Skip to content
Menu
  • Original Short Fiction
Menu

Fast and Furious Court Victory for Judicial Watch

Posted on 25 February 2016 by The Tactical Hermit

Attorney-General-Eric-Holder

This is an important story about Judicial Watch’s (JW) complicated and complex investigation into the Obama administration’s deadly Operation Fast and Furious scandal.

And this is one story that should be shared far and wide.

Earlier last week your JW was pleased to announce that we scored a victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding a September 5, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for all records of communications between the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on settlement discussions in the Committee’s 2012 contempt of Congress lawsuit against former Attorney General Eric Holder.

The contempt citation stemmed from Holder’s refusal to turn over documents to Congress related to the Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal. The appeals court decision was issued last week, on February 12 2016.

On June 28, 2012, Holder was held in contempt by the House of Representatives over his refusal to turn over records explaining why the Obama administration may have lied to Congress and refused for months to disclose the truth about the gunrunning operation in which the Obama administration allowed weapons to “walk” across the border into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, directly resulting in the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and countless Mexican citizens.

The House vote against Holder marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting Attorney General was held in contempt of Congress.

A week before the contempt finding, to protect Holder from criminal prosecution and stave off the contempt vote, President Obama asserted executive privilege over the Fast and Furious records that the House Oversight Committee had subpoenaed eight months earlier.

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit on September 12, 2012, for all of the records the Obama White House was withholding from the House of Representatives under its June 20, 2012, executive privilege claims. The House had been separately litigating to obtain the records before U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

We figured, correctly it turns out, we’d have better success in court than the hapless Congress.

Initially, the House lawsuit stalled our litigation. On February 15, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Bates stayed the Judicial Watch case, in part to allow ongoing settlement discussions between the DOJ and the House Committee to continue.

Judicial Watch was skeptical that the “settlement discussions” were serious and that they were merely an excuse to keep the records secret to protect Holder and the Obama administration from any Fast and Furious fallout. Judicial Watch sought records about the alleged settlement talks and sued in federal court for them in September 2013. As last week’s appellate decision details, U.S District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled that a statement Judge Jackson made in the House lawsuit was a lawful reason to withhold the documents from the public:

“I don’t know what you said. I don’t want to know.” – was “an explicit statement from Judge Jackson instructing the parties to keep the substance of their settlement discussions private,” so “there can be no doubt that there was a valid court-imposed restriction prohibiting disclosure.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that Judge Leon erred in concluding that Judge Jackson’s comment – about not wanting to know about the settlement – should be construed as an order to seal the records requested by Judicial Watch:

There is no extrinsic evidence that was what the judge intended; indeed, that concern is nowhere mentioned in the record in this case, and it is equally plausible that Judge Jackson wanted simply to preserve her objectivity in case she ultimately were to preside over a trial. Nor has the Department pointed to extrinsic evidence, such as information that the district court customarily protects the confidentiality of settlement discussions before a case is referred to mediation, that supports its preferred reading.

Accordingly, the intended effect of Judge Jackson’s order is ambiguous. An ambiguous court order does not protect a record from disclosure pursuant to the FOIA.

The appeals court directed the issue be taken up again by the lower courts:

At oral argument, Judicial Watch raised no objection to our remanding the case for clarification and acknowledged that Judge Jackson’s explanation would be dispositive. Accordingly, we vacate the judgement for the district court and remand this matter to Judge Leon in order to give the Department an opportunity to seek clarification from Judge Jackson regarding the intended effect and scope of her order.

The “mediation” and the House effort to obtain the Fast and Furious documents went nowhere until after Judge Bates in the Judicial Watch litigation ruled that the Obama Justice Department had to disclose directly to Judicial Watch information that Congress was seeking.

After a lengthy 16-month delay of its lawsuit because of this “mediation,” Judicial Watch finally obtained a July 18, 2014, ruling from Judge John D. Bates that lifted a stay of our open records lawsuit and ordered the production of a Vaughn index by October 1, 2014. Judge Bates noted that no court has ever “expressly recognized” President Obama’s unprecedented executive privilege claims in the Fast and Furious matter. Typically, a Vaughn index must: (1) identify each record withheld; (2) state the statutory exemption claimed; and (3) explain how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claimed exemption.

On September 9, 2014, Judge Jackson, citing Judicial Watch’s separate success, ordered the Justice Department to produce information to Congress by November 3, 2014.

On September 23, Judge Bates then denied the DOJ’s request that it be given more than a month, until November 3, to produce the Vaughn index. As Judge Bates noted: “at best, it means the Department has been slow to react to this Court’s previous [July 18, 2014] Order. At worst, it means the Department has ignored that Order until now.”

Holder announced his resignation two days after Judge Bates denied a Justice Department request it be given over an extra month to produce the Fast and Furious information.

JW took due credit for forcing Holder out of office, noting it was “no coincidence that Holder’s resignation comes on the heels of another court ruling that the Justice Department must finally cough up information about how Holder’s Justice Department lied to Congress and the American people about the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, for which Holder was held in contempt by the House of Representatives.”

