that the Base’s commercial space launch programs are federal agency activities that are not subject to Commission’s permitting authority or control.” Further:

Now, however … the Commission has decided to ignore longstanding federal policy and law, its own established practices … to impose a different standard on SpaceX. Specifically, the Commission refused to concur with a proposal by the United States Department of the Air Force to increase from 36 to 50 the number of launches that SpaceX can perform at the Base.

The suit refers to an October 10, 2024, Coastal Commission meeting during which they voted 6-4 to deny the request to allow more SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets to launch from Vandenberg Space Force Base:

As Commissioner Caryl Hart said: the basis for the decision was not that a commercial operator with a space launch program at the Base was increasing its annual launch cadence, but rather that SpaceX was doing so: “The concern is with SpaceX increasing its launches, not with the other companies increasing their launches . . . we’re dealing with a company . . . the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the Presidential race and made it clear what his point of view is.”

***

To make it even clearer that the Commission’s decision was based on its political biases and other irrelevant, misplaced concerns, the Commission recently approved another commercial space launch operator launching up to 60 launches a year from the same Base, accepting that this operator’s launch program, including commercial launches, are federal agency activities.

“The powerful California Coastal Commission engaged in naked lawfare and abuse against Elon Musk and SpaceX because of his support for Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And now the powerful agency wants to cover up its abuse by illicitly hiding records from the public. Judicial Watch is going to court to remind this agency that it is not above the law”

###

Source: Judicial Watch

Besides letting a record number of illegal immigrants, terrorists and violent gangbangers into the United States through the Mexican border, the Biden administration has delivered a parting gift of shielding nearly a million foreign nationals from deportation with Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The provisional amnesty is a humanitarian measure designed to shield undocumented aliens from deportation during emergencies. It is supposed to be a short-term solution for foreigners that do not quality as refugees but cannot immediately return home because of difficulties caused by factors such as violence, natural disasters, or political and economic instability. TPS, which is typically granted in 18-month increments, not only protects migrants from deportation it also allows them to work in the U.S.

The moment he got elected president, Biden worked to broaden the TPS program adding several countries and extending protections that should have expired for those already on the list. More than 2.1 million illegal aliens from 17 countries—including Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Myanmar, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Honduras, Ukraine, Somalia and Haiti—benefit from TPS. Most have lived in the U.S. for decades and have settled in every state with California, Florida, New York and Texas seeing the largest numbers. The humanitarian relief was approved by Congress as part of the Immigration Act of 1990 and gives the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary the authority to designate a country for TPS to offer safe haven to foreign nationals who do not qualify for asylum but claim to be fleeing a potentially dangerous situation back home. The government is required to announce 60 days before any TPS designation expires whether it will be extended. If it does not the TPS automatically extends for six months.

In a single day this month beleaguered DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas announced the extension of TPS for almost a million foreigners from four countries—El Salvador, Venezuela, Sudan and Ukraine. Venezuela, the south American nation importing the deadly Tren de Aragua criminal gang that has battered American cities with gruesome crimes, is receiving the largest TPS protection with 600,000 beneficiaries through October 2, 2026. The 18-month extension is due to extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent eligible Venezuelan nationals from safely returning home, according to DHS. “After reviewing the country conditions in Venezuela and consulting with interagency partners, it was determined that an 18-month TPS extension is warranted based on the severe humanitarian emergency the country continues to face due to political and economic crises under the inhumane Maduro regime,” the announcement reads. “These conditions have contributed to high levels of crime and violence, impacting access to food, medicine, healthcare, water, electricity, and fuel.”

Around 232,000 migrants from El Salvador will be shielded from removal under the administration’s new TPS extension, which was granted over “environmental disasters.” In that announcement the government writes that “El Salvador’s extension of TPS is based on geological and weather events, including significant storms and heavy rainfall in 2023 and 2024, that continue to affect areas heavily impacted by the earthquakes in 2001.” The central American country’s first TPS was issued after a major earthquake in 2001. Around 103,700 illegal aliens from Ukraine will also get TPS “due to ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions in Ukraine that prevent eligible Ukrainian nationals from safely returning.” Approximately 1,900 migrants from Sudan will be shielded from deportation for the same reason— ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions—as well as political instability that has triggered human rights abuses. “Militias have targeted fleeing civilians, murdering innocent people escaping conflict, and prevented remaining civilians from accessing lifesaving supplies,” the DHS writes in the TPS announcement issued this month.

The Obama administration also went crazy with TPS, renewing it for tens of thousands of Hondurans and Nicaraguans more than a decade and a half after a hurricane hit the Central American nations, prolonging it for Africans two years after originally issuing it due to Ebola, and repeatedly restoring it for tens of thousands of Haitians years after an earthquake struck the impoverished island. During its two terms the Obama administration never missed an opportunity to offer illegal immigrants reprieve, using inclement weather in the U.S., a virus, natural disasters and tainted water in an American city to extend the perk.

