January 31, 2007
Guests: Czech Republic Delegation
The Czech Republic delegation was composed of representatives from the Czech National Police’s Terrorism and Extremism Unit, the Ministry of Justice, the High Prosecutor’s Office, and the International Police Cooperation Division. Their program of study while in the United States was coordinated by The Institute of International Education (IIE), under the auspices of the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program.
The Project for the Czech Delegation was titled, “Combating International Crime and the U.S. Judicial System.” Meetings were scheduled with various government agencies at the federal, state, and local level in different geographic regions of the United States to meet the objectives of this project. The Czech officials were given the opportunity to examine the relationship between legislative, judicial, and law enforcement agencies in several states and to compare foundational and innovative methods used by these agencies to combat international crime.
Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch’s director of investigations and research, met with the delegation to discuss the organization’s role as a non-governmental agency in promoting transparency and accountability in government and its role in investigating and prosecuting government corruption.
Mr. Farrell informed the officials that Judicial Watch investigates and prosecutes government corruption through the use of open records and open meetings laws, known at the federal level as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), respectively. He stated that it was as the result of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests to the Commerce Department during Clinton’s first presidential term in 1995 that JW came into the public eye. It was through records produced by the Commerce Department in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests that exposed the Clinton administration’s scheme to sell trade mission seats in exchange for campaign contributions to the DNC—in direct violation of campaign finance law.
And during its investigation, Judicial Watch received permission from the court to depose John Huang, a long-time acquaintance of the Clintons and chief handler of the “cash for access” scheme. And, remarkably, as Mr. Farrell told the delegates, John Huang—a high ranking member of the Clinton White House—evaded service of JW’s deposition subpoena and sought refuge in the Chinese embassy. When finally compelled to appear, he refused to provide relevant testimony by pleading the Fifth over 2300 times in initial and continued depositions.
Mr. Farrell stated that it wasn’t until Judicial Watch filed suit against a Republican administration for alleged violation of the federal open meetings law that it became apparent that Judicial Watch, although conservative, is nonpartisan in its investigation and prosecution of government corruption.
The delegates were then provided with a brief synopsis of Judicial Watch’s Whistleblower Protection program, where government insiders, aware of unlawful practices, have gone public when their attempts to alert superiors proved futile. And instead of being rewarded for their forthrightness and courage, they were subjected to a variety of retaliatory measures from harsh reprimands and isolation, to reduction in rank and wrongful termination. Mr. Farrell informed the delegates that JW’s former whistleblower clients include an INS agent, a former Minister Counselor at the State Department, and a Special Agent of the FBI.
The meeting was then turned over to the Czech delegates for a brief question-and answer session. Inquiries were made about Judicial Watch’s funding, methods of investigation, and the existence of other organizations similar to Judicial Watch.
Mr. Farrell informed the delegates that Judicial Watch is a non-profit organization supported financially through voluntary contributions from the American public, which is kept informed about its activities through direct mail campaigns, a monthly news publication, informational brochures, seminars, and its Internet site.
Mr. Farrell told the delegates that Judicial Watch is supported financially through the donations of hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens all across the country.
As the director of investigations and research, Mr. Farrell said he and his colleagues compile and analyze information, frequently go to the source and conduct interviews, review archives, take sworn statements, track down and develop witness lists—and are at all times proactive in investigating and uncovering government corruption.
Mr. Farrell closed the meeting by highlighting the difference between Judicial Watch and similar non-profit public policy organizations in Washington, DC. He stated that unlike most other public policy groups, Judicial Watch takes its allegations of wrongdoing into a court of law, putting its credibility on the line. Many organizations take public positions, but they do not litigate. Their statements and allegations therefore remain subjective and untested. Once in litigation, the allegations brought by Judicial Watch are subject to findings of fact and law. It is through the litigation process—according to the rule of law—that Judicial Watch holds elected and appointed government officials and judges accountable to the electorate for abuse of the public trust.