I hope the latest Judicial Watch court victory over the Obama gang in the Fast and Furious scandal is some solace to the families of Brian Terry and the families of countless other Fast and Furious victims.

The body count, thanks to Barack Obama’s Fast and Furious gunrunning operation, will only rise over time – so every bit of accountability Judicial Watch can claw from the courts is well worth the effort.

You can see how this latest court victory was the result of a remarkable and tenacious effort by our legal and investigative teams. And the appellate ruling is one of a string of victories.

Your JW’s FOIA litigation also forced President Obama to retreat from his abusive assertions of executive privilege. (It probably won’t surprise you to learn that separate litigation by the House for the Fast and Furious documents continues, with Judge Jackson ruling last month against Obama’s assertions of executive privilege.)

In 2011, then-Attorney General Holder admitted that guns from the Fast and Furious scandal are expected to be used in criminal activity on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border for years to come.

Holder was right on that, at least. In 2014, Judicial Watch announced that, based upon information uncovered through a public records lawsuit, the U.S. Congress confirmed that an AK-47 rifle was used in a July 29, 2013, gang-style assault on an apartment building that left two people wounded. Judicial Watch litigation also obtained crime scene photos of the Phoenix attack that raised new cover-up questions. Despite the fact that the crime scene photos clearly revealed a serial number that shows that the AK-47 used in the commission of the crime was a Fast and Furious weapon, the City of Phoenix and Department of Justice failed to turn over the incriminating photos to Congress, despite longstanding requests for such information. According to Judicial Watch sources, investigators at the scene and subsequently knew that the AK-47 was a Fast and Furious weapon.

Just last month, a Fast and Furious weapon was found at the hideout of infamous Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. The .50 caliber rifle reportedly is capable of taking out a car or a helicopter.

This decrepit city may yawn at the deaths of Brian Terry and myriad other innocents (here and in Mexico) caused by this administration’s Fast and Furious insanity, but your Judicial Watch is still on the case, our litigation will continue and I tell you that we’re still investigating new leads on the issue.

Tom Fitton
President
Judicial Watch

Read the Original Article at Ammo-Land

 

1 thought on “Fast and Furious Court Victory for Judicial Watch”

  1. Rifleman III says:
    25 February 2016 at 19:37

    Reblogged this on Rifleman III Journal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tactical Hermit Substack

Recent Post

  • Morning Laugh
  • Bee PSA
  • Evening Laugh
  • Race Reality in South Africa: Anybody Can Farm, Right?
  • How Putin’s new Drone War is getting Deadlier
General Franco (2008-2024)

Book of the Month

Fellow Conspirators

Area Ocho

American Partisan

Western Rifle Shooters Association

Brushbeater

Von Steuben Training and Consulting

CSAT

Politically Incorrect Humor and Memes

Freedom is Just Another Word

Prepared Gun Owners

Fix Bayonets

The Firearm Blog

BorderHawk

Cold Fury

Don Shift SHTF

NC Renegades

Big Country Ex-Pat

The Bayou Renaissance Man

Bustednuckles

The Feral Irishman

It Ain’t Holy Water

Evil White Guy

Pacific Paratrooper

Badlands Fieldcraft

Riskmap

Stuck Pig Medical

Swift Silent Deadly

Spotter Up

The Survival Homestead

Bacon Time!

SHTF Preparedness

Sigma 3 Survival School

The Organic Prepper

The Zombie Apocalypse Survival Homestead

Texas Gun Rights

The Gatalog

Taki’s Magazine

Defensive Training Group

The Trail Up Blood Hill

No White Guilt

Europe Renaissance

Vermont Folk Truth

The Occidental Observer

The Dissident Right

Daily Stormer

American Renaissance

Blacksmith Publishing

Arktos Publishing

Antelope Hill Publishing

White People Press

White Rabbit Radio

White Papers Substack

Viking Life Blog (Archived)

Identity Dixie

The Texian Partisan

Southern Vanguard

League of the South

The Unz Review

Dissident Thoughts

The Third Position

Renegade Tribune

COPYRIGHT NOTICE/DISCLAIMER & FAIR USE ACT

All blog postings, including all non-fiction and fictional works are copyrighted and considered the sole property of the Tactical Hermit Blog. The names, characters and incidents portrayed in the short stories and novelettes are entirely fictional and are of the author's imagination. Any resemblance to actual events, locales or organizations or persons living or dead is entirely coincidental, The information contained in the articles posted to this site are for informational and/or educational purposes only. The Tactical Hermit disclaims any and all liability resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained herein.

The views and opinions expressed on this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any of the companies that advertise here. 

Much of the information on this blog contains copyrighted material whose use has not always been specifically authorized by the rightful copyright owner. This material is made available in an effort to educate and inform and not for remuneration. Under these guidelines this constitutes "Fair Use" under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. The publisher of this site DOES NOT own the copyrights of the images on the site. The copyrights lie with the respective owners.

© 2025 | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme