(Chicago, IL) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a lawsuit in Cook County, Ill. Circuit Court challenging Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart’s refusal to honor ICE immigration detainers or cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in identifying deportable criminal aliens.  Cook County jails have released as many as 1,000 criminal aliens sought by ICE in the past 18 months.

The lawsuit, Brian McCann v. Thomas J. Dart, is brought on behalf of lifetime Cook County resident Brian McCann, whose brother William “Denny” McCann, was run over and killed in June 2011 by an unlawfully present criminal alien who had just completed a two-year term of probation for a 2009 DUI conviction.  The alien, Saul Chavez, was charged with felony aggravated driving under the influence, but was released by Dart from a Cook County jail in November 2011 despite an ICE immigration detainer.  ICE issues detainers when it learns that criminal aliens are being held by state or local law enforcement officials.  The detainers require the criminal aliens be held for an additional 48 hours to enable ICE to take custody of them before they are released.  Chavez is now believed to have fled to Mexico.

Although federal and state law require Dart to honor immigration detainers and cooperate with ICE investigators, he has chosen to follow a September 2011, Cook County Ordinance directing him to refuse ICE detainers and deny federal agents access to Cook County facilities for investigative interviews.  In a January 2012 letter to Cook County Board of Commissioners President Toni Preckwinkle, ICE Director John Morton wrote, “Of great concern is the serious impediment the Ordinance poses to ICE’s ability to promote public safety through the identification of criminal aliens.”

The Judicial Watch lawsuit argues that Dart’s “failure to carry out his legal duties under both federal and state law is not authorized, excused, or justified by the Ordinance because that Ordinance is preempted by federal law.”

The release of Chavez is one of more than 1,000 instances cited by Judicial Watch where Dart has “regularly and routinely refused to honor immigration detainers issued by ICE, citing the provisions of the Ordinance,” including:

• “At a public hearing on February 9, 2012 before the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, Defendant testified that, in the five month period between the enactment of the Ordinance on September 7, 2011 and February 9, 2012, Defendant released 346 prisoners in his custody who were the subjects of immigration detainers issued by ICE, and 11 of these persons subsequently committed new offenses.”

• “By April 24, 2012 ICE had issued 432 immigration detainers to Defendant since the enactment of the Ordinance, but Defendant failed to honor any of the detainers.  According to a letter from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to [then-]U.S. Senator John Kyl on that date, Defendant’s failure to honor ICE’s immigration detainers had “prevented ICE from considering removal proceedings against all but 38 of these individuals whom ICE had to locate independently and arrest following their release into the community.”

• “Between April 24, 2012 and March 1, 2013, Defendant received approximately 503 additional immigration detainers issued by ICE, and, on information and belief, has declined to honor any of them, resulting in the release into the community of hundreds of additional prisoners sought by ICE.”

The lawsuit also alleges that despite Dart’s refusal to honor ICE immigration detainers or cooperate with ICE investigators, Cook County applied for and received nearly $2.3 million in State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) funds from the federal government in 2011 and over $1.7 million in SCAAP funds in 2012.  Over the five-year period from 2008 to 2012, Cook County reportedly applied for and received nearly $15 million in SCAAP funds from the federal government.  SCAPP funds are designed to fund the costs that state and local governments incur for holding criminal illegal aliens.

In the lawsuit, McCann asks the Circuit Court to compel Dart to comply with his legal duties to honor ICE detainers and to cooperate with federal immigration officials.  It also asks the Circuit Court to declare the Cook County Ordinance to be preempted by federal law.

“The federal government has determined that certain criminal aliens should not be let loose into the community and that releasing them undermines public safety.  Dart is thumbing his nose at the federal government and replacing federal immigration priorities with Cook County’s own immigration policy.  Releasing these criminal aliens before they can be taken into custody by ICE endangers the public.  Dart is not above the law.  Because the Obama administration hasn’t sued Dart in the president’s backyard, concerned citizens like Brian are bravely stepping up to the plate to protect the public.” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president.

