Federal Court Orders Obama IRS: Answer JW on Lerner Emails
Calling
all conservative activists, citizens and groups who were silenced and
harassed by the Obama Internal Revenue Service in the run-up to the 2012
elections and beyond -- you should know that we have moved a few steps
closer to holding the Obama administration accountable for its criminal
misuse of the federal tax-collecting agency.
We
are pleased to announce that Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia granted a Judicial Watch request to
issue an order requiring the IRS to provide answers by June 12, 2015,
on the status of the Lois Lerner emails the IRS had previously declared
lost. Judicial Watch raised questions about the IRS' handling of the
missing emails issue in a June 2 court filing,
demanding answers about Lois Lerner's emails, which had been recovered
from backup tapes. Judge Sullivan issued the court order on June 4,
2015.
In its June 2 filing, Judicial Watch detailed:
Because
the emails recovered from the backup tapes are responsive to [Judicial
Watch's] FOIA request, [Judicial Watch] respectfully requests that the
Court order the IRS to submit to the Court a report by June 12, 2015 addressing the status of the emails recovered by TIGTA. The report should include:
(a)
clarification as to whether all emails that have been recovered by
TIGTA have now been turned over to the IRS for review and processing in
response to Plaintiff's request, the volume of those emails, and the
time frame in which the IRS anticipates completing its review and
production of responsive emails, and
(b)
clarification as to whether the processing is complete for all 1,268
backup tapes to determine what emails are recoverable, and if not, when
the processing is expected to be complete.
Two days after Judicial Watch's filing, Judge Sullivan issued the following order:
The IRS is directed to respond to [Judicial Watch's] notice by no later than June 12, 2015.
On
February 26, 2015, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
(TIGTA) officials testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee that the oversight agency had received 744 backup tapes
containing emails sent and received by Lerner. These tapes had been
obtained one day after TIGTA requested that the IRS provide any backup
tapes that contained records from Lerner's email account. The IRS
subsequently produced 424 additional backup tapes in February 2015. More
than 32,000 emails from Lerner's account were recovered from the
initial 744 tapes; Judicial Watch is still seeking information regarding
the contents of the additional 424 tapes.
Judicial Watch outlined the continuing IRS cover-up to Judge Sullivan:
The
aforementioned testimony is uncontested that the recovered emails are
from the email accounts of IRS officials, including Ms. Lerner, and
cover the time period of (Judicial Watch's) request. The testimony also
is unequivocal that the IRS reported publicly that any backup tapes had
been recycled and were no longer available without asking its
technicians whether the tapes existed. [TIGTA Deputy Inspector General]
Camus also testified that hard drives previously reported by the IRS to
have been destroyed had not, in fact, been destroyed.
However,
the IRS has yet to provide answers to Judicial Watch regarding the
content of tapes it turned over to TIGTA, specifically "whether the
emails are from all or only a subset of the 1,268 backup tapes located
since July 1, 2014," or whether additional emails remain to be
recovered.
As
the Obama State Department has argued with respect to Hillary Clinton's
hidden emails, the IRS has now argued that Lerner's emails are no
longer "IRS" records and it has no legal obligation to request them:
Agency
counsel responded that the IRS is under no obligation to request copies
of the emails recovered by TIGTA because they are allegedly not agency
records. The IRS's position is extraordinary considering that, not only
are the backup tapes and emails obviously IRS records, but the Court
went to great lengths to address the issue of the "missing" emails,
including holding a status conference, ordering a meet and confer before
a magistrate judge, and ordering the IRS to submit multiple
declarations about its efforts to recover or locate the emails.
We
can now say with certainty that the Obama IRS obstructed and lied to a
federal judge and to our legal team in an effort to hide the truth about
Lerner's emails. The IRS, including its top political appointees, IRS
Commissioner John Koskinen and General Counsel William J. Wilkins, has
much to answer for over its contempt of court and of Congress. And the
Department of Justice officials enabling this cover-up in court need to
be held accountable, as well. The IRS is out of control and Judicial
Watch is happy that Judge Sullivan has taken this key step to remind the
agency that it is accountable to the rule of law and the American
people.
