Judicial Watch Wins Motion
in SB 1070 Lawsuit!
Friday, April 08, 2011
By Tom Fitton
Judicial Watch
This week, let?s start with a big Judicial Watch victory.
On Wednesday, April 5, our client, the Arizona State Legislature, was granted
permission to intervene as a defendant in the Obama Department of Justice
(DOJ) lawsuit against SB 1070, Arizona?s get-tough illegal immigration law.
Judge Susan Bolton granted Judicial Watch?s motion over the objections of the
Obama DOJ. Here?s a quick squib from
the order, which was short and sweet:
On February 7, 2011, Arizona Governor Janice K. Brewer signed into law
Senate Bill 1117 (?S.B. 1117?), which provides that ?the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the President of the Senate may direct counsel to
initiate a legal proceeding or appear on behalf of their respective chambers
or on behalf of the Legislature in any challenge in a state or federal court?
to S.B. 1070. The Legislature now seeks permission of the Court to intervene
as a Defendant in this action?permitting the Legislature to intervene at this
time will not unduly delay or prejudice the original parties?the Court in its
discretion finds that the Legislature should be permitted to intervene as
Defendant at this time.
Now, the Legislature joins the State of Arizona, Governor Brewer and the
author of the law, Arizona State Senate President and Judicial Watch client
Russell Pearce, for the purpose of defending its enactment of SB 1070 in the
interests of the people of Arizona.
You may recall that Judicial Watch filed its ?Motion
to Intervene,? on February 11, 2011, with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona stating: ?The Legislature?has a paramount interest in seeing
that [SB 1070?s] enactment is upheld.? At the same time, we also filed an ?Answer
in Intervention? with the court on behalf of the Arizona State Legislature.
And here are our main arguments:
- ?[The Arizona Legislature] has a right to protect its citizens.?
- ?Arizona has a right to self defense under the Constitution, particularly
when the federal government fails to protect it.?
- ?[The Arizona Legislature] complied with all relevant federal, state, and
local laws, including the Arizona Constitution and the [U.S.] Constitution? in
crafting SB 1070.
- ?SB 1070 is not preempted by federal law or the Constitution. SB 1070 does
not conflict with federal law, does not constitute an improper regulation of
immigration, and Congress has not fully occupied the field.?
Fortunately, thanks to Judge Bolton?s ruling, the Arizona Legislature will
have the opportunity to make this case in court.
So where does the Obama DOJ?s lawsuit against the State of Arizona now
stand?
Frankly, the future of SB 1070, and other similar measures intended to
confront the threat of rampant illegal immigration, are in limbo thanks to the
Obama administration and its persistent attempts to thwart federal immigration
laws.
It is important to remember, this lawsuit is not just about the state of
Arizona. Many
other states across the country are looking to this lawsuit to set the
guidelines for how they can protect themselves. This lawsuit will have
ramifications for the rest of the country and that?s one reason we?re expending
a considerable amount of effort trying to stop it.
Sure enough, we?ve been working with elected representatives in Texas,
Maryland, and Pennsylvania (to name just a few) as they consider their own
Arizona-type legislation. Arizona is leading the wave of states that want to
enforce our laws against illegal immigration.
By way of review, this all began on April 23, 2010, when Arizona Governor Jan
Brewer signed SB 1070 into law. Shortly thereafter, on July 6, 2010, the Obama
DOJ filed a lawsuit challenging the law and requesting a preliminary injunction
to prevent the law from being enforced. On July 28, 2010, U.S. Judge Bolton allowed
some provisions of the law to be enacted, while granting the Obama
administration an injunction on other provisions until the Court could determine
whether these provisions are constitutional.
The State of Arizona appealed Judge Bolton?s ruling, which is now under
review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Many believe the
lawsuit will ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
No matter where this lawsuit goes next, we are quite pleased that the Arizona
State Legislature, which represents the people of Arizona, will at least be able
to defend against the DOJ?s suit. As we argued in court, the Legislature has a
paramount interest in seeing its law upheld.
Arizona?s citizens have been living on the frontline in the battle against
illegal immigration, suffering the effects of an out-of-control border and a
Justice Department that refuses to uphold the law. The Obama administration has
utterly failed in its obligation to protect Arizona?s citizens and secure the
border. The people of Arizona are the winners today along with the Arizona State
Legislature, Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, Arizona House
Speaker Kirk Adams and your Judicial Watch.