Judicial Watch’s Illinois lawyer is Christine Svenson of the Svenson Law Offices in Chicago, Ill.

Current Labor Secretary Nominee Thomas Perez Served as Group’s President

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on March 14, 2013, it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Obama Department of Labor (DOL) seeking records detailing the May 30, 2012 visit of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to CASA de Maryland’s Langley Park training center. President Obama’s current nominee for Labor Secretary, Thomas Perez, served as President of the Board for CASA, which described its chief goals in recent IRS filings as helping  all people “participate and benefit fully” in American society, “regardless of their immigration status.”

While taking part in a roundtable discussion at the center, Solis reportedly told CASA center graduates to report their employers for wage and hour violations, regardless of the workers’ immigration status. “[Barack Obama] knows very well that it is very important to preserve the rights of the Hispanic community and of other communities in any area where they are working,” Solis was quoted as saying. “The federal laws are clear and protect all workers equally, whether or not they have papers.”

On June 1, 2012, Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to the Department of Labor seeking access to the following information:

a. Documentation of funding to Casa de Maryland, directly or through its affiliation with Prince George’s and Montgomery County Colleges;

b. Talking points, briefing books, or any other internal memoranda (in any language) developed in preparation for Secretary Solis’s visit to Casa de Maryland this week;

c. Documentation of transportation, meals, and security associated with Secretary Solis’s visit to Casa de Maryland this week, including invoices, reimbursement authorizations, and check requisitions; and,

d. Notes, agendas, minutes, and any other communications relating to Secretary Solis’s visit to Casa de Maryland this week, including video, audio and e-mail contact with the press and third-party organizations before and after the event.

Under federal law, DOL was required to respond to the Judicial Watch FOIA request by June 29, 2012. According to the Judicial Watch March 14 lawsuit, DOL has “failed to make a determination about whether it will comply … or notify [Judicial Watch] of its right to appeal any adverse determination … Nor has [DOL] produced any records responsive to the request, indicated when any responsive records will be produced, or demonstrated that responsive records are exempt from production.”

The Judicial Watch lawsuit asks the District Court to order DOL to conduct a search for all responsive records to the original FOIA request, produce al non-exempt records, enjoin DOL from continuing to withhold non-exempt records, and grant Judicial Watch attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.

“The most transparent administration in history is once again in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.  The outrageous stonewalling by the Obama Department of Labor strongly suggests it is covering up connections and policies that most Americans would find objectionable,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration’s partnership with a radical organization that openly encourages illegal immigrants to operate outside the law is especially egregious in light of the continued unemployment crisis for the American citizens and legal residents.  No wonder there’s a cover up.”

In February 2012, Judicial Watch and its client, MDPetitions.com scored a major court victory over CASA de Maryland when the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County ruled against a CASA attempt to block a referendum vote on whether Maryland should provide taxpayer dollar subsidies for the college tuition of certain illegal aliens through the so-called “Maryland Dream Act.”

On March 19, 2013, Judicial Watch cited the illegal activities of CASA in a statement opposing the nomination of Thomas Perez to be the next Secretary of Labor, saying, “Perez is a former president of the board of CASA (Central American Solidarity Association) de Maryland a group whose recent filings with the IRS describe its chief goals as  helping  all people “participate and benefit fully” in American society, “regardless of their immigration status.” In opposing the Perez nomination, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Jeff Sessions (D-AL), described CASA, which was financially supported by the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, as ‘a fringe advocacy group that has instructed illegal immigrants on how to escape detection, and also promoted illegal labor sites and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.’”

Only in America! A group called the DREAM Bar Association is lobbying every state in the union to grant law licenses to illegal aliens. The nonprofit got its name from a controversial federal bill called Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) that would provide a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants brought to the country as kids. The measure also calls on states to provide discounted tuition for illegal immigrants at public colleges and universities.

