Washington, DC — July 7, 2011Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) showing that DHS officials misled Congress and the public about the scope of an immigration enforcement policy change that gave wide latitude to local immigration officials to dismiss illegal alien deportation cases. According to the documents, obtained pursuant to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, immigration officials sought the dismissal of charges against a wide range of illegal alien criminals, including those convicted of violent crimes, despite claims by the Obama administration to the contrary.The documents concern the response by Houston immigration officials to a June 30, 2010, memo from John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to all ICE employees instructing local immigration officials to use their discretion in “prioritizing” illegal immigration deportation cases. This new policy resulted in the dismissal of hundreds of immigration cases and an overall 40% increase in deportation dismissals with the City of Houston taking a particularly aggressive approach to the policy’s implementation.In response to calls by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for more information regarding this new deportation policy, DHS spokesman Matt Chandler said, “The idea that DHS is engaged in ‘selective enforcement’ couldn’t be further from the truth.” However, the documents uncovered by Judicial Watch show that Houston immigration officials moved quickly to implement a broad interpretation of Morton’s memo, earning praise from ICE agency headquarters:

• Email from Gary Goldman, Chief Counsel for Houston ICE to Riah Ramlogan, ICE’s Director of Field Operations, August 6, 2010:
  

  I was uncertain whether to write you this short note but I am comfortable in doing so.In brief, I will push every policy that was disseminated to the Chief Counsels to my staff…effectively and quickly. I understand the responsibilities of my position and I take great pride in my work. I will…ensure each attorney is fully knowledgeable and compliant with policies regarding courtroom expectations, written work, humanitarian cases, reporting requirements, etc.

  (Ramlogan’s response to Goldman’s efforts, August 10, 2010: “Outstanding, Gary.”)

• Memo from Goldman to all attorneys, Office of Chief Counsel, August 12, 2010 (ultimately rescinded per the instruction of ICE headquarters):
  

  Beginning immediately on all duty files and court files every attorney must determine whether the case may be amenable to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to guidelines outlined in the June 30, 2010 Assistant Secretary John Morton memorandum…If the crime is remote in time and the alien has a substantial number of equities, all factors will be weighed to determine if an exercise of PD [prosecutorial discretion] is appropriate.

• Memo from Goldman to all attorneys, Office of Chief Counsel, August 16, 2010 (ultimately rescinded per the instruction of ICE headquarters):
  

  ICE Senior Leadership does not want their attorneys to merely fill a seat in immigration court and blindly prosecute every case handed to them. The current administration wants attorneys of greater sophistication, independence and complexity in decision making…

Moreover, despite the claims of immigration officials, ICE attorneys sought to block deportation proceeding for illegal aliens with violent crime offenses. A spreadsheet obtained by Judicial Watch lists the specific violent crimes that immigration officials were prepared to overlook. They include: sexual assault, solicitation of murder, aggravated assault, assaulting a police officer, and kidnapping, as well as numerous drug charges.Following the press coverage of the memo, which resulted in widespread outrage, immigration officials sought to contain the damage by narrowing the scope of the policy change:

• An email from Raphael Choi, Chief Counsel for Arlington ICE to Gary Goldman, August 18, 2010:
  

  …in-house I’m way behind. We continue to review cases piecemeal. The problem is every time I’m about to wield a blunt instrument to our docket, some case shows up in the press that gives me pause. I think its given Riah pause too.

• Letter from Ramlogan to Goldman on the day the Houston Chronicle exposed the new policy on deportations, August 25, 2010:
  

  I am concerned that your interpretation of the memorandum, although well-intentioned, could create a gap in basic immigration enforcement. Your approach that our attorneys should only litigate cases within the agency’s highest priorities is not an accurate interpretation of the Assistant Secretary’s guidance and is not consistent with agency policy…please immediately rescind your memoranda.

  (Note: Ramlogan had been provided a copy of Goldman’s memo on August 10, 2010 but provided no comment until the day the Houston Chronicle story was published.)

