Only in America! A group called the DREAM Bar Association is lobbying every state in the union to grant law licenses to illegal aliens. The nonprofit got its name from a controversial federal bill called Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) that would provide a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants brought to the country as kids. The measure also calls on states to provide discounted tuition for illegal immigrants at public colleges and universities.

But the right to practice law in the U.S. has always been a privilege that requires a special license—granted by states—that should not be compromised. After all, attorneys in this country are officers of the legal system and have special responsibility for the quality of justice. Allowing people who have violated the nation’s laws by their very presence in the country seems absurd to say the least.

Never the less, the DREAM Bar Association has picked up steam and support from the powerful open borders movement in its campaign to give illegal aliens law licenses. The Washington D.C. group boasts that it’s the first and only bar association representing “undocumented lawyers.” President Jose Magaña encourages all 50 states to pass legislation and promulgate rules to ensure that graduates of accredited laws schools are able to obtain a license and “fully utilize their legal education.” It’s a fundamental question of fairness, Magaña says.

His group has filed legal briefs in Florida and California, where state courts are considering cases involving illegal immigrants who graduated from law school but can’t obtain a license to practice. Florida’s Supreme Court heard its case last month involving Jose Godinez-Samperio, a Mexican illegal alien who came to the U.S. with his parents on visitors’ visas when he was 9 years old. He graduated from New College in Florida, earned a law degree from Florida State University and passed the state bar exam last year.

The California case centers on a Mexican man, Sergio Garcia, who for years went back and forth between Mexico and California. At 17, the family stayed in California for good and Garcia eventually graduated from law school and passed the bar exam. When California’s Supreme Court heard the case earlier this year, it sought guidance from the Department of Justice (DOJ), which said an illegal immigrant should not be allowed to practice law in the state even though he passed the bar exam.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01183)) against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seeking access to records detailing a February 2012 meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and Muslim organizations. Judicial Watch is also investigating the FBI’s subsequent controversial decision to purge the agency’s training curricula of material deemed “offensive” to Muslims.

On March 7, 2012, Judicial Watch submitted FOIA requests to the FBI and the DOJ seeking access to records concerning or relating to a February 8, 2012, meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and various Islamic organizations.

Judicial Watch seeks “any and all records setting criteria or guidelines for FBI curricula on Islam or records identifying potentially offensive material within the FBI curricula on Islam,” as well as any directives to withdraw FBI presentations and curricula on Islam. Judicial Watch also seeks records of communications between the Office of the Attorney General and several entities, including the Obama White House, the Executive Office of the President, and Muslim organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Society of North America, and the Council for American-Islamic Relations regarding the FBI’s curricula on Islam.

The FBI acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request on March 20, 2012, and was required to respond by May 1, 2012.  The DOJ acknowledged receiving Judicial Watch’s FOIA request on March 14, 2012, and was required to respond by April 11, 2012. To date, neither agency has responded to Judicial Watch’s request in accordance with FOIA law.

FBI Director Robert Mueller reportedly met secretly on February 8, 2012, at FBI headquarters with a coalition of Islamist organizations, some with radical ties to terrorist organizations. For example, per The Washington Examiner, one group that reportedly met with Mueller – the Islamic Society of North America – “was tied to the terror groups Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in federal court documents.” The government named the Islamic Society of North America as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing lawsuit, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the North American Islamic Trust.

During the February 8 meeting, Mueller reportedly assured the Islamic groups in attendance that the agency had ordered the removal of presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that were deemed “offensive.” As reported by NPR, overall, “The FBI has completed a review of offensive training material and has purged 876 pages and 392 presentations, according to a briefing provided to lawmakers.”

The material purge was reportedly initiated in response to a letter of complaint sent by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). However, other members of Congress, including Rep. Allen West (R-FL), object to allowing radical Muslim organizations the opportunity to dictate U.S. counterterrorism policy and want the material to be reinserted into the documents: “Now you have an environment of political correctness which precludes these agents from doing their proper job and due diligence to go after the perceived threat,” Congressman West said.

“There is no question that the country is less safe when we allow radical Muslim organizations to tell the FBI how to train its agents and do its job,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI’s purge of so called offensive material is political correctness run amok and it puts the nation at risk. The Obama administration owes the American people a full accounting of how and why his terrible decision was made.”

