Starting at around 6PM and lasting until 3AM on January 26-27 2010, more than 3,000 outraged New York City residents showed up at a fake school board meeting (the Panel For Educational Policy has no administrative or executive function, violate their own Bylaws, have no minutes, and obstruct public discussion) to protest the closing of 20 New York City public schools by the pretend Chancellor of the New York City Board of Education, Joel I Klein. This is a fact.
Who could not care less that he has alienated the public school parents, teachers, administrators and public leaders of NYC: the pretend chancellor, Joel I. Klein. Read below for my statement as to why this all is happening.
And I'll put my name on it:
For 13 years Judicial Watch has been in a lawsuit with the former Clinton administration over files, missing emails, and personnel records that were collected by FBI agents illegally. Informaniacs like me are interested in cases involving emails and files, especially if the withholding of relevant information from the public involves a man we in the New York City public school community know as "Chancellor", Mr. Joel I. Klein.
See Judicial Watch and the Cara Leslie Alexander lawsuit, and dont miss Linda Tripp's January 22, 1999 deposition where she describes a thug who worked for the Clintons named Joel I. Klein.
White House sued by five whose files were obtained.(Nation)
Article from:The Washington Times (Washington, DC) Article date:September 13, 1996Author:Thibault, Andy
"The first five of more than 900 former White House staffers have come forward in a class-action suit seeking more than $90 million in damages for the Clinton administration's improper procurement of their secret FBI background files.
Named as defendants in the suit are the White House, the FBI, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, former White House personnel security director D. Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, a former U.S. Army civilian employee who had been assigned to the White House.
"We expect to confirm and further expose that the misconduct was not limited to low-level operatives, as the Clinton administration now asserts, but was orchestrated from the highest levels," said lawyer Larry Klayman, chairman of the government watchdog group Judicial Watch, who filed the suit yesterday in U.S. District Court.
The five plaintiffs are David Lee Black of Washington, a retired Bush appointee to the Department of Energy; Joseph Nelson Cate of Washington, who served as an unpaid volunteer in the Bush personnel office; Marjorie Anne Bridgman of Annandale, who served in the Reagan administration and on the Bush transition team; Patrick Beers of Boston, who served on the Bush advance team; and Cara Leslie Alexander of Fairfax County. Miss Alexander was not available yesterday, and Mr. Klayman could not immediately say what post she held.
Many others are expected to join the class action or file separate suits. Among those who said they have met to consider such suits are James Cicconi, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, and Ron Kaufman, deputy personnel director in the Bush administration.
The suit, which has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, claims violations of the Privacy Act of 1974. Sensitive personal material in such files often includes unproved allegations.
Mr. Clinton has called the FBI records search "a bureaucratic snafu," without explaining how the files of so many Reagan-Bush officials were "mistakenly" obtained and why they remained at the White House for about two years.
Mark Fabiani, Mr. Clinton's special associate counsel, declined to comment yesterday.
Mr. Livingstone was forced from his job in June after revelations that his office in late 1993 and early 1994 improperly obtained the files. He said that Mr. Marceca gathered the files in a bureaucratic blunder and that he knew nothing about them until this spring.
The White House files request became public after Rep. William F. Clinger, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, discovered that former White House travel office chief Billy R. Dale's background records were sought seven months after he was fired.
FBI Director Louis J. Freeh confirmed that the Dale files were among the "unquestionably unjustified acquisitions" by the White House, along with those of Barney Brasseaux, another travel office employee fired in 1993.
Mr. Dale's file was sought on a form containing then-White House Counsel Nussbaum's stamped name, although Mr. Nussbaum said he had no information on why his name would have appeared on the form.
Mr. Dale was indicted on two embezzlement charges and acquitted by a federal jury, which deliberated just two hours after a three-week trial.
A protege of Mr. Freeh's, FBI general counsel Howard Shapiro, became the target of a Justice Department investigation after House leaders accused him of collusion in the burgeoning file scandal.
Mr. Clinger said Mr. Shapiro "lost his credibility to represent the FBI before this Congress" after tipping off the White House about potentially damaging information in FBI files about Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Shapiro acknowledged in testimony before the Government Reform and Oversight panel that he tipped off the White House counsel's office July 15 that the FBI had discovered notes of a 1993 FBI interview crediting Mrs. Clinton with Mr. Livingstone's appointment as White House personnel security director.
He defended the move as "a good-faith attempt at being nonpartisan" because the file material had been subpoenaed by a GOP-controlled House committee.
Mrs. Clinton has publicly denied that she ordered the hiring of Mr. Livingstone."
What is shocking is that brilliant financial magnate Michael Bloomberg fell for the "expert fixer" public relations spin, and brought Joel Klein's threats and "Attorney" personhood to the equally brilliant New York City public school community. Did anyone in Mayor Bloomberg's cartel really believe that we, the general public, would not figure all of this out?