On June 17, 2011, John Morton sent another memo to all field officers, special agents and to the chief counsel further defining the term “prosecutorial discretion.” “In basic terms, prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual,” Morton writes. Critics point out that this is precisely the type of “selective enforcement” the DHS has denied fostering with its new deportation policy.“These documents show that the Obama administration is implementing ‘stealth amnesty,’ which is an end-run around the rule of law and Congress.” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration doesn’t seem to care about its constitutional responsibility to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ by pushing the selective enforcement of immigration laws. And they are thumbing their noses at Congress and the American people by stonewalling information requests and lying to cover up their stealth amnesty scheme. Congress should initiate a full investigation to get to the truth of the matter. The lawlessness must stop.”

Documents Uncovered

• DHS documents, part 1
• DHS documents, part 2
• DHS documents, part 3
• DHS documents, part 4

Washington, DC — June 24, 2011Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement regarding the investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) of sexual harassment and other charges in the lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Winsome Packer, a staffer on a commission headed by Hastings (Packer v. US Comm. On Security & Cooperation in Europe, and Hastings and Turner (No. 11-00485 D.D.C.)):

The OCE is indeed investigating Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL). Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of congressional staffer Winsome Packer on March 7, 2011, in which Hastings is accused of repeatedly subjecting Packer to “unwelcome sexual advances,” “unwelcome touching” and retaliation.The alleged harassment and retaliation began in 2008, when Hastings was Chairman of the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Commission is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Also named is the Commission’s former staff director, Fred Turner.Judicial Watch confirms that Ms. Packer is cooperating with the Office of Congressional Ethics. She and Judicial Watch met with investigators for several hours in May.

The OCE has 89 days to complete its investigation and to recommend its findings to the House Ethics Committee for action.

Judicial Watch, the organization that fights government corruption, announced today that the Senate Committee on Ethics sent a letter on June 3, 2011, to all Senate Members and staff to make certain they “understand and adhere to the rules on unused per diem,” following a Judicial Watch ethics complaint over alleged widespread abuse of cash per diem travel funds by members of Congress. The Senate Ethics Committee refused, however, to hold accountable individual members of Congress referenced in press reports documenting per diem abuse.

According to the Senate Ethics Committee letter sent to Judicial Watch on June 8, 2011:

…based upon review of the information you have provided, it appears that your complaint lacks merit and further Committee action is not appropriate with respect to this matter. The Committee, however, has recently circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter to ensure that all Members and staff, especially those who are new to the Senate, understand and adhere to the rules on unused per diem. [Emphasis added]

The Senate Ethics Committee letter sent to each U.S. Senator states:

There has been recent media attention regarding the use of foreign travel per diem by Members and staff of the Senate. We want to make sure that you and your staffs know that any unused portion of your foreign travel per diem must be returned to the United States Treasury after you return home.

Judicial Watch filed letters of complaint with the Senate and House Ethics Committee on March 31, 2010, following a March 2, 2010, Wall Street Journal article documenting the per diem abuses by Members of Congress:

Congress has no system for tracking how the cash payments, called per diems, are being spent. Lawmakers aren’t required to keep receipts and there are no public records. In the past two years, hundreds of lawmakers spent a total of 5,300 days visiting 130 foreign countries on taxpayer-funded trips, according to congressional travel records.

With regard to how Members of Congress may have misappropriated the funds, according to the article: “Sometimes they give it away; sometimes they pocket it. Many lawmakers said they didn’t know the rules for repayment.”Former Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), The Wall Street Journal notes, admitted that it’s “fairly standard” policy for lawmakers to use the leftover money “for shopping or to buy souvenirs to bring back to constituents.”As Judicial Watch argued in its letters of complaint, such behavior is seemingly in violation of explicit House and Senate rules governing the reimbursement of travel expenses. For example, according to Senate rules:

A per diem allowance provided a Member, officer, or employee in connection with foreign travel shall be used solely for lodging, food, and related expenses and it is the responsibility of the Member, officer, or employee receiving such an allowance to return to the United States Government that portion of the allowance received which is not actually used for necessary lodging, food, and related expenses.

