July 13, 2007

 

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

 

 

JW Files Brief in Support of Law Banning Illegals From Seeking Work in Streets of Redondo Beach, CA

 

As local communities continue to struggle with the federal government’s failure to stop the illegal alien invasion, not all local officials are taking the easy way out by implementing sanctuary policies for illegal aliens.  Some are doing the right thing by enforcing the law.  Too bad some courts don’t see it that way.

 

This week we filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of an ordinance in the City of Redondo Beach, California banning illegal aliens from seeking work on city streets.  The law had been in effect (and working) since 1987 until U.S. District Court Judge Consuelo Marshall ruled in April 2006 that the ordinance violated the illegal aliens’ First Amendment right to free speech and issued an injunction preventing police from enforcing the law.

 

Judge Marshall also stated in her ruling that she was not aware of any laws preventing day laborers, the majority of which are in the U.S. illegally, from working in the United States!

 

Judicial Watch, of course, took issue with both of Judge Marshall’s main conclusions.  Let’s start with the First Amendment.

 

When it comes to protecting the right to free speech, the courts have found there are two types of speech to consider: commercial and political.  Commercial speech is entitled to less protection under the First Amendment than so-called political or expressive speech.  Here’s how we put it in our brief:

 

“Not unlike hot dog vendors or t-shirt sellers commonly seen on the streets of busy cities across America, day laborers ‘propose a commercial transaction’ to prospective employers by standing in certain locations, like streets or sidewalks…no political message is conveyed.  The only message is ‘hire me’…The District Court erred in its review of the City’s anti-solicitation ordinance by not analyzing street-side solicitation of employment as commercial speech.  By doing so, the District Court failed to apply the appropriate First Amendment analysis to the ordinance.  Because of this fundamental error, the District Court’s ruling should be reversed.”

 

Judicial Watch also pointed out that the District Court was wrong to suggest there are no laws preventing undocumented workers from seeking employment.  It is unlawful to for illegal aliens to work in the United States and for anyone to aid and abet the violation of federal immigration laws.  According to a recent University of Illinois survey, at least seventy-five percent (75%) of day laborers in the United States are illegal aliens. 

 

I think it’s fair to say that most Americans would reject the notion that illegal aliens begging for jobs in the streets should be protected under the First Amendment.  Hopefully the appeals court will agree that the U.S. Constitution does not protect this illegal behavior.  Redondo Beach ought to be able to enforce its anti-solicitation law and to protect its citizens.

 

Judicial Watch, of course, continues to push its campaign to help enforce our nation’s immigration laws.  (You may recall that last week I told you about another amicus curiae brief filed in Southampton, NY opposing a taxpayer-funded day laborer site for illegal aliens.  In fact, our lawyers were up in Long Island this week arguing our amicus brief before the court.)  To read about Judicial Watch’s immigration programs click here.  If you want to take a look at our Redondo Beach amicus curiae brief, click here.

 

Ethics Committee Whitewashes Clinton/Bayh Reporting Violations

 

So much for a new spirit of ethics enforcement on Capitol Hill…

 

You may recall a few months ago, Judicial Watch filed complaints with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the Department of Justice against Senators Clinton and Bayh for failing to report leadership roles in their respective family foundations on their Senate financial disclosure forms. 

 

Clinton failed to report her role as Secretary/Treasurer for the Clinton Family Foundation on five occasions, while Bayh omitted his role as Director of the Evan and Susan Bayh Foundation on his financial disclosure forms for three straight years, from 2002-2005.  (Filing false financial disclosure statements is a violation of the Ethics in Government Act and is punishable with fines up to $10,000 for each act.

 

Well, Judicial Watch finally received responses from the Senate Ethics Committee as to whether or not there will be any punishments doled out for the violations.  Want to take a guess at their response?  If you guessed “no,” you were right.  Here’s the committee’s reasoning:  In both cases, the committee concluded that the omissions were “inadvertent.” 