I have said for years that Joel Klein is "Chancellor" in name (and on the NYC BOE stationery) only, as he does not have a contract. When I first received confirmation of this from the FOIL officer Susan Holtzman in 2005, I asked myself, "Why doesn't he have a contract?" Education Law Section 2590-h says that he MUST have a contract:
"* § 2590-h. Powers and duties of chancellor. The office of chancellor
of the city district is hereby continued. Such chancellor shall serve at the pleasure of and be employed by the mayor of the city of New York by contract. The length of such contract shall not exceed by more than two years the term of office of the mayor authorizing such contract. The chancellor shall receive a salary to be fixed by the mayor within the budgetary allocation therefor. He or she shall exercise all his or her powers and duties in a manner not inconsistent with the city-wide educational policies of the city board. The chancellor shall have the following powers and duties as the superintendent of schools and chief executive officer for the city district, which the chancellor shall exercise to promote an equal educational opportunity for all students in the schools of the city district, promote fiscal and educational equity,increase student achievement and school performance and encourage local school-based innovation, including the power and duty to...."
What that is about, I believe, is Mayor Bloomberg (at left) brought Klein to New York City to be the Attorney that represents NYC BOE personnel when they are sued for violating contractual rights and laws. He is, therefore, a "fixer". For example, the Corporation Counsel told Plaintiff/teacher Hipolito Colon that he cannot get relevant and material information from Defendant Klein (whom he sued in his official AND individual capacities) nor can he depose Klein, because this information is withheld as "Attorney-Client Privilege".
Linda Tripp's deposition on January 22, 1999 supports this opinion of Joel Klein.
On the Judicial Watch website under "filegate", is the story of the Clintons' attempt to cover up the gathering of personal information, the death of Vincent Foster, Monica Lewinsky, and other such activities. Evidently the Clinton White House procured the private FBI files of Alexander and Duggan in 1993 and 1994 respectively by claiming the two individuals required access to the Clinton White House. One problem. Neither individual worked for the White House any longer and therefore did not require access. This was simply a ruse by Clinton officials to get their hands on the files, something they did with regularity. In fact, one FBI official testified they made 488 such requests based on the bogus claim of "access" in a single year! The Clintons called in a man to cover up for them, current New York City "Chancellor" Joel I. Klein.
Alexander, et al. v. FBI, et al.
In the early 1990’s, President and Hillary Clinton violated the privacy rights of their perceived political enemies by wrongly accessing and misusing the FBI files of Reagan and Bush I staffer and others. This scandal became known as "Filegate." In pursuing its Filegate investigation, Judicial Watch learned with the help of whistleblowers Sheryl Hall and Betty Lambuth that the Clinton-Gore White House had hidden over 1.8 million e-mails from courts, Congressional investigators and independent counsels for nearly two years. Plans were also uncovered to destroy the files. To keep the e-mails secret, Clinton-Gore White House officials threatened contractors and staff with their jobs or jail time. Once the failure to produce the e-mails was revealed, the cover-up began; a cover-up that included obstruction and false testimony. Then, on hearing the testimony of the White House whistleblowers, a federal court judge ordered the testimony of former high-level Clinton-Gore White House officials in a court hearing to examine the threats, obstruction and alleged false testimony. (Editor- see "Whistleblower Protection - Sheryl Hall" and "Whistleblower Protection - Betty Lambuth")
Evidence showed that the e-mails are incriminating and covered virtual all of the Clinton-Gore scandals, yet these e-mails were not considered by Independent Counsel Robert Ray who gave the Clinton-Gore White House a clean bill of health. (View ethics complaint.)
In January 2001, the e-mail files were placed under custody of the National Archives (NARA) and were restored, costing the American tax-payers over $13 million.
In December 2002 the court ordered the files be searched. The NARA is responsible for responding to all special access requests and subpoenas that are made pursuant to the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The PRA generally restricts public access to the Clinton Presidential and Gore Vice Presidential records for five years after the end of the administration and for specific records for an additional seven years.
Judicial Watch is representing plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed by the White House employees of Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations whose FBI files were wrongly accessed by the Clinton White House. The FBI and White House are being sued for breach of the Federal Privacy Act while other individuals, including Hillary Clinton, are being sued for invasion of privacy. (Go to the website for more information, including the legal documents).
If there is one legal case that exemplifies the "never-give-up" attitude of Judicial Watch and its attorneys it is the Filegate lawsuit, which was filed 13 years ago when Bill and Hillary Clinton still occupied The White House. As long-time readers of the Weekly Update know, over the years, Judicial Watch has continued to aggressively pursue justice in this matter, earning some key victories along the way (like the discovery of the hidden White House emails, to name just one example).
And just this week, on October 19, we filed a "Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment," asking the U.S. District Court to rule in favor of two Filegate victims, Cara Leslie Alexander and Joseph P. Duggan (Cara Leslie Alexander, et al. v. FBI, et al., C.A. No. 96-2123 (RCL)).
At its core, Judicial Watch's Filegate lawsuit is the Clinton White House's illegal maintenance of the private FBI files of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush officials.
Specifically with respect to Judicial Watch's clients, the Clinton White House procured their private FBI files in 1993 and 1994 respectively by claiming the two individuals required access to the Clinton White House. One problem. Neither individual worked for the White House any longer and therefore did not require access. This was simply a ruse by Clinton officials to get their hands on the files, something they did with regularity. In fact, one FBI official testified they made 488 such requests based on the bogus claim of "access" in a single year!