Pursuant to FOIA requests filed with the DOJ on February 6, 2012, Judicial Watch seeks the following records:

Any and all records regarding, concerning or related to the Civil Rights Division’s denial of pre-clearance of Section 5 of South Carolina Act R54 (A27 H3003) pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.;

Any and all records of communication regarding, concerning or related to South Carolina Act R54 (A27 H3003) between any official or employee of the Civil Rights Division and any other individual or entity.

The DOJ acknowledged receipt of the request on February 16, 2012. By law, a response was due no later than March 29, 2012. However, to date the DOJ has failed to respond.

In May 2011, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley signed R54 into law.

Under the Voting Rights Act (Section 5), some states, including South Carolina, must have changes to voting laws “pre-cleared” by the DOJ. On December 23, 2011, the Obama DOJ notified South Carolina that it was denying “preclearance” for Section 5 of the state’s election integrity law, claiming the provision would suppress minority voting. This was the first law of its type in 20 years to be denied “preclearance” by the DOJ.

On February 7, 2012, the State of South Carolina sued Attorney General Eric Holder to have a three-judge panel to declare R54 consistent with federal law (South Carolina v. Holder (No. 1:12-cv-0203))..

South Carolina counters in its lawsuit, that the new voter ID measures “are not a bar to voting but a temporary inconvenience no greater than the inconvenience inherent in voting itself.” South Carolina also argues that its law is similar to a law passed by the State of Indiana that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of South Carolina filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit on February 24, 2012.

“There is no doubt the Obama Justice Department is acting as a legal front for the Obama campaign and leftist special interest groups. South Carolina’s photo ID provision is a lawful attempt to ensure the integrity of every vote. But the Justice Department has no interest in stopping voter fraud because this would interfere with the effort to re-elect Barack Obama by hook or by crook.  The secrecy we are fighting in court suggests that Holder’s agency has something to hide.  The American people have a right to know how why the Obama administration has such a distaste for clean elections.”

As part of its 2012 Election Integrity Campaign, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit on June 1, 2012, against the Obama DOJ to obtain records detailing the agency’s communications with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) regarding Pennsylvania House Bill 934, commonly referred to as Pennsylvania’s Voter ID law. The ACLU and allied organizations have filed a lawsuit to prevent the law, signed by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett on March 14, 2012, from taking effect before the November elections.

The sophisticated operation for years smuggled cocaine from Honduras to northern Virginia, which is considered part of the Washington Metropolitan area that surrounds the capital. Couriers smuggled large amounts of drugs by hiding them in shoes and decorative wooden frames, according to federal prosecutors. The feds also believe that members of the trafficking ring wired more than $1 million from the United States back to cocaine suppliers in Honduras.

In all, 28 people from a “tight network of Honduran immigrants” have been arrested, according to Neil MacBride, the U.S. Attorney that heads the DOJ’s Eastern District of Virginia office handling the case. His announcement, posted on the Department of Justice (DOJ) website, goes into tremendous detail about the operation and mentions how the suspects distributed vast amounts of cocaine throughout Northern Virginia and the mid-Atlantic.

However, there is no mention that the criminal enterprise was run by illegal immigrants, not simply “Honduran immigrants,” which implies they lived in the U.S. legally. Local and national media followed the DOJ’s cover-up lead. One local news report simply reprinted the DOJ press release, which identifies the suspects by name. Maryland’s largest newspaper dedicated a two-paragraph brief to the story because three state “residents” were arrested but, again, no mention of any illegal immigrants being involved.   

The area’s conservative newspaper, the Washington Examiner, was the only to contact federal immigration authorities to inquire about the status of the arrestees in this case. This is a relevant fact, considering the Obama Administration is granting backdoor amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens. The short piece quotes an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official confirming the agency had lodged detainers against all 28 defendants. The information came via electronic mail after an Examiner reporter took the time to do her job. 

The shooting occurred in the summer of 2010 when the federal agent, Jesus Mesa, spotted a group of Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande near El Paso. U.S. authorities say Mesa fatally shot a teen (Sergio Hernández-Guereca) traveling with the group in self-defense after the teen and his friends threw rocks at the agent.