“We are pleased that the Senate Ethics Committee has responded to our call to educate members on their responsibilities to the U.S. taxpayers and the rule of law regarding these per diems. It is a sad story that United States Senators need to be reminded that they can’t keep taxpayer cash for their own personal use,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is obvious that members of the U.S. Senate have abused this process, and we believe a more thorough investigation is warranted. The Senate Ethics Committee shouldn’t give a pass to members to misappropriated taxpayer funds.”

On Tuesday, May 3, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton will provide testimony to the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. The hearing, entitled “White House Transparency, Visitor Logs and Lobbyists,” will examine issues concerning the release of White House visitor records.

The Chairman of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Ranking Minority Member is Diana DeGette (D-CO).To view the proceedings Tuesday live online, click here:

• When: Tuesday, May 3
  10:30 AM ET
• Where: Rayburn House Office Building
  Room 2123

As background to tomorrow’s testimony, it was Judicial Watch that successfully forced the release of White House visitor logs related to visits by former lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff to the Bush White House in 2006. Judicial Watch continued its aggressive pursuit of these logs with the Obama administration. Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Obama Secret Service, which lawlessly claimed these records were not agency records subject to timely public disclosure. Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit, which is ongoing.Tens of thousands of visitor logs continue to be withheld, and a report by the Center for Public Integrity suggests that the records that have been released are “riddled with holes.” Other reports detail that White House officials have met with lobbyists “off campus” to avoid disclosing lobbyists contacts through White House visitor logs.UPDATE: Tom Fitton’s opening statement.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton will provide testimony to this week’s Senate and House hearings on government compliance to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He will, on behalf of the government watchdog Judicial Watch, focus on whether the Obama administration’s transparency promises are being kept. Judicial Watch has filed over 325 Freedom of Information requests with the Obama administration, and has been forced to file 44 lawsuits to force the Obama administration to comply with the Freedom of Information Act.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing is entitled “The Freedom of Information Act: Ensuring Transparency and Accountability in the Digital Age.” Senator Patrick Joseph Leahy (D-VT) is Chairman of the Committee, Senator Charles E. “Chuck” Grassley (R-IA) is the Ranking Minority Member. To view the Senate Judiciary proceedings Tuesday live online, click here: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/

• When: Tuesday, March 15, 201110:15 AM ET
• Where: Dirksen Senate Office BuildingRoom 226

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing is entitled “The Freedom of Information Act: Crowd-Sourcing Government Oversight.” Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is Chairman of the Committee, Congressman Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD) is the Ranking Minority Member. To view the House Government Reform and Oversight proceedings Thursday live online click here: http://oversight.house.gov/

• When: Thursday, March 17, 20119:30 AM ET
• Where: Rayburn House BuildingRoom 2154

The hearings are being held as part of Sunshine Week 2011 — March 13-19. Sunshine Week is a national initiative by the news media, nonprofits and other organizations interested in promoting government transparency.

Below is the text of a letter Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton sent to Congressman Peter King (R-NY) regarding the radicalization of American Muslims. Tomorrow, Congressman King is chairing a hearing of his committee to discuss exactly that topic.

February 1, 2011The Honorable Peter T. King
United States House of Representatives
339 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515Dear Congressman King:Congratulations on your chairmanship of the House Homeland Security Committee in the 112th Congress.As president of Judicial Watch, a conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation in the nation’s capital, whose mission is the promotion of transparency, integrity, and accountability in government, politics, and the law, I applaud your determination to undertake afresh an investigation of the increasing “radicalization” of American Muslims.Shortly after the terrorist attacks on September 11, Judicial Watch undertook an investigation of Muslim charities and filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding non-profit entities in the United States that “reportedly” had been serving as money laundering front organizations for Islamic terrorists, particularly Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2004, several of the organizations listed by Judicial Watch were further investigated by the Senate Finance Committee.Most recently, we filed a complaint with the Office of the Mayor in the New York Supreme Court for its failure to produce documents responsive to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. A copy of our January 3, 2011, media release regarding our findings from recently produced documents is enclosed.Judicial Watch has hundreds of thousands of supporters across the country who faithfully support our mission—and who stand firmly against the tide of political correctness that undermines our national security. Your determination to investigate the increasing radicalization of American Muslims has our support, and we remain available to present testimony of our findings and to support your good efforts to hold Muslim leaders in America accountable.Sincerely,Thomas J. Fitton
President

