May 4, 2007

 

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

 

 

JW Calls on Attorney General Gonzales to Investigate Rep. John Conyers

 

On April 25, I sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales calling for an investigation of Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers.  Judicial Watch recently obtained documentation from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct on the part of the Michigan congressman which, as I wrote to the Attorney General, “appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful.” Our understanding is that the FBI was specifically investigating Conyers.  But it seems from the outside that the investigation has shut down.  I hope that it has nothing to do with the fact, that as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Conyers has oversight over Justice Department and FBI matters (and budgets).

 

You may recall that last year, Conyers landed on Judicial Watch’s “Ten Most Corrupt Politicians” list as a “dishonorable mention.”  Here’s why:  It appears Conyers, who is now Chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly violated the law and House ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets, and as campaign workers while on the government payroll.

 

In fact, according to complaints filed with the House Committee on Standards of Official conduct, in 1998, Conyers summoned one staff member to his home and forced her to serve as a live-in nanny for his two sons for six weeks while Conyers’ wife attended law classes! 

 

Of course the House Ethics Committee “investigated” these allegations last year.  While substantiating a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee’s solution was to blame the staff and then require additional administrative record-keeping and employee training.  Case closed.  Well, not exactly.  Judicial Watch continued to investigate the matter and obtained more details from a former member of Conyers’ staff.  The evidence of Conyers’ misconduct is compelling.  And it appears to us that the Ethics Committee essentially swept the matter under the rug.  As I wrote the Attorney General…

 

“Neither Mr. Conyers nor his senior staff were held accountable for their actions in any way.  It is our position that, given the documented evidence available, the committee failed to vigorously pursue investigative leads and achieve accountability for wrong-doing.  Serious claims of criminal conduct remain unresolved… Frankly, the ‘ball is in your court.’”

 

Ironically, Conyers was in the news this week related to an investigation of the Attorney General’s office for its dismissal of several U.S. Attorneys.  Let’s hope this does not serve as an impediment to a full investigation of Conyers.  I’ll keep you posted.

 

 

LAPD Under Fire for the Wrong Reasons

 

Earlier this week, the LAPD came under fire for using what some have labeled as “inappropriate force” against violent illegal immigration “reform” protestors.  This is how the Associated Press chose to report the incident:  “Rally organizers denounced police actions as brutal and unnecessary, and worried what the clash could mean for an immigration rights movement known for its peaceful rallies.”

 

Peaceful rallies?

 

According to the authorities, some of the protesters had moved off the sidewalks and onto the streets, where they did not belong, precipitating the conflict.  As the police attempted to maintain order, some of protestors started throwing rocks and bottles at them.  Judicial Watch, in prior investigations and lawsuits, is familiar with the anarchist and Aztlan-types likely behind the violence.  The illegal acts caused the police to warn the mob to disperse, the commands were ignored, and the police sought to gain control by firing rubber (non-lethal) devices and using batons when necessary, as they are trained to do.  No one was seriously injured, though many police had minor injuries thanks to the mob violence.  But that hasn’t stopped the illegal immigrant lobby from turning the matter into a media circus.  The FBI has announced it will now investigate the LAPD’s use of force against the protesters.  And Police Chief William Bratton, for his part, says the tactics used by his officers “were inappropriate.”

 

Instead of berating police officers who have an extremely difficult job controlling a violent mob of illegal aliens, Chief Bratton and the other politicians of LA should be held to account for how their own policies and procedures have contributed to the illegal alien problem.  For instance, Special Order 40, the LAPD’s version of an illegal alien “sanctuary policy,” prevents police officers from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status and freely communicating with federal immigration officials.  Such policies are illegal and only serve to worsen the illegal immigration problem by inducing illegals to cross the border.

 

Last month, Judicial Watch deposed two LAPD police officials and continued to collect evidence in its lawsuit, brought on behalf of a LA taxpayer, against the LAPD over Special Order 40.  If Chief Bratton is concerned about the rule of law in Los Angeles, he’d help rescind Special Order 40 and allow his officers to do their job helping to enforce all the laws, including our nation’s immigration laws.

 

 

Republican Presidential Candidates Dodge Question on Clinton Corruption

 

Last week, the Democrats held their first presidential debate.  Last night, it was the Republicans’ turn.  During the debate, which was held at the Reagan Presidential Library, of course, the issue of ethics was largely ignored.  However, the candidates were given a golden opportunity to address the serious issue of Clinton corruption, and, with one exception, their responses were lacking.

 

Here was the question, posed by the moderator, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “Would it be good for America to have Bill [and Hillary] Clinton back living in the White House?”  Now, I know how I would have responded to this question, but check out what the Republican candidates for president said:

 

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney expressed his fears of having the Clintons and Pelosi direct the war on terror.  Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore talked about Hillary Clinton’s efforts to socialize medicine.  Senator Sam Brownback raised the prospect of tax hikes.  Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson talked about a national ID card.  Former New York Mayor Giuliani reminded the audience about Bill Clinton’s impotent response to “Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.”  And Arizona Senator John McCain talked about the need to nominate conservative Judges. 

 

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, had the only decent response:  “I am known for sticking to principle and not flip-flopping. I voted to impeach him, so...”

 

I’m not saying the issues raised by the candidates are not important.  The question invited specific responses on Clinton corruption.  How can one address the concept of having the Clintons back in the White House without talking about their corruption?  This subject seems to be off limits for Republicans.  According to a recent poll sponsored by Judicial Watch, and conducted in partnership with Zogby International, 36% of likely voters, more than one-third, do not trust Bill Clinton to behave honestly in the White House if Hillary is elected president.  And that concern has nothing to do with national ID cards and tax hikes.

 

 

JW Files Complaint Against Judge for Releasing Violent Criminals Back into Society

 

On April 26, I sent a formal complaint to the Virgin Island Commission on Judicial Disabilities against Superior Court Judge Leon Kendall.  (According to the U.S. Virgin Islands Code “any person” can submit such a complaint.)  Why?  We were approached by concerned citizens and so Judicial Watch acted.  Here’s what I wrote in my complaint letter:

 

“By numerous accounts, Judge Kendall has engaged in a disturbing pattern of conduct that has undermined public confidence in the judiciary and the administration of justice.  On at least eight occasions, Judge Kendall reportedly has allowed persons arrested for violent crimes to be released back into society with little or no bail.”

 

Here’s just one example:

 

Daniel Castillo was arrested and charged with a violent attack on a woman.  Despite the fact that he had an extensive criminal history, including charges of rape, assault, and weapons violations, Judge Kendall released Castillo on his own recognizance.  (In other words, Castillo was allowed to leave without paying bail so long as he “promised” to appear in court when required.)  Shortly after being released by Kendall, Castillo was arrested and charged with murdering a 12-year old girl.  He has confessed to the crime.

 

Castillo is just the tip of the iceberg.  Click here to read the full complaint, which describes a litany of other examples of Judge Kendall’s lax and reckless approach to the problem of violent crime. 

 

Needless to say, the behavior of Judge Kendall has led to a massive public outcry in the Virgin Islands.  Judicial Watch is calling for the commission to fully investigate and hold to account Judge Kendall.  I’ll let you know when I receive a response from the commission.

 

Until next week…

Tom Fitton

President

  

Contributions to Judicial Watch are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

 

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.