Source: Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received a spreadsheet from the District of Columbia Board of Elections revealing that 388 noncitizens voted in DC’s November 2024 general election.

While federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, states and localities may allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. In 2023, the DC Council amended the District of Columbia Election Code of 1955 to allow all noncitizen residents, including illegal aliens, to vote in its local elections. 

More than 230 of the noncitizens who voted are registered Democrats, the list shows. Less than 20 are registered Republicans. The remainder did not register with a party or registered with a third party. The list does not detail whether the voters are illegal aliens nor whether the noncitizen voters were restricted, as law requires, to voting for only local DC offices.

The noncitizen voter information was produced in response to a Judicial Watch December 2, 2024, DC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for:

Public records identifying the number of non-citizens who voted in the November 2024 General Election; including, information about the wards in which they are located, their party affiliation, and the designators for the ballots they received.

In July 2024, Judicial Watch reported that data from the District of Columbia Board of Elections revealed that 113 noncitizens voted in the June “2024 Presidential Primary.”

“It is an outrage and insult to every American citizen, and may be a violation of federal law, that DC allowed 388 foreign nationals to vote in the 2024 general election,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Congress can and should end this practice immediately.”

In May 2024, Judicial Watch received records from the District of Columbia, explaining to illegal aliens and other noncitizens how they can register to vote in local elections.

In July 2024, Judicial Watch uncovered records showing that, as of June 2024, 583 foreign nationals are registered to vote in Washington, DC. The records from the Board of Elections also confirm that noncitizens can be election workers.

In December 2023, a notice letter was sent to election officials in the District of Columbia notifying them of evident violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), based on their failure to remove inactive voters from their registration rolls. The letter pointed out that D.C. publicly reported removing few or no ineligible voter registrations under a key provision of the NVRA. The letter threatened a federal lawsuit unless the violations were corrected in a timely fashion. In response to Judicial Watch’s inquiries, Washington, DC, officials admitted that they had not complied with the NVRA, promptly removed 65,544 outdated names from the voting rolls, promised to remove 37,962 more, and designated another 73,522 registrations as “inactive.”

###

Source: Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today the City of San Francisco, in a 7-3 vote by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, authorized a settlement agreement in a taxpayer lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch against the City, agreeing to discontinue its discriminatory guaranteed-income program funded by taxpayer money in favor of transgender individuals with a PREFERENCE for biological black and Latino men who identify as women. The agreement commits the city to pay $3,250 in attorney’s fees and costs and not to create a new guaranteed income program with the same eligibility criteria.

Ordinance No. 290-24 as passed by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco states and signed by Mayor London Breed.

The [San Francisco] City Attorney is hereby authorized to settle the action entitled “Michael Phillips, et al., v. London Breed, et al.,” San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-24- 611915, on substantially the same terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

***

The Settlement Agreement provides: (1) payment of $3,250 in attorney’s fees and costs; and (2) injunctive relief agreeing that the City will not continue the guaranteed income program that Paul Wildes and Reed Sandberg alleged to be unlawful beyond September 2024 and an agreement that the City will not create a new guaranteed income program with the same eligibility criteria.

The settlement agreement comes in a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on January 9, 2024, on behalf of taxpayers against San Francisco Mayor London Breed, City Treasurer Jose Cisneros, the director of the city’s Office of Transgender Initiatives, and City Administrator Carmen Chu for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution (Phillips et al. v Breed et al. (No. 24-611915)). Mayor Breed announced the launch of the Guaranteed Income for Trans People (GIFT) program on November 16, 2022. The mayor’s office stated in a press release that the city would “provide low-income transgender San Franciscans with $1,200 each month, up to 18 months to help address financial insecurity within trans communities.”

“This settlement is a huge victory for taxpayers who oppose taxpayer-funded woke racism and transgender extremism,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This settlement agreement puts a stop to the illegal use taxpayer money to hand out free cash to transgender individuals based on race and sex in blatant violation of California’s constitution.”

In October 2023, a Judicial Watch open records request forced the release of records from the City of San Francisco showing the city prioritized tax money for black and Latino transgenders (biological men) in the (GIFT) program, which also allowed illegal aliens to apply; allowed people who “engage in survival sex trades” to apply; and the use of the funds by participants was virtually unrestricted.

In May 2022, Judicial Watch won a court battle against California’s gender quota law for corporate boards. The verdict came after a 28-day trial. The verdict followed a similar ruling in Judicial Watch’s favor in April finding California’s race, ethnicity and LGBT quotas for corporate boards unconstitutional.

The City of Asheville, NC, in January 2022 settled a Judicial Watch federal civil rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove all racially discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship program. Additionally, the city agreed to remove racially discriminatory eligibility provisions in a related program that provides grants to educators.

###

Source: Judicial Watch