 

Do any of you seriously believe Clinton and Bayh simply “forgot” they served on family foundations?  Highly unlikely.  In the case of the Clinton Family Foundation, for example, the Clintons have been able to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since its founding in 2001.  That’s a hard number to ignore.  Does anyone think Clinton and Bayh misunderstood the question or didn’t know they were supposed to report?  I don’t think so.  Here’s how the question is phrased on the forms:  “Do you hold any reportable positions on or before the date of filing of the current calendar year?'"  Seems pretty clear to me.

 

It seems obvious to me the omissions were purposeful, but why would they take the chance?  Bayh’s motivations are a little less clear to me, but Hillary certainly has good reason to keep her role in the Clinton Family Foundation a secret.

 

Apparently some of the foundation’s business has touched upon issues related to foreign policy and other controversial matters, including a contribution to an individual involved in Senator Clinton’s questionable commodities trading in the 1970s.  This is just the type of sordid detail that Hillary would want to keep out of the headlines as she continues with her aggressive bid for the White House.  (I have little hope now, given this lack of Senate action, that a timid Bush Justice Department will take strong action against Hillary over these apparent violations of federal law.)

 

I am, of course, extremely disappointed with the Senate Ethics Committee’s failure to act in the face of clear violations of Senate rules (and federal laws).  In addition to Bayh and Clinton, Senator Harry Reid, and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi have all had similar problems with their disclosure reports -- with no real punishments.  Look for more of the same if the committees don’t begin to take these important disclosure laws more seriously.  In the meantime, the culture of corruption gets worse…

 

Bill Clinton Supporter and Pornographer Larry Flynt At It Again

By now you may have heard that Republican Louisiana Senator David Vitter’s telephone number showed up on a call list from an escort service that federal authorities contend is a prostitution ring run by Madam Deborah Jean Palfrey.  (Vitter, who is married with four children, has since publicly apologized for his behavior.) 

So who was responsible for outing Vitter, who’s phone number was one of thousands on the list?  None other than pornographer Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine, who sent one of his investigators, Dan Moldea, trolling through phone records recently released by Palfrey on her website looking for Republicans.  By his own admission, when told Vitter was on Palfrey’s list, Flynt decided to go after the Vitter publicly, “because he advocated conservative positions.” 

 

"Sometimes I have to go bottom feeding" to remove "phonies" from lawmaking positions, Flynt recently gloated while holding court at a press conference at his magazine's offices.

 

Flynt, of course, isn’t satisfied with destroying Senator Vitter.  He has pledged to take down any social conservative he can find.

 

This according to the Associated Press:  “Flynt has offered to pay $1 million to anyone who can show he or she had a sexual encounter with a member of Congress or a high-ranking government official.  He said the offer has produced promising tips.” 

 

“We've got 20-some investigations that all look good,” Flynt said.  Of course, liberals who promote socially-liberal values are immune from Flynt’s investigations.  The effort seems targeted at “conservative” public and elected officials that Flynt wants to intimidate. 

 

This, of course, isn’t Flynt’s first effort at blackmail and extortion.

 

During the Lewinsky scandal, Flynt, with the full support of then-President Bill Clinton, sought to blackmail and intimidate members of Congress (and Ken Starr) from removing Clinton from office.  Judicial Watch sued Flynt and Clinton in federal court on behalf of a targeted congressman.  Unfortunately, the courts wanted no part of it. 

 

I believe Flynt is back because the Clintons are back.  Bill Clinton reportedly has not stopped his alley cat ways and Flynt’s latest operation serves as a warning to any politician or public official who might want to raise this issue (or any other Clinton scandal) during the presidential campaign or even a third Clinton administration.  With Flynt active again, the Clinton gang and their intimidation tactics are truly back.  

 

Please don’t get me wrong.  I am not defending Senator Vitter, or anyone else who uses the services of an escort service or prostitute.  Based on what has been reported about Vitter’s activities, he ought to seriously reassess his future as a Senator.  But the last thing we need is a notorious porn peddler, with the implicit support of Bill Clinton, conducting a blackmail operation against members of Congress. 

 

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.