Last year a Texas judge dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. government but allowed a lawsuit against the agent to proceed. The Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) has spent the last two years conducting a “comprehensive and thorough investigation into the shooting” in an effort to file federal criminal charges against the Border Patrol agent.

But a few days ago the DOJ conceded that there is “insufficient evidence” to pursue federal criminal charges against Mesa. “The U.S. government regrets the loss of life in this matter, and the Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security devoted significant time and resources into conducting a thorough and complete investigation,” the DOJ says in a statement.

The lengthy probe was conducted by an army of federal officers from the FBI, Homeland Security Inspector General and top prosecutors from the DOJ’s bloated Civil Rights Division. They interviewed dozens of law enforcement and civilian witnesses and collected, analyzed and reviewed evidence from the scene of the shooting. This included civilian and surveillance video, police radio traffic, emergency recordings and volumes of Border Patrol agent training and use of force material.

Agent Mesa’s training, disciplinary records and personal history were also scrutinized. The team of experienced DOJ prosecutors examined the shooting as a possible violation of U.S. criminal and civil rights laws, but the incident did not meet the standard. Evidence indicated that the “agent’s actions constituted a reasonable use of force or would constitute an act of self-defense in response to the threat created by a group of smugglers hurling rocks at the agent…” the feds concluded.

They further determined that no federal civil rights charges could be pursued in this matter since applicable statutes require prosecutors to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a law enforcement officer willfully deprived an individual of a constitutional right. That means with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids. Again, after a thorough review, the experienced federal prosecutors and FBI agents concluded that the evidence was insufficient.

The decision has been met with anger among Mexican government officials who have threatened to launch an international investigation. The Spanish-language news media presented the story as the exoneration of the American agent who assassinated a Mexican youth. In a diplomatic note from its secretary of foreign relations, Mexico’s government chastised the DOJ’s decision not to criminally charge the Border Patrol agent. 

Mexico has also threatened to conduct its own investigation into the DOJ’s handling of the case and has warned the U.S. to assure that Mexicans’ fundamental rights are being respected. The teen’s family, which lives in Mexico, has sued Agent Mesa despite the DOJ’s decision not to criminally charge him.

The unprecedented move would give the Department of Justice (DOJ), an extension of the executive branch, scary authority to determine if and how public records are disseminated throughout government. It would also strip those duties from the agency— Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)—that was created by Congress as a neutral party to mediate FOIA disputes and assure compliance among all federal agencies.

This is not the sort of story you’ll see in the mainstream media since, not surprisingly, the Obama Administration is keeping it under the radar. However, Judicial Watch has obtained an inside congressional document outlining the DOJ’s unscrupulous plot to become FOIA ombudsman. It comes from one of the most influential and powerful chambers in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In a letter addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder, the California congressman who chairs the Oversight and Government Reform Committee (Darrell Issa) says the proposed modification will have a negative impact on government transparency. The letter also requests documents involving efforts to modify OGIS’s statutorily established FOIA dispute resolution authority by shifting the duties to the DOJ. Holder has until this week to comply with the committee’s request.

The House investigative committee also reminds Holder that the DOJ’s proposal to become the referee for public records disputes clearly contradicts Congress’s intent and is an apparent contravention of FOIA law. “DOJ has important but limited statutory responsibilities concerning the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),” the letter says. “These responsibilities include making information about agency FOIA programs publicly available; issuing recommendations and guidelines to agency FOIA offices, and encouraging agency FOIA compliance. DOJ’s responsibilities under FOIA, however, do not include offering dispute resolution services between agencies and FOIA requesters.”

Congress created the OGIS more than four years ago as a crucial neutral party that offers a range of mediation services to resolve public records disputes and to assure government-wide compliance. The agency, which is headquartered at the U.S. National Archives, has had tremendous success, directly helping resolve more than 1,200 FOIA disputes from virtually every state. No wonder Issa asks Holder to “reconsider the proposed modification and comply with current law.”

Specifically, the feds are charging the agent, Luis Fonseca, for depriving the rights of the mystery illegal immigrant at the Border Patrol station in Imperial Beach California last July. Based on the Department of Justice’s account, a federal grand jury indicted Fonseca on a single charge of deprivation of rights under color of law. The charge, a civil rights violation, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail.

The case is problematic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the government’s secrecy surrounding details. In the one-page indictment the illegal immigrant is identified only as “UA#1.” The document also claims that, as a result of the use of “unreasonable force” the undocumented alien sustained some kind of “bodily injury” yet no further details are provided.

Additionally, the grand jury indictment is dated April 12, 2012 which means the feds dragged their feet, probably because they knew it was a weak case. Fonseca was arrested on Friday during a shift at the Border Patrol’s Imperial Beach station and is currently on paid leave. He pleaded not guilty in federal court this week. 

Here is why the DOJ is going after the particular agent, according to the federal prosecutor handling the case: “People detained at the border should be treated with human dignity and respect by federal agents. It is important for the public to know that the Department of Justice takes alleged civil rights violations seriously. We have processes in place to investigate and will take action where appropriate to protect those rights.”

Now the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General is investigating the matter. Perhaps when that report is finished, more information will be revealed to the public. For instance, the “victim’s” identity and the exact “bodily injury” that he or she supposedly suffered at the hands of the Border Patrol agent accused of committing the choking and kneeing.

The U.S. government has worked hard to protect illegal immigrants and their “constitutional” rights in the last few years. This has empowered them to file a number of lawsuits against local and federal law enforcement agencies for violating their rights. In Connecticut a group of illegal aliens sued the government for violating their constitutional rights during the operation that led to their apprehension.

In New York an illegal immigrant with a lengthy criminal record got a $145,000 settlement from the state for having his civil rights violated during one of his many arrests. In Maryland an illegal immigrant from El Salvador sued the sheriff’s department for unlawfully and unconstitutionally detaining her based on race and in California illegal aliens sued a city for banning them from seeking work on public streets.   

This may seem ironic considering the administration, mostly via the Department of Justice (DOJ), has implemented a variety of controversial programs to promote and protect blacks and Latinos in the name of diversity. Examples will be listed below, but first let’s check out the outrageous lack of racial diversity at the sprawling transit system that serves the area surrounding the White House.  

Nearly all of the bus and train operators in the system are black, according to an investigation conducted by a local newspaper. This week the paper is publishing a three-part series outlining the findings, which are downright astounding. The first article reveals that 97% of the bus and train operators in the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority are black, with only six white women out of more than 3,000 drivers.

This unbelievable lack of diversity has led to a series of lawsuits, the story reveals, and a culture of corruption in which favoritism—rather than merit—plays a role in promotions. Here is a typical example straight from court and transit records; a black man who served an eight-year prison sentence for dealing drugs was promoted to a high-level management job after his release while whites in the same positions as blacks with far less seniority are inexplicably paid less.

Even in entry-level occupations typically dominated by Hispanics, there are virtually none in the system, the records show. Only one laborer out of 67 is Hispanic; of 540 landscapers, carpenters and cleaners, only 22 are Hispanic. An attorney representing a dozen white women in a lawsuit against the metro system says “the odds of such a disparity occurring by chance are statistically infinitesimal. There appears to be an entrenched network of African-American employees at WMATA that is able to steer jobs, promotion, training and other career enhancing benefit to persons of their own racial or ethnic group.”

The system does have a “civil rights” office that hears discrimination complaints, but it too lacks racial diversity because all 17 employees running it are black. White and Hispanic transit workers who have reported discrimination have encountered a “deaf ear at Metro’s civil rights office,” the article states.

All this is occurring in the president’s back yard, indicating that he cares only about selective affirmative action. In the last few years the administration has implemented a number of measures to shield and promote minorities in the workforce as well as public education. The movement started with a new Office of Diversity and Inclusion to help build a “diverse and inclusive workforce” at all federal government agencies.

The DOJ’s bloated civil rights division has committed to eliminating workplace tests that may be viewed as discriminatory against minorities. Known as “disparate impact,” the racial discrimination created by written exams is especially rampant in the nation’s police and fire departments, according to Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General who heads the DOJ’s civil rights division. In the name of diversity, he has vowed to do away with the racist exams.  

A few months ago the administration issued official government guidelines to promote diversity in the nation’s public education system. The joint venture between the DOJ and the Department of Education (DOE) aims to “reduce racial isolation among students,” by, among other things, blending the rich with the poor. The guidelines are expected to be implemented by the nation’s elementary and secondary schools as well as colleges and universities that receive taxpayer dollars.

The administration has even proposed a special plan to make the airwaves more ethnically diverse by holding broadcasting rights hostage for those who don’t pass a “public value” test. Under that brilliant Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal broadcasters would be required to reflect ethnic diversity and a commitment to public affairs programming to keep their license.

It appears that the Obama Administration is once again utilizing the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a political tool, this time to challenge voter identification laws—like one already upheld by the Supreme Court—that Democrats claim discriminate against minorities.

As the presidential election nears and Obama’s poll numbers plummet, who can blame party loyals for taking measures to get their boss reelected? After all, under this far-fetched discrimination theory a chunk of citizens that would normally vote Democrat couldn’t cast ballots because they can’t prove their identity.

That’s because they are either too poor or too ignorant to get a valid identification—provided free in many of the states that have passed voter ID laws—that proves they are who they say they are. This unbelievable theory has gained momentum in the last few months, with the powerful chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz) calling ID laws a “full-scale assault” on minority voters designed to “rig” elections for Republicans.

Eight states have strict laws that require a voter to provide picture identification in order to cast a ballot. All but two of the states—Georgia and Indiana—passed their measures this year and the DOJ’s bloated civil rights division has vowed to ensure that they don’t have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect. Targets of the DOJ’s discrimination probe are Kansas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Mississippi.

Reiterating the administration’s “commitment to robust civil rights enforcement,” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez confirmed last week that DOJ lawyers are reviewing some of the recently-enacted state laws to ensure that they are not racially discriminatory. “We have received numerous inquiries about recently enacted state laws relating to voter identification requirements, voter registration requirements and changes to early voting procedures,” Perez said, adding that “we are carefully reviewing these laws.”

In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, ruling that the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process outweighed the insufficiently proven burdens the law may impose on voters. “There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” the nation’s highest court said in its decision.

The ruling makes the DOJ’s aggressive intervention all the more questionable, like some of its other politically-motivated actions. Earlier this year Judicial Watch obtained internal government records that show political appointees at the DOJ ordered a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party dismissed. Clad in military attire and armed with weapons, members of the radical group intimidated white voters with racial insults and profanity during the 2008 presidential election and were scheduled to be prosecuted.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced that it filed today separate lawsuits against the Obama Department of Energy and Office of Management and Budget to obtain records regarding the taxpayer funded government loan provided to the now bankrupt green energy company Solyndra. On September 5, 2011, Judicial Watch submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking the following information:

1. Any and all records regarding, concerning or related to the issuance of loan guarantees to Solyndra LLC, Solyndra Inc., Solyndra Fab 2 LLC, and/or 360 Degree Solar Holdings Inc.
2. Any and all records of communication between any official, officer, or employee of the Department of Energy and any official, officer or employee of any other government agency, department or office regarding concerning or related to Solyndra LLC, Solyndra Inc., Solyndra Fab 2 LLC, and/or 360 Degree Solar Holdings Inc.
3. Any and all records of communications between any official, officer or employee of the Department of Energy and any official, officer or employee of the following entities [Solyndra investors] regarding concerning or related to Solyndra LLC, Solyndra Inc., Solyndra Fab 2 LLC, and/or 360 Degree Solar Holdings Inc.:
   

   a. Argonaut Private Equity LLC
   b. Madrone Capital Partners LLC
   c. U.S. Venture Partners (USVP) LLC
   d. Rockport Capital Partners LLC.

Both agencies have acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests. The Department of Energy provided two compact discs on October 7, 2011, that contained a partial response to the request while noting that “[a]dditional responsive documents exist and are being reviewed in preparation for public release.” However, to date no further response has been received.

The Office of Management and Budget has failed to produce any records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request or demonstrate that responsive records are exempt from production. Nor has it indicated whether or when any responsive records will be produced.

“Our new FOIA lawsuits show the Solyndra scandal is heating up and that the Obama administration is in cover-up mode,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people are set to lose $535 million dollars and want to know why it happened. Obama administration lies and potential criminal misconduct by high-ranking government officials make this a scandal of the first order.”