But the right to practice law in the U.S. has always been a privilege that requires a special license—granted by states—that should not be compromised. After all, attorneys in this country are officers of the legal system and have special responsibility for the quality of justice. Allowing people who have violated the nation’s laws by their very presence in the country seems absurd to say the least.

Never the less, the DREAM Bar Association has picked up steam and support from the powerful open borders movement in its campaign to give illegal aliens law licenses. The Washington D.C. group boasts that it’s the first and only bar association representing “undocumented lawyers.” President Jose Magaña encourages all 50 states to pass legislation and promulgate rules to ensure that graduates of accredited laws schools are able to obtain a license and “fully utilize their legal education.” It’s a fundamental question of fairness, Magaña says.

His group has filed legal briefs in Florida and California, where state courts are considering cases involving illegal immigrants who graduated from law school but can’t obtain a license to practice. Florida’s Supreme Court heard its case last month involving Jose Godinez-Samperio, a Mexican illegal alien who came to the U.S. with his parents on visitors’ visas when he was 9 years old. He graduated from New College in Florida, earned a law degree from Florida State University and passed the state bar exam last year.

The California case centers on a Mexican man, Sergio Garcia, who for years went back and forth between Mexico and California. At 17, the family stayed in California for good and Garcia eventually graduated from law school and passed the bar exam. When California’s Supreme Court heard the case earlier this year, it sought guidance from the Department of Justice (DOJ), which said an illegal immigrant should not be allowed to practice law in the state even though he passed the bar exam.

The controversial law, Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools, or TRUST Act, allows local law enforcement agencies throughout the state to essentially blow off federal immigration rules requiring that all arrestees suspected of being in the U.S. illegally be reported to the feds. The measure is expected to get final Assembly approval in August and Governor Jerry Brown is sure to sign it.

When the controversial bill officially passes, the question is will the Department of Justice (DOJ) go after the Golden State for defying federal law the way it has pursued others for passing measures that “undermine the federal government’s exclusive immigration enforcement duties.” Using this argument, the DOJ has taken legal action against Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah. In each case, the DOJ asserts that “a state cannot set its own immigration policy, much less pass laws that conflict with federal enforcement of the immigration laws.”

It appears that California is doing just that. The TRUST Act specifically defies the federal government’s Secure Communities program, which requires local authorities to check the fingerprints of arrestees against a federal database. The program has helped deport a number of dangerous criminals, many of whom have fallen through the cracks over the years. In fact, the elected sheriff (Lee Baca) who operates jails in Los Angeles and patrols a huge chunk of the sprawling county insists that Secure Communities works and has led to the deportation of many serious criminals.

Prior to implementing Secure Communities a “growing number of criminal illegal immigrants who were taken into custody” were eventually released back into the community, according to Baca who has been sheriff since 1998. Among them is a felon who lived in the area despite three drug-trafficking convictions and six deportations and another who had been previously removed after getting convicted for killing a child in the late 1990s.

More than 70,000 undocumented aliens have been deported in California under Secure Communities and the powerful open borders movement claims many of them are simply hard-working people in search of a better life. The TRUST Act will forbid detention on the basis of an immigration hold after the arrestee becomes eligible for release from criminal custody. It will also require local governments detaining suspects on federal immigration holds to adopt a plan guarding against racial profiling.

Just a few weeks ago the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a key provision of Arizona’s law (SB 1070) allowing police officers to check the immigration status of individuals arrested or stopped for questioning. Last spring, at the request of the Obama Administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against enforcement of some of the law’s provisions.

The Obama Administration responded to the Supreme Court ruling by saying that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will not dispatch officers to remove individuals who don’t pose a public safety or border security threat.

On April 11, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against enforcement of some of the law’s provisions per the request of the Obama administration, prompting the State of Arizona to petition the High Court (State of Arizona et al., v. The United States of America).