The
IRS response is due today. Typically, the Obama administration waits
until late in the day, especially on Fridays, to release material that
makes it look bad. I'll report back to you next week on the IRS filing.
In the meantime, you may want to ask your congressmen and senators why,
for the most part, they sit on their hands on the Obama IRS abuses and
cover-up while Judicial Watch does all the hard work.
Judicial Watch Court Victory in Legal Fight over Hawaiian Racial Separatist Campaign
Leftists,
often abusing the power of government, seek to divide Americans by
race. That's certainly what's happening out in Hawaii. But your JW is
pushing back hard. And successfully.
Our
lawyers earned a key court victory when the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit, located in Honolulu, Hawaii, last week forced Hawaii's Native
Hawaiian Roll Commission (NHRC) and its Executive Director, Clyde W.
Namuo, to release records regarding the enrollment list of "native"
Hawaiians created pursuant to the "Kana'iolowalu," the NHRC's
controversial racial registration campaign. Our team filed an
"Application for an Order Allowing Inspection of Public Records" in
February 2015 against the Roll Commission to obtain records regarding
the campaign. (This legal action is the Hawaii legal equivalent of a
freedom of information lawsuit.) The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a Hawaii-based think tank, partnered with Judicial Watch on this investigation.
In
response and over the objections of the Commission, the court ruled
that the enrollment list was a public record and that the government
agency had come up with no good reason for withholding it from Judicial
Watch. The judge ordered its release on a schedule to be approved in the
next few days, and stressed that Hawaii's open records laws were
designed to foster wide and open discussion of matters of public
importance.
Judicial
Watch had argued that citizens were entitled to see the records,
especially if their names happened to be on the lists without their
knowledge.
A little background is in order here.
On July 20, 2012, using taxpayer funds from the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the NHRC launched the Kana'iolowalu campaign, opening a registration process for Native Hawaiians who desired to vote for a new race-based sovereign government.
When
the registration process closed in January 2014 - after a long and
expensive marketing effort - only 40,000 "Native" Hawaiians had
registered.
The
Native Hawaiian Roll Commission then reopened registration in March and
again in August of 2014. During this period, another taxpayer-funded
agency, the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs, transferred government
lists of "Native Hawaiians" who had previously registered their
"ancestry" with the state agency to the Kana'iolowalu campaign. At least
87,000 names were transferred to bolster the Roll Commission's
enrollment list. Individuals who object to being added to the race-based
voter roll without their permission must file a form to have their
names removed. You can see how this is quite the racket for the racial
separatist movement in Hawaii. They didn't have enough names, so they
improperly took the names from a government agency without the
permission of citizens, and now make it cumbersome to remove one's name!
This
race-based enrollment list was created under Act 195, the 2011 Hawaii
law that authorizes the Roll Commission to create a list of "Native
Hawaiians" who would be eligible to vote on issues concerning the
sovereignty of the "Native Hawaiian people." Act 195 defines a "Native
Hawaiian" as any person whom the government determines to be a direct
descendant of the state's aboriginal peoples. A person may register for
the Kana'iolowalu if, besides meeting the law's racial requirements,
that individual has "maintained a significant cultural, social, or civic
connection to the Native Hawaiian community" and "wishes to
participate" in organizing an anticipated "Native Hawaiian governing
entity."
The
Roll Commission defines Kana'iolowalu using magical Marxist
revolutionary language that is almost immune to rational analysis. It is
defined as "the din that is being created by the mass of people who are
coming together and moving forward to strive and achieve and recognize
the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people ..."
Racial
classifications designed to allocate political power and government
benefits are profoundly offensive and illegal. But now, even worse, we
see an attempt to unlawfully use Hawaiian citizens' names, without their
consent, to create those classifications. The court's decision to order
the release of this list will help us uncover fraud and abuse in this
deplorable, taxpayer-funded scheme to divide Hawaii by race.
In
light of this court victory, it is worth recalling that the Roll
Commission was particularly mendacious in not responding to our lawful
document requests. On August 8, 2014, after the Commission's "roll"
reportedly exceeded 125,000 registrants, Judicial Watch requested "the
complete enrollment list of Native Hawaiians, known as the
Kana'iolowalu." But on September 4,
Clyde Namuo, on behalf of the Roll Commission, refused to produce the
list, claiming that the government agency's work "is continuing and the
complete enrollment list of Native Hawaiians you requested does not
exist at this time."
