November 18, 2022
|
Judicial Watch
San Francisco DA Won’t Release Details of Paul Pelosi Assault
Judicial Watch Appeal Seeks FBI January 6 Communications with Banks
TSA Director Accused of Unlawfully Deploying Assets to Mexican Border
San Francisco DA Won’t Release Details of Paul Pelosi Assault
An attack on the spouse of the Speaker of the Home is of considerable interest, however the San Francisco district attorney refused to offer documents and video of the police activity at the house of Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s husband, where David Wayne DePape was arrested following an alleged assault on October 28, 2022.
Among the many items District Attorney Brooke Jenkins refused to release are a recording of Paul Pelosi’s 911 call and cops’ body camera footage. Nikki Moore, assistant district attorney, took the weird step of providing some details in regards to the incident response to our California Public Records Act request:
The 2 individuals present on the Pelosi home when the SFPD arrived where [sic] Mr. Pelosi and Mr. DePape. Please see the web posted document that reflects that Mr. Pelosi was the one person in the house on the time of the attack. See https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/01/us/david-de-pape-motion-to-detain.html. You may obtain an official copy of this court record from the Superior Court.
In our November 2022 request to the district attorney, we noted a news report stating that news organizations had been rebuffed on similar requests and, pursuant to the California Public Records Act, we asked for, along with the recording and camera footage: All records of communications, including emails and text messages, between the District Attorney’s Office and the San Francisco Police Department in regards to the incident. We also asked for communications with several federal agencies, including the Justice Department, the Capitol Police, and the FBI. And we asked for the identities of the individuals on the Pelosi home on the time of the incident.
In declining the data we requested, Assistant DA Moore cited Section 6254 of California law, which governs records requests, and specifically subsection (f), which allows for the withholding from the general public of certain “records of investigations conducted by the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency …”
There is critical public interest within the terrible attack on Paul Pelosi and it’s odd that the local authorities are withholding basic information in regards to the incident.
In our previous work, in September, we received records from the California Highway Patrol Public Records Unit thatincluded 44 photos and five hours of audio/video footage depicting the misconduct and arrest of Paul Pelosi. The fabric shows that Mr. Pelosi invoked his wife’s name and shared his police charity membership throughout the arrest for suspected alcohol intoxication while driving.
Judicial Watch Appeal Seeks FBI January 6 Communications with Banks
We’re pushing back on the try and curtail our investigation into the total details in regards to the January 6 disturbance.
We wish the main points about what looks to be an unprecedented abuse of the financial privacy of countless innocent Americans by big banks and the FBI.
We filed an appeal difficult a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decision allowing the FBI to withhold records of communication between the FBI and a number of other financial institutions in regards to the reported transfer of monetary transaction records of individuals in DC, Maryland and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 22-5209).
The FBI’s cover-up must be rejected, and the records made public.
Our appeal, filed within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is available in the FOIA lawsuit we filed after the FBI failed to reply to a February 10, 2021, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:21-cv-01216)). We’re asking for:
All records of communication between the FBI and any financial institution, including but not limited to Bank of America, Citibank, Chase Manhattan Bank, Discover, and/or American Express, by which the FBI sought transaction data for those financial institutions’ debit and bank card account holders who made purchases in Washington, DC, Maryland and/or Virginia on January 5, 2021, and/or January 6, 2021.
In our appellate temporary, we argue:
This appeal arises from what appears to be an unprecedented abuse of the financial privacy of 1000’s of Americans. Substantial and compelling evidence demonstrates that the FBI sought and received records from financial institutions of anyone who used a bank card or engaged in other transactions within the Washington, D.C. area on January 5 or 6, 2021. This could include many 1000’s of individuals living within the Washington, DC area, including possibly members of this Court.
In our appeal we indicate that the lower court was mistaken when it upheld the FBI’s Glomar response (neither confirming nor denying the existence of records) since the FBI previously acknowledged the existence of the records in multiple ways. As an example, court records filed in support of a criminal case include the FBI’s statement of facts that gives the defendant’s address, which was obtained through “his Bank of America account and up to date Expedia transactions.”
In one other case, the FBI “confirmed that it obtained records from PNC Bank and discusses intimately the multiple ways in which it used the financial data.”
Moreover, “financial records obtained from JP Morgan Chase bank corroborate [the defendant] used a bank card issued in his name to buy gas and food enroute to Washington, DC …”
We cite two additional cases where the FBI describes in publicly available court records its use of monetary records within the January 6 investigation.