Judicial Watch had previously defended the law on behalf of the Arizona State Legislature.  Most recently it filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of SB 1070, and a separate brief on behalf of State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI).  The amicus brief on behalf of SLLI was joined by 29 legislators from 20 states. In both briefs, Judicial Watch argued that SB 1070 utilizes the state of Arizona’s well-established police powers and therefore is not preempted by federal law as the Obama administration maintains. Judicial Watch asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling placing key provisions of SB 1070 on hold.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated:

This is a victory for the safety and security of Arizona and the nation.  The Supreme Court held that local police can to help enforce immigration law by inquiring about immigration status.  This sensible application of the law confirms that local law enforcement can use an additional tool to protect public safety.  We can expect dozens of states to enact laws further empowering the police as Arizona did.  The Obama administration should now focus on enforcing immigration laws rather than thwarting them.

Therefore JW is calling for the immediate rescinding of the measure, which enables certain unlawfully present aliens to attend the taxpayer-funded school, Metropolitan State College of Denver, without having to pay full non-resident tuition. “In approving this new category of tuition, the College recognized that these students would otherwise be required to pay full non-resident tuition because of their inability to demonstrate lawful presence in the United States,” JW writes.

Because the new category violates both federal law and Colorado law and constitutes an act beyond the powers of the board, it must be reversed. Under federal law illegal immigrants are ineligible for state or local public benefits, including post-secondary education benefits unless a state enacts a measure affirmatively granting the perk.

Though a handful of states—including Texas, California, Utah, Washington and New York— have done this, Colorado has not. In Texas and California the illegal alien discounted tuition measures have been legally challenged and at least three states—Georgia, Oklahoma and Arizona—have solved the contentious issue by creating policies banning discounted tuition for illegal aliens at public colleges.

In this case one school passed the controversial measure, so it would apply only to that Denver campus, which has an enrollment of about 24,000. Founded in 1965, Metro State is a comprehensive college that offers both undergraduate and graduate degrees in a variety of fields. Its school of business, professional studies, academic affairs and science are considered to be highly regarded.   

In announcing the new illegal immigrant tuition rate, the university issued a press release calling it a “historical day” that earned a standing ovation from students, faculty, community members and even state legislators. The Board of Trustees passed the measure, originally proposed by President Stephen Jordan, with a 7-1 vote after hearing testimony from an army of supporters, including “undocumented students” attending the college.

To qualify, candidates must graduate from a Colorado high school or obtain a general equivalency diploma (GED) in the state. Here’s a good one; candidates must also provide a statement that they are in “good legal standing, other than their undocumented or unclassified status.” The goal, after all, is to help “students living in the state of Colorado who through no fault of their own do not have the lawful status to be eligible for resident tuition rates.”

That’s a classic line of the open borders movement, that American taxpayers are somehow responsible for helping illegal aliens brought the country as children “through no fault of their own.” Bottom line is that it violates a number of state and federal laws, though Metro College’s president insists the Board of Trustees has the “legislative authority to establish nonresident rates.”

This sort of blatant judicial activism may seem unbelievable but this is a true story, straight out of the United States District Court in Massachusetts. A Reagan-appointed judge, Douglas P. Woodlock, didn’t like the outcome of a trial and has issued an order for a new one. His official reason is that he erred in his jury instructions and therefore a new trial is warranted, one in which appropriate jury instructions will be delivered.

But in his 50-page order Judge Woodlock injects some very revealing information that clearly outlines his opinion of the case. For instance he writes:  ”I view the pursuit of this case to have been overkill through the improvident invocation of federal criminal felony process when alternative administrative sanctions more closely tailored to the significance of the misconduct are available and adequate. And I am puzzled by the dogged consistency which causes this prosecution to continue.”

The case involves a high-ranking Homeland Security director (Lorraine Henderson) in the New England area convicted in 2010 of helping her illegal alien housekeeper flout the federal immigration laws Uncle Sam paid her to enforce.  A Boston jury deliberated for 4 ½ hours before finding Henderson guilty after a six-day trial in which she took the stand. Federal prosecutors say that for years Henderson paid illegal immigrants cash to clean her house and she coached them on how to avoid deportation.

Henderson ignored repeated warnings over the years from a fellow federal officer that her domestic employees were in the country illegally, according to a federal affidavit. She was also recorded warning an illegal alien employee about deportation and telling the worker “if you leave they won’t let you back.” This is serious stuff, considering that Henderson wielded tremendous power and was authorized to grant or deny waivers to illegal immigrants seeking U.S. entry. She was also responsible for identifying and intercepting terrorists or terrorist threats at area seaports and airports.

Incredibly, Judge Woodlock seems to defend the disgraced Homeland Security director in his retrial order: “The cleaning lady’s employment was not itself illegal under regulations promulgated by the attorney general of the United States,” he wrote. “ And the empathetic advice that the defendant gave her cleaning lady about immigration law practices – induced from the defendant as part of the script contrived for an elaborate undercover investigation involving surreptitious electronic recordings into her relationship with the cleaning lady – did not advise the cleaning lady to engage in fraud or commit some other crime.”

The shooting occurred in the summer of 2010 when the federal agent, Jesus Mesa, spotted a group of Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande near El Paso. U.S. authorities say Mesa fatally shot a teen (Sergio Hernández-Guereca) traveling with the group in self-defense after the teen and his friends threw rocks at the agent.

Last year a Texas judge dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. government but allowed a lawsuit against the agent to proceed. The Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) has spent the last two years conducting a “comprehensive and thorough investigation into the shooting” in an effort to file federal criminal charges against the Border Patrol agent.

But a few days ago the DOJ conceded that there is “insufficient evidence” to pursue federal criminal charges against Mesa. “The U.S. government regrets the loss of life in this matter, and the Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security devoted significant time and resources into conducting a thorough and complete investigation,” the DOJ says in a statement.

The lengthy probe was conducted by an army of federal officers from the FBI, Homeland Security Inspector General and top prosecutors from the DOJ’s bloated Civil Rights Division. They interviewed dozens of law enforcement and civilian witnesses and collected, analyzed and reviewed evidence from the scene of the shooting. This included civilian and surveillance video, police radio traffic, emergency recordings and volumes of Border Patrol agent training and use of force material.

Agent Mesa’s training, disciplinary records and personal history were also scrutinized. The team of experienced DOJ prosecutors examined the shooting as a possible violation of U.S. criminal and civil rights laws, but the incident did not meet the standard. Evidence indicated that the “agent’s actions constituted a reasonable use of force or would constitute an act of self-defense in response to the threat created by a group of smugglers hurling rocks at the agent…” the feds concluded.

They further determined that no federal civil rights charges could be pursued in this matter since applicable statutes require prosecutors to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a law enforcement officer willfully deprived an individual of a constitutional right. That means with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids. Again, after a thorough review, the experienced federal prosecutors and FBI agents concluded that the evidence was insufficient.

The decision has been met with anger among Mexican government officials who have threatened to launch an international investigation. The Spanish-language news media presented the story as the exoneration of the American agent who assassinated a Mexican youth. In a diplomatic note from its secretary of foreign relations, Mexico’s government chastised the DOJ’s decision not to criminally charge the Border Patrol agent. 

Mexico has also threatened to conduct its own investigation into the DOJ’s handling of the case and has warned the U.S. to assure that Mexicans’ fundamental rights are being respected. The teen’s family, which lives in Mexico, has sued Agent Mesa despite the DOJ’s decision not to criminally charge him.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that Judicial Watch client, former Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. The hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, April 24, 2012, is entitled, “Examining the Constitutionality and Prudence of State and Local Governments Enforcing Illegal Immigration Law.”