Your
JW is not one to give up or yield to this type of bureaucratic
nonsense. So on September 5, 2014, we rephrased our request to ask for
copies of the "enrollment list of Native Hawaiians, known as the
Kana'iolowalu, as it existed at any one point in time following your
receipt of this request." It also asked for copies of "all documents
discussing the decision to reopen, in or August 2014, registration for
the Kana'iolowalu." On September 25, 2014, Namuo again refused
production of the requested documents on the grounds that "our
registration work is ongoing and a certified enrollment list of Native
Hawaiians does not exist at this time," and that "Kana'iolowalu have
never ceased" and "there is no need for documentation to
administratively reopen the registration roll."
You can see why we had to go to court to get this information.
You
won't be surprised to learn that the Obama gang is happily supporting
the racial separatist movement in Hawaii. The Obama administration has
been rightly criticized for taking executive action towards "the reestablishment of
a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian
community." If you are a patriot citizen in Hawaii, you should be
worrying that your state and federal governments are conspiring against
you, as the long-term goal of this crowd is to secede from the United
States.
Our
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii friends are also on the front-lines and
are grateful for this JW court victory. "With the release of the Roll,
it will now be possible to answer concerns over the tens of thousands of
names that have been placed on the list without the express permission
of individuals," said Grassroot Institute President Keli'i Akina. "The
fact stands that the vast majority of Hawaiians have chosen not to
support the efforts of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Native
Hawaiian Roll to create a sovereign government. Their voices can now be
heard. And, hopefully, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs will stop wasting
public money on its unconstitutional push for sovereignty and, instead,
spend it on housing, education, employment, and health services for
those in need."
Judicial
Watch is represented in this litigation by former Hawaii Attorney
General Michael Lilly of the Honolulu law firm Ning, Lilly & Jones.
Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Cases on Rule of Law and Your Right to Vote
Someone
has to confront politicians who illegally carve out gerrymandered
districts to perpetuate their time in office. This is something that
your Judicial Watch is happy to do.
I
have good news to report to you about two cases that the Supreme Court
will hear that may vindicate the rule of law but also protect your right
to vote.
First, I am pleased to report that the Supreme Court granted certiorari and will review the claims of the plaintiffs in Shapiro et al. v. Mack et al., who
had challenged Maryland's 2011 legislative redistricting plan on the
grounds that it violates the voting rights of Maryland citizens through
creation of unreasonably gerrymandered districts. Their case was
short-circuited by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which dismissed
the lawsuit through a process that violates the Three-Judge Court Act by
allowing a single judge to rule on this gerrymandering challenge.
Judicial Watch was the only party to file an amicus brief in this case.
The
Three-Judge Court Act requires that three-judge panels must hear all
constitutional challenges to legislative redistricting unless, according
to past Supreme Court rulings, the case is "obviously frivolous,"
"essentially fictitious," "wholly insubstantial" or "obviously without
merit." In 2003, the Fourth Circuit Court departed from this precedent,
determining that a single judge could decide not to convene a
three-judge panel if he determined the case was not "plausible." The
Fourth Circuit applied the same standard in its 2014 ruling against
plaintiffs Shapiro, Benisek and Pycha.
The
events in Maryland make it painfully clear that unelected judges and
power-hungry politicians are out to undermine the rights of average
citizens while gutting the rule of law.
The
highest court in the land can now send out a powerful message that says
"No one is above the law, not even the federal courts."
The Maryland maps are cynical and insulting to the republican ideals of the nation. Even the liberals of the Washington Post were
scandalized: "The map...mocks the idea that voting districts should be
compact or easily navigable. The eight districts respect neither
jurisdictional boundaries nor communities of interest. To protect
incumbents and for partisan advantage, the map has been sliced, diced,
shuffled and shattered, making districts resemble studies in cubism."