We conclude:
[Judicial Watch] greater than adequately demonstrated that the FBI could have sought and received records from financial institutions of anyone who used a bank card or engaged in other transactions within the Washington, DC area on January 5 or 6. In that case, this might be an unprecedented abuse of the financial privacy of 1000’s of Americans. [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request to analyze this shouldn’t be blocked by a meritless Glomar response.
We’re engaged in a comprehensive, independent investigation into the January 6 disturbance.
In February 2022, we filed an opposition to the U.S. Capitol Police’s (USCP) effort to shut down Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuit for January 6 videos and emails. Through its police department, Congress argues that the videos and emails usually are not public records, there isn’t any public interest of their release, and that “sovereign immunity” prevents residents from suing for his or her release.
And we recently sued the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Justice for records related to the housing of U.S. Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd at Joint Base Andrews after he shot and killed U.S. Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt contained in the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
TSA Director Accused of Unlawfully Deploying Assets to Mexican Border
The Biden administration’s open border policy is creating internal government confusion. The Air Marshal National Council accuses Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of violating federal law and overstepping their authority for assigning air marshals to help with the illegal immigration crisis. Our Corruption Chronicles blog reports:
The pinnacle of the federal agency created after 9/11 to guard the nation’s transportation system is accused of fraud, waste, and abuse of authority for unlawfully deploying assets to the Mexican border to perform duties unrelated to transportation, in response to a report filed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General. Within the formal grievance to the DHS watchdog, the Air Marshal National Council, which represents 1000’s of Federal Air Marshals (FAM) nationwide, accuses Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Administrator David Pekoske and FAM Director Tirrell Stevenson of violating federal law and overstepping their authority for assigning the highly trained aviation security specialists to help the U.S. Border Patrol with the illegal immigration crisis. FAM operates under TSA and each function under DHS.
“The TSA personnel are being sent to El Paso TX, San Diego CA, Laredo TX, McAllen TX, Tucson AZ, and Yuma AZ,” the grievance states, adding that internal agency documents reveal the “highly expert FAMs” are being sent to the southwest border to perform “Hospital Watch, Transportation, Law Enforcement Searches, Welfare Checks, and Entry Control.” The duties haven’t any relation to TSA’s core mission of transportation security, the filing says, and as a substitute the air marshals will assist migrants who’ve crossed the border into america. TSA was created after 2001 to assist prevent one other terrorist attack, though the agency is known for its lapses, including a giant one just days ago when a person was allowed to board a plane in Cincinnati with two box cutters. FAM is charged with protecting industrial passenger flights by deterring and countering the danger of terrorist activity. On the very least it looks like a waste to send the highly trained law enforcement agents to the border to babysit illegal immigrants.
“The statute doesn’t give the Administrator any authority to deploy TSA or FAM employees to the southern border to perform non transportation security related matters,” the grievance to the DHS IG states. “Further, under section (g) the statute describes what the Administrators authority is that if an emergency, as defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, is asserted.” The act makes clear that the legislative intent is to only allow TSA to exercise authority and deploy its assets for transportation security, the report back to the DHS watchdog confirms. “Thus far Mr. Pekoske nor Mr. Stevenson have declared the deployments to be related to transportation security,” in response to the grievance. Moreover, the duties, “Hospital Watch, Entry Control, Law Enforcement searches, and Transportation,” couldn’t be interpreted to have any nexus to the TSA core mission of transportation security. Moreover, the document notes that Congress has not appropriated any funds within the TSA budget for border security, making any money expended for the cause a violation of the Antideficiency Act which prohibits federal employees from obligating funds unless Congress has approved the quantity and purpose of the spending.
A number of weeks ago Judicial Watch obtained the DHS memorandum to the nation’s air marshal force announcing that officers would soon be sent to the southern border to assist take care of “a surge in irregular migration.” The notice states that “the unprecedented volume of Noncitizen Migrants (NCMs) currently apprehended mandates immediate further motion to guard the life and safety of federal personnel and noncitizens in CBP [Customs and Border Protection] custody.” It’s the primary acknowledgment, albeit leaked involuntarily, by the Biden administration that there’s indeed a crisis along the nation’s famously porous southern border. “To support its mission, CBP is in search of federal employees from DHS Components and other federal agencies to be placed on reimbursable TDY assignments to help in critical support functions,” the widely circulated mandate reads, adding that “LE/FAMS has been directed by DHS to support this request.” Air marshals interviewed by Judicial Watch expressed outrage that they’re being pulled from their critical inflight security duties to help with the mayhem created by the Biden administration’s failed immigration policies.
Until next week …