Senator Pearce is the author and driving force behind Arizona’s illegal immigration law SB 1070, which affirms the legal and constitutional right of state and local governments to help enforce our nation’s illegal immigration laws. SB 1070 is now under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. The following are excerpts from Senator Pearce’s testimony that can be read in full here:

• “…the illegal alien problem is a critical issue, not only in Arizona, but across the country. The adverse effects of illegal immigration ripple throughout our society. In addressing this problem, we must begin by remembering that we are a nation of laws. We must have the courage – the fortitude – to enforce, with compassion but without apology, those laws that protect the integrity of our borders and the rights of our citizens from those who break our laws. SB1070, in full accordance with federal law, removes the political handcuffs from state and local law enforcement.

• The invasion of illegal aliens we face today – convicted felons, drug cartels, gang members, human traffickers and even terrorists – pose one of the greatest threats to our nation in terms of political, economic and national security.

• Yet, instead of enforcing the law, the Obama administration does the opposite, by encouraging further law breaking. Under federal law “Sanctuary Policies” plainly are illegal. But the Obama administration does not sue those cities that are openly in violation of federal law for having these illegal sanctuary policies. Instead, it chooses to sue Arizona for enforcing the law, protecting our citizens, protecting jobs for lawful residents, and protecting taxpayers and the citizens of this Republic in attempting to secure our borders.

On February 13, 2012, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of Senator Pearce regarding SB1070.  The brief can be read in its entirety here. Judicial Watch filed a separate brief on behalf of State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI).  The amicus curiae brief on behalf of SLLI was joined by 29 legislators from 20 states.

“We are proud to stand with former State Senator Pearce in support of the rule of law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration has failed to abide by its constitutional mandate to secure the border. As a result states are left to defend themselves against a flood of illegal aliens coming across our border. The SB 1070 law is both lawful and necessary to local law enforcement in order to protect American citizens and enforce our nation’s immigration laws.  We hope and expect that the Supreme Court will uphold SB1070 and reaffirm the rule of law in immigration matters.”

It’s the kind of story you won’t see in the mainstream media. Thankfully, Boston’s conservative-leaning newspaper reported it this week. The president’s uncle, Onyango Obama, got his driver’s license back after losing it for driving drunk last summer. It turns out that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles issues special “hardship licenses” that allow offenders to drive during certain times.

Uncle Obama qualified even though he’s not even supposed to be in the United States. Not only has he previously been deported to his native Kenya, Uncle O now has a criminal record. After downing a few too many he nearly crashed into a police officer when he ran a stop sign. In the police report, the arresting officer says the president’s uncle was moderately unsteady on his feet, smelled like alcohol and slurred his words.

After getting booked, Uncle Obama did some name-throwing, telling police that he would call the White House to arrange bail. For nearly two decades Onyango Obama, who is actually mentioned in the president’s infamous memoir “Dreams from My Father,” has lived in a quaint New England town called Framingham. Not only does he have a driver’s license (post DUI), he also has a valid Social Security. 

A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts agency— Registry of Motor Vehicles—that reinstated Obama’s license this week said “he met all of the criteria,” but refused to elaborate on what exactly that means. When a reporter questioned an illegal immigrant getting a driver’s license, the state agency spokeswoman snapped back saying “registry business is based on registry records.”

A local county sheriff expressed outrage, pointing out that democracy is predicated on law. “When we start to interpret these laws differently and manipulate them the way we want them to work for certain people, we start to send a mixed message to people that the law doesn’t really matter,” he said.

Uncle Obama has an immigration hearing next month, according to his attorney. Expect him to get the same special treatment afforded to Aunt Zeituni Onyango, the president’s illegal immigrant aunt. In 2010 Aunt Zeituni was granted political asylum, in a rare secret hearing, by the same judge who had previously deported her. The judge’s abrupt reversal remains a mystery because it all took place behind closed doors even though the Justice Department’s immigration court manual—as well as a federal appellate court—says such proceedings should be open.