I wrote you earlier this week asking you to support this and all our
important work for the rule of law. In these days of looming government
shutdowns and a federal government that is simply off the rails, Judicial Watch
is a reliable way for you to help keep things in check ? whether in Washington
or in a federal courtroom in Phoenix. This latest news shows that Judicial Watch
is the only game in town when it comes to effectively fighting for your shared
values in these trying times. Please donate
today and pass the word along about our cause to your contacts.
Obama Flip Flops ? AGAIN! ?
Sheikh Mohammed will be Tried before Military Commission
I think you?ll agree that it has been painful watching the Obama
administration botch the effort to bring the 9/11 terrorists, including
mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to justice. Let?s review.
First, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the 9/11 terrorists would be
tried in a New York civilian court, leading to a massive public backlash and a
near revolt in Congress. Then, in January 2010, came press reports indicating
the Obama administration had abandoned this ridiculous idea given the ?wave of
protests? from citizens of New York. A month later The Washington Post
was reporting that President Obama had frozen Holder out of the process and
would indeed find an appropriate place for a civilian trial (as if there is such
a thing).
Flip, flop, flip. But at least in the end, it appears they got it right.
In a stunning reversal this week, on the same day Obama official launched his
reelection bid, the Obama Justice Department announced that Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed will, in fact, be tried by a military commission and not by a civil
court in New York City, as the Obama administration had originally planned.
Here?s the
statement I offered to the press in response:
It is no coincidence that this stunning reversal comes on the day that
President Obama announced his reelection campaign. We are grateful that the
opposition of the American people beat back the ?terrorist lobby? in the Obama
administration to keep the KSM trial in Gitmo, where it belongs. The
mishandling of the KSM trial is another blow to Attorney General Eric Holder,
who should have been replaced long ago. Mr. Holder has demonstrated that he is
incapable of providing the leadership necessary for the fair and competent
administration of justice at DOJ.
KSM long ago pled guilty to the charges initially brought against him in
military commission proceedings. That he still walks the face of the Earth
highlights the moral and strategic failure of the Obama administration?s
approach to the terrorist detention issue. We hope this political decision
will begin to undo the damage done to our nation?s security by the Obama
administration?s ideological attack on Gitmo.
Ah yes, the decision to shut down Gitmo ? another Obama administration
national security disaster. Obama seems intent on keeping his ill-informed
campaign promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay and release the enemy combatants
there despite deep
divisions within his administration. (Defense Secretary Gates said the
chances of shutting down Gitmo were ?very very low.? CIA Director Panetta told
the Senate Intelligence Committee that if bin Laden himself were captured he?d
be headed to Gitmo.)
There?s no doubt shutting down the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo
Bay will harm national security and put lives at risk.
(Our educational panel this week, ?Politics
and the Holder Justice Department: Rule of Law at Risk??, coincidentally
covered national security and featured Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles
F. ?Chic? Burlingame, III, pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was
hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She is co-founder
of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, and helped lead the way, against
long odds, opposing the outrage of granting KSM a civilian trial.)
Judicial Watch recently obtained documents
from the Department of Defense (DOD) detailing the significant risks of
releasing ?enemy combatants? detained at Gitmo. Judicial Watch also obtained documents
from the Obama DOD detailing a deliberate campaign by al-Qaida and other
extremist groups to recruit juveniles and launch terrorist attacks against
children. The records consist of two Joint Task Force Intelligence Information
Reports from debriefs of detainees at the U.S. terrorist detention facility in
Guantanamo Bay. (In other words, without Gitmo, we might not have been able to
extract this critical information.)
In 2009, Judicial Watch released
a CIA report entitled, Khalid
Shaykh Muhammad: Preeminent Source on Al Qa?ida, which documented the
information gained by interrogations of Mohammed: ?KSM?s decade-long career as a
terrorist, during which he met with a broad range of Islamic extremists from
around the world, has made him a key source of information on numerous al-Qaida
operatives and other mujahidin. He has provided intelligence that has led
directly to the capture of operatives or fleshed out our understanding of the
activities of important detainees, which in turn assisted in the debriefings of
these individuals.?
Would KSM have been so forthcoming had he been read his Miranda rights and
allowed to lawyer up right away? Not likely.
In short, the enemy combatants housed at Gitmo are dangerous. They intend to
destroy our country. And they have valuable information that could save lives.
They belong in a secure facility outside the United States and in the hands of
the U.S. military.
Regarding the military tribunal system, Judicial Watch Litigation Director
Paul Orfanedes visited Guantanamo Bay in 2008 at the invitation of the Pentagon
to monitor military commission proceedings against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and
other top 9/11 conspirators. Judicial Watch?s presence provided some balance to
the ACLU and other radical groups advocating for the terrorist detainees.
