Skip to content

Judicial Watch • 2011 jw-v-doj-complaint-06172011

2011 jw-v-doj-complaint-06172011

2011 jw-v-doj-complaint-06172011

Page 1: 2011 jw-v-doj-complaint-06172011

Category:Lawsuit

Number of Pages:5

Date Created:June 17, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:July 30, 2013

Tags:contacts, dated, failed, deputy, access, Street, working, public, EXECUTIVE, requests, Council, Pursuant, Attorney, Congress, responsive, justice, defendant, government, president, watch, plaintiff, request, White House, records, DOJ, texas, judicial, department, david, American, Washington, court, EPA, ICE, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA 

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., 

425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024, 
Plaintiff, 
U.S. DEPARTMENT JUSTICE, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, 20530-0001, 
Defendant.  Case111-cv-01121 Assignd To: Howell, Beryl Date 6/17 /2011 ption: FOINPrivacy Act  

Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against Defendant U.S. Department Justice ("DOJ") compel compliance with the Freedom oflnformation Act, U.S.C.  552 ("FOIA"). grounds therefor, Plaintiff alleges follows: 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 
The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(4)(B) and u.s.c.  1331. Venue proper this district pursuant U.S.C.  1391(e). 
PARTIES Plaintiff non-profit, educational foundation organized under the laws the District Columbia and having its principal place business 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800, Washington, 20024. Plaintiff seeks promote integrity, transparency, and accountability government and fidelity the rule law. furtherance its public interest mission, Plaintiff regularly requests access the public records federal, state, and local government agencies, entities, and offices, and disseminates its findings the public. Defendant agency the United States Government and headquartered 
U.S. Department Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, 20530-0001. Defendant has possession, custody, and control records which Plaintiff seeks access. 

STATEMENT FACTS has been reported that the decision not seek indictments the Council American Islamic Relations ("CAIR") and its co-founder Omar Ahmad, the Islamic Society North America ("ISNA"), and the North American Islamic Trust ("NAIT") was made high-ranking officials the DOJ over the objections special agents and supervisors the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation, well the prosecutors the U.S. Attorney's Office Dallas. 
Due unanswered questions concerning potential political interference that decisionmaking process and Defendant's efforts avoid public scrutiny that interference, Plaintiff sent series FOIA requests Defendant seeking records about the prosecution declination prosecution Omar Ahmad. 

The Office Information May 2011, Plaintiff sent FOIA request the Office oflnformation Policy, component Defendant, seeking access the following: 	The March 31, 2010 memorandum entitled "Declination Prosecution Omar Ahmad" from Attorney General David Kris Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler. 	Any and all communications, contacts correspondence between the Office the Attorney General ("AG"), the Office the Deputy Attorney General ("DAG"), the Office the Associate Attorney General ("Assoc. AG") and the Council American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) any CAIR affiliated groups concerning, 

regarding, relating the prosecution declination 

prosecution Omar Ahmad. 	Any and all communications, contacts correspondence between the Office the AG, the Office the DAG, the Office the Assoc. and the U.S. Congress concerning, regarding, relating the prosecution declination prosecution Omar Ahmad. 	Any and all communications, contacts correspondence between the Office the AG, the Office the DAG, the Office the Assoc. and the White House the Executive Office the President concerning, regarding, relating the prosecution declination prosecution Omar Ahmad. 
Any and all communications, contacts correspondence between 
the Office the AG, the Office the DAG, the Office the 
Assoc. and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District Texas concerning, regarding, relating the prosecution 
declination prosecution Omar Ahmad. 

The time frame for this request January 20, 2009 May 2011. letter dated June 14, 2011, Defendant acknowledged receipt Plaintiffs FOIA 
request May 16, 2011. 
Pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(A)(i), Defendant's response Plaintiffs May 

10. May 2011, Plaintiff sent FOIA request the National Security Division, 

2011 request was due within twenty working days May 16, 2011 June 14, 2011. 

component Defendant, seeking access the following: 	The March 31, 2010 memorandum entitled "Declination Prosecution Omar Ahmad" from Attorney General David Kris Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler. 	Any and all communications, contacts correspondence between the NSD and the Council American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) any CAIR affiliated groups concerning, regarding, relating the prosecution declination prosecution Omar Ahmad. 	Any and all communications, contacts correspondence between the NSD and the U.S. Congress concerning, regarding, relating the prosecution declination prosecution Omar Ahmad. 	Any and all communications, contacts correspondence between the NSD and the White House the Executive Office the President concerning, regarding, relating the prosecution declination prosecution Omar Ahmad. 	Any and all communications, contacts correspondence between the NSD and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District Texas concerning, regarding, relating the prosecution declination prosecution Omar Ahmad. 
The time frame for this request January 20, 2009 May 2011. 
11. letter dated May 13, 2011, Defendant acknowledged receipt Plaintiff's FOIA request that day. 

12. 
Pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(A)(i), Defendant's response Plaintiff's May 2011 request was due within twenty working days May 13, 2011 June 13, 2011. 

13. the date this Complaint, Defendant has failed produce any records responsive Plaintiff's two FOIA requests demonstrate that responsive records are exempt from production. Nor has indicated whether when any responsive records will produced. fact, Defendant has failed respond the two requests any substantive manner. 

14. 
Because Defendant has failed comply with the time limit set forth U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(A)(i), Plaintiff deemed have exhausted any and all administrative remedies with respect its two FOIA requests. U.S.C.  552(a)(6)(C). 

COUNT 
(Violation FOIA, U.S.C.  552) 

15. 
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs through fully stated herein. 

16. 	
Defendant unlawfully withholding records requested Plaintiff pursuant U.S.C.  552. 

17. Plaintiff being irreparably harmed reason Defendant's unlawful withholding requested records, and Plaintiff will continue irreparably harmed unless Defendant compelled conform its conduct the requirements the law. 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) order Defendant conduct searches for any and all responsive records Plaintiff's two FOIA requests and demonstrate that employed search methods reasonably likely lead the discovery records responsive Plaintiffs two FOIA requests; (2) order Defendant produce, date certain, any and all non-exempt records responsive Plaintiff's two FOIA requests and Vaughn index any responsive records withheld under claim exemption; (3) enjoin Defendant from continuing withhold any and all non-exempt records responsive Plaintiff's two FOIA requests; (4) grant Plaintiff award attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred this action pursuant U.S.C.  552(a)(4)(E); and (5) grant Plaintiff such other relief the Court deems just and proper. Dated: June 17, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 

425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 
(202) 646-5172 
Attorneys for Plaintiff



Sign Up for Updates!