Our
amicus brief argued (successfully!) that the Fourth Circuit decision
"raises an important issue of federal election law that should be heard
by this Court" and detailed JW's legal efforts on the Maryland
gerrymandering issue:
In
particular, Judicial Watch is concerned that the Fourth Circuit's
ruling violates the Three-Judge Court Act and will allow states to delay
judicial review of gerrymandered redistricting plans that
disenfranchise voters and violate the Constitution. Judicial Watch has
represented parties in two recent cases [here and here for
more info.] in Maryland concerning a ballot referendum on the state's
gerrymandered redistricting plan. Moreover, Judicial Watch may wish to
be involved in challenges to gerrymandering on behalf of members or
clients in the future, and believes the federal judiciary should not be
erecting further obstacles to review.
Thankfully,
the Supreme Court has guaranteed that Maryland's citizens will, at the
least, get a fair hearing based on the law. For more than 40 years,
Congress and the courts have recognized the importance of voters'
ability to challenge how a state draws congressional and state
legislative districts. The Fourth Circuit, however, has limited voters'
power to challenge redistricting laws. The decision by the Supreme Court
is a step toward checking judicial legislating and protecting the right
to vote. We are grateful to attorneys Meir Feder and Rajeev Muttreja of the Jones Day law firm, who prepared and filed this amicus brief on Judicial Watch's behalf.
Another
redistricting case out of Texas also came out in our favor. Back in
March, we joined with our frequent amicus partner, the Allied
Educational Foundation (AEF), to file a brief in support of Sue
Evenwel, a Texas resident who filed a lawsuit to overturn a Texas
"malapportionment" law (Sue Evenwel, et al. v. Greg Abbott, et al. (No 14-940)).
The
law, passed in 2013, drew up districts for the Texas state senate based
on total population rather than the number of eligible voters, giving
voters in districts with large numbers of non-voting-eligible aliens
disproportionate power compared to voters in districts with higher
numbers of legal residents. This policy has resulted in some Texas
voters effectively gaining more voting power than Texans in different
districts, with the Texas redistricting giving "some of its citizens
approximately 1.8 votes while [leaving] others [with] only 1 vote." And,
by the way, this law was the result of Republican machinations!
As
a result, the high numbers of non-voting-eligible immigrants - whether
legal or illegal - in Texas' urban centers substantially inflated the
voting power of the lesser number of eligible voters who also reside in
those districts. The situation is particularly acute in urban areas like
Dallas and Houston, where up to 50 percent of voting-age Hispanics are not currently U.S. citizens. The Evenwel plaintiffs
challenged the constitutionality of this scheme, but were unable to
convince the lower courts. So they went to the Supreme Court with the
support of JW and AEF. Thankfully, the Supreme Court agreed to take up
the case, noting that it had "probable jurisdiction" (which is another
method under which the Court can fully review a case).
We are pleased to be once again on the right side of the argument, because the issues are important. As we noted in our brief:
Texas
is devaluing the votes of certain of its citizens by improperly
including noncitizen nonvoters when determining the "equal population"
of legislative districts. Under federal law and the laws of all 50
states, only citizens may vote in federal elections. Texas' scheme to
give weight to nonvoting noncitizens along with lawful voters is
contrary to the principles embodied in citizen voting laws.
You can learn more about the issue here.
This case has national implications. Citing the extraordinary fact that
the non-citizen population in the United States has doubled since 1990,
our JW/AEF brief requests the Supreme Court finally settle the issue of
whether the U.S. Constitution requires that non-citizens be counted
when setting up voting districts:
Out
of a total 2012 population of 311 million... roughly 7 percent of the
modern U.S. population lacks citizenship - or about 1 in 14 people ...
Accordingly, the opportunity for legislators to resort to the tactical
use of non-citizen populations to dilute the voting power of citizens is
greater than ever.
As
you can imagine, some of the Left are surprised and apoplectic that the
Court might question the constitutional propriety of allowing tens of
millions of foreign nationals, many here illegally, to be used to dilute
the voting power of American citizens. As a liberal Supreme Court
watcher at the New York Times notes, the Evenwel case "looms so far as the dominant case of the court's next term."
These
two new Supreme Court cases are "looming," in part, because of the
tenacity and legal leadership of your Judicial Watch. You can be sure
that now they are before the Court, your Judicial Watch will continue to
give you a voice as the justices consider the cases next term.
Until next week...
Tom Fitton President
No comments:
Post a Comment