(Following his visit to Guantanamo Bay, Mr. Orfanedes said he witnessed a
?deep commitment? to justice on the part of military lawyers. We had a brief
interview with Mr. Orfanedes that appeared in this space. Feel free to check
it out to see Mr. Orfanedes? other observations regarding the military tribunal
process.)
In the meantime, Holder can?t be pushed out of the DOJ soon enough.
ACORN Pleads Guilty ? Gets
Slap on the Wrist
In Nevada, one ACORN employee told authorities that the organization paid
?lazy crack heads? and convicted felons to register voters in the 2008
elections. In fact, owing to this corrupt and criminal process, nearly the
entire Dallas Cowboys football team registered to vote in Nevada that year.
(A warrant
to search ACORN?s facilities tells the full story.)
And what is the price ACORN will be forced to pay for violating our nation?s
election laws so egregiously? Not more than $5,000. And no jail time for any
ACORN leaders.
Our Corruption Chronicles blogger Irene Garcia reported:
The criminal enterprise that Obama?s Justice Department refuses to
investigate despite extensive evidence of fraud and corruption is guilty of a
felony in yet another state.
It marks the latest of many legal defeats for the Chicago-based community
group known as ACORN, famous for illegal voter registration drives, embezzling
federal funds and a tight knit relationship with the president. In fact, Obama
once worked at ACORN and the group?s massive campaign drives helped him get
elected in 2008.
Facing more than a dozen felony charges in Nevada, ACORN pleaded guilty to
one count this week for illegally paying canvassers to register voters during
the 2008 presidential campaign. The deal means that ACORN will avoid going to
trial, which was scheduled for later this month in Las Vegas. A judge will
determine the sentence on August 10, according to a spokeswoman for the Nevada
Attorney General?s office, the prosecuting agency.
Since ACORN is a corporation, it will only be fined and there will be no
prison term, the Attorney General?s spokeswoman told Judicial Watch. The fine
is expected to be a maximum of $5,000. In November the ACORN supervisor
overseeing the illicit Nevada voter registration scheme pleaded no contest to
two counts of conspiracy.
ACORN has a long, sordid history of election fraud and questionable hiring
and training practices. The group has been busted for forging voter
registration applications in key battleground states and submitting falsified
forms in more than half a dozen others. In 2007 ACORN settled the largest case
of voter fraud in the history of Washington State after seven workers were
caught submitting about 2,000 fake registration forms.
ACORN?s sordid record prompted California Representative Darrell Issa to
label the group a ?criminal
enterprise.? (Rep. Issa is now Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.)
Last
week I told you that one of our investigators, Michael Bekesha, testified
before the Pennsylvania State Government Committee on Voter Fraud about ACORN
corruption in that state. In fact, as Michael noted, ACORN was found to have
submitted tens of thousands of fraudulent registration forms in Philadelphia
alone!
Judicial Watch obtained documents from a 2007
FBI investigation of ACORN voter fraud in St. Louis Missouri. According to
the handwritten notes of one federal investigator, Project Vote (an ACORN
affiliate) would pay for registration cards whether they were fake or not. The
overall goal of this corrupt scheme, according to these notes, was to help
Democrats: ?ACORN HQ (Head Quarters) was wkg (working) for the Democratic
Party.?
In March 2010, Judicial Watch obtained a separate
batch of Federal Bureau of Investigation documents detailing federal
investigations into alleged ACORN corruption and voter registration fraud in
Connecticut. The FBI and Department of Justice initiated investigations.
However, the Obama Justice Department, while noting that ACORN had engaged in
?questionable hiring and training practices,? closed down the investigation in
March 2009, claiming ACORN broke no laws.
And on and on and on?
ACORN?s fraudulent activity is systemic. And, as I?ve said too many times to
count, the Holder Justice Department ought to be investigating ACORN?s corrupt
behavior and holding those responsible accountable. And I?m not talking about
paltry $5,000 fines. I?m talking about real accountability. (Given Obama?s
direct links to ACORN, which includes a stint working for Project Vote, it seems
unlikely Holder will do the right thing. Can you imagine a conservative group
submitting 400,000 fraudulent voter registration forms and not being subjected
to systematic Justice Department scrutiny! But because the ?president from
ACORN? is in the Oval Office, ACORN gets a corrupt free pass from the Attorney
General.)
ACORN is alive and well, splintered into hundreds of difficult to track local
organizations around the country. In fact, very soon Judicial Watch will publish
a special report exposing ACORN?s new network. This fight is not over. Stay
tuned for that.
Until next week…
Tom Fitton
President
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.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