Related Documents

• Muslim Charities: Moderate Non-Profits or Elaborate Deceptions - Judicial Watch Special Report – 2007

Washington, DC — March 7, 2011Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit on March 7, 2011, against Florida Democrat Congressman Alcee Hastings on behalf of a female employee who was repeatedly subjected to “unwelcome sexual advances,” “unwelcome touching” and retaliation. The alleged harassment and retaliation began in 2008, when Hastings was Chairman of the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Commission is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Also named is the Commission’s former staff director, Fred Turner. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit on behalf of Commission employee Winsome Packer (Packer v. US Comm. On Security & Cooperation in Europe, and Hastings and Turner (CV No. 11-00485 D.D.C.))According to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, filed on Monday March 7th with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

For over two years, from January 2008 through February 19, 2010, Ms. Packer was forced to endure unwelcome sexual advances, crude sexual comments, and unwelcome touching by Mr. Hastings while serving as the Representative of the Commission to the United States Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Although Ms. Packer repeatedly rejected Mr. Hastings’ sexual attention and repeatedly complained about the harassment to the Commission Staff Director, Fred Turner, Mr. Hastings refused to stop sexually harassing her. Rather, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Turner began to retaliate against Ms. Packer—including making threats of termination—because she continued to object to Mr. Hastings’ conduct.Ms. Packer was particularly vulnerable to such threats because she was a Republican working for the Democratically-controlled Commission, a point that both Mr. Hastings and Mr. Turner used to threaten and intimidate her. Eventually, the emotional distress, anxiety, and humiliation caused by the sexual harassment and retaliation caused Ms. Packer to suffer severe health problems and forced her to leave her prestigious position.

According to Judicial Watch’s complaint, “Mr. Hastings’ intention was crystal clear: he was sexually attracted to Ms. Packer, wanted a sexual relationship with her, and would help progress her career if she acquiesced to his sexual advances.” These advances included: Making multiple demands that Ms. Packer allow Rep. Hastings to stay in her apartment while she served as the Commission’s lead staff representative overseas; subjecting Ms. Packer to unwanted physical contact, including hugging her with both arms while pressing his body against her body and his face against her face; inviting her on multiple occasions to accompany him alone to his hotel room; making sexual comments and references to Ms. Packer, and asking Ms. Packer humiliating and inappropriate questions in public, such as “What kind of underwear are you wearing?”After Ms. Packer repeatedly rebuffed these advances and reported them to her superior, Mr. Turner, and other officials (including Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD)), Hastings allegedly scolded her for not being a “sport” and for rejecting him after he had “come to [her] as a man does a woman.” He said he was very upset she had reported his behavior to Mr. Turner: “How dare you complain about me! You had better forget about being Republican.” Moreover, Hastings and Turner then allegedly took retaliatory actions against Ms. Packer by repeatedly threatening her job at the Commission, by refusing to allow her to return from overseas to her position as Policy Advisor in Washington, D.C., and by intentionally marginalizing her from her colleagues. Hastings also pressured Ms. Packer to buy him personal gifts and make a campaign contribution to him.As a direct result of Mr. Hastings’ sexual harassment, Ms. Packer experienced insomnia, anxiety, depression, high-blood pressure, and developed symptoms of coronary artery disease. At one point, these symptoms were so severe Ms. Packer collapsed and was rushed to the emergency room. Ms. Packer has been prescribed medication and is under the care of a physician because of the severity of her heart problems.“The allegations against Alcee Hastings as detailed in this complaint are outrageous. Is Congress so far gone that its members think they can get away with the most base sexual harassment of staff! For two years Hastings subjected Ms. Packer to a never-ending barrage of unwanted sexual advances. And when Ms. Packer tried, time and again, to put a stop to it, he resorted to threats and intimidation to force her compliance. Even after Hastings’ behavior caused Ms. Packer’s physical collapse, he would not relent. We look forward to holding Alcee Hastings and the other defendants accountable for their unlawful behavior in court,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.Hastings, a former federal judge, was impeached by the House and, after a trial, removed by the U.S. Senate from the bench in 1989 for bribery and perjury.

Judicial Watch will be holding a press conference to announce details of a lawsuit to be filed today against a U.S. Representative.

This offender has come to the attention of ethics committees on numerous occasions with transgressions ranging from questionable use of per diem funds to acceptance of bribe monies. The Judicial Watch lawsuit contends that the congressman has finally gone beyond the pale.

When:

1:00 PM ET, Monday, March 7, 2011

Where:

Judicial Watch conference room
425 Third St, SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024

Who:

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained new documents from the United States Air Force detailing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s use of United States Air Force aircraft in 2010. According to the documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Pelosi used Air Force aircraft for 43 flights from January 1 to October 1, 2010. According to documents previously uncovered by Judicial Watch, by comparison, Nancy Pelosi logged 47 flights in the prior nine-month period, April 1, 2009, to January 1, 2010.

The most recent documents uncovered by Judicial Watch include a Passenger Mission Activity chart detailing all of former Speaker Pelosi’s flights January 1 to October 1, 2010, as well as detailed shopping lists for some flights, flight authorization forms, Mission Expense Records and internal Air Force correspondence related to the flights. Among the highlights from the documents, obtained pursuant to a FOIA request filed on September 10, 2010:

• Pelosi used the Air Force aircraft for a total of 43 trips, covering 90,155 miles, from January 1 through October 1, 2010. The Air Force documented in-flight expenses for 22 of these flights totaling $1,821.33. The Air Force did not provide expense information for the remaining 21 flights.
• Former Speaker Pelosi received chocolate covered strawberries as a birthday surprise on a March 26, 2010 flight. According to one internal Air Force email sent on March 25, 2010: “The speaker’s office is requesting egg salad sandwiches on wheat toast with fruit (watermelon, etc) for desert [sic]. It’s the speaker’s B-Day tomorrow so we’re also asking for something like chocolate covered strawberries (dark chocolate preferred)…” The immediate response to the email from another member of the Air Force staff: “Copy all. We’ll plan something for the birthday and take care of the meal.”

According to previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the former Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over one two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008, included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Baileys Irish Cream, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniel’s whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.Judicial Watch also previously uncovered internal Department of Defense (DOD) email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s last minute cancellations and changes. For example, in response to a series of requests for military aircraft, one DOD official wrote, “Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?…[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’…” The email also notes that Pelosi’s office had, “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”Judicial Watch also uncovered emails from the DOD that show the Pentagon worked hand-in-hand with congressional offices prior to releasing documents regarding congressional military travel under the FOIA. These “heads up” emails involved FOIA requests filed by Judicial Watch, The Wall Street Journal, Congressional Quarterly, and Roll Call, among other organizations, related to the use of military aircraft by a number of congressional members, including Pelosi.“Despite the media firestorm over her military travel abuses, Nancy Pelosi continued to use the United States Air Force as her own personal travel agency right up until her final days as House Speaker,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Nancy Pelosi demonstrated an alarming disregard for the men and women in the U.S. Air Force during her tenure as House Speaker. We are pleased that Speaker Boehner will not follow Pelosi’s corrupt example and will instead fly commercial. But this scandal is not only about travel by the Speaker of the House. Through the Speaker’s office, other members of the House are able to obtain permission for the use of military luxury travel for congressional delegation trips abroad. These trips, known as CODELs, have exploded in number and cost. Speaker Boehner needs to reform this abuse of our military’s assets. This is the right thing to do for the U.S. Air Force and for the American taxpayer.”