And to make matters worse, not only did the Clinton White House misstate the facts to get the private FBI files, it held on to them for almost three years!
Now, after 13 years of pushing the same tired justification for this illegal handling of private information, the FBI and the Obama White House (defending corruption in the Clinton White House) have asked the court to rule in its favor by filing a "Motion for Summary Judgment." (A "summary judgment" is granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.) We filed our own Cross Motion for Summary Judgment in reply, and here is our basic argument:
Over the long and complex history of this matter, certain key facts have remained irrefutable. First, FBI background investigation files are perhaps some of the most sensitive records that the federal government maintains on individuals.
Second, the FBI has never disputed that it sent literally hundreds of these files to the Office of Personnel Security ("OPS"), a component of Executive Office of the President (EOP), despite the fact that OPS's requests for the records were, in the FBI's own words, "without justification and served no official purpose." Indeed, the FBI has admitted that it failed to "institute sufficient protections to effectively safeguard the records"...and that their handling of the matter resulted in "egregious violations of privacy."
...There can be no genuine dispute that the FBI violated the Privacy Act by failing to establish appropriate administrative safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of its background investigation files and that its failure to do so was in flagrant disregard for Plaintiffs' rights under the Privacy Act.
Third, regardless of the circumstances under which OPS acquired the records at issue, there has never been any dispute that OPS continued to maintain them long after it was known that the persons who were the subjects of these records never worked at the Clinton White House and had no need for access to the Clinton White House.
As we further noted in our Cross Motion, even Bill Clinton himself has said his administration should be held accountable. Clinton told historian Taylor Branch in preparation for his recently published book, "those files did not belong at The White House," and that they "should have been isolated and returned immediately." According to Branch, Clinton said "[h]is administration should and would be held accountable."
But the Obama administration has taken the legal position that the Privacy Act does not apply to the Executive Office of the President and the Clinton FBI files scandal was not a scandal.
This will be worrying to those of us concerned about the Obama White House's collecting "fishy" emails and compiling an enemies list of new organizations, radio hosts, businesses, and industry associations to attack and smear. Is the Obama defense of the FBI files scandal less about that Clinton scandal and more about what his White House is up to now?
Deposing Corrupt Politicians - Filegate Depositions
In Alexander et al. v. FBI, et al., the case commonly known as “Filegate,” Judicial Watch represented plaintiffs from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations who claim that the Clinton administration gained illegal access to their FBI files. Hillary Clinton is mentioned specifically as a defendant in the case. The FBI and White House are being sued for breach of the Federal Privacy Act while other individuals, including Mrs. Clinton, are being sued for invasion of privacy. Below you will find the depositions of three of the most notable figures in the case.
James Carville was the former campaign manager and political consultant to President Clinton. He is questioned in this case regarding his knowledge of White House activity that involved the files in question. George Stephanopoulos was a senior political advisor to President Clinton as well as his press secretary and communications director at various times in the administration. He was also questioned about his knowledge of Filegate. Linda Tripp, a White House employee during both the Bush and Clinton administrations, provided Judicial Watch with perhaps its best evidence of all. It is Tripp that reveals a direct connection between Mrs. Clinton and the illegally obtained files.
See Filegate Depositions
Filegate: Did they have your file?
and, the list of deceased persons reportedly associated with the Clinton administration
Attorney General Gonzales' aide says she'll plead the Fifth
The Raw Story
JW Files Appeal with Supreme Court Challenging Hillary Clinton's Eligibility to Serve as Secretary of State
Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 1:34pm
Judicial Watch: High Court Has an Obligation to Stop an End-Run Around U.S. Constitution
Press Office - 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC -- January 6, 2010
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that on December 31, 2009, it filed an appeal with the United States Supreme Court in its lawsuit on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer David C. Rodearmel challenging Hillary Clinton's constitutional eligibility to serve as Secretary of State (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al. on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia).
Judicial Watch's lawsuit, filed on January 29, 2009, maintains that the Ineligibility Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Clinton from serving as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court dismissed Judicial Watch's lawsuit on October 29th, ruling that Mr. Rodearmel lacked "standing" to bring the lawsuit. The court did not address the constitutional merits of the lawsuit itself.
As Judicial Watch notes in its brief, federal law provides that an Ineligibility Clause appeal related to the position of Secretary of State may be brought directly to the U.S. Supreme Court within 20 days of a judgment on the validity of the appointment. Moreover, the law states, "The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question presented by an appeal...accept jurisdiction over the appeal, advance the appeal on the docket, and expedite the appeal."
There are two key questions at issue in this lawsuit, according to Judicial Watch's Supreme Court appeal (technically called a "Jurisdictional Statement"):
(1) Whether an Officer of the United States, when placed in a position where he must either violate his oath of office or risk substantial, adverse consequences to his employment, has standing to maintain a challenge to the appointment of a constitutionally ineligible superior.
(2) Whether members of Congress who are otherwise ineligible for appointment to an office in the Executive Branch under the plain language of Article I, section 6 of the Constitution, can have their eligibility restored by an act of Congress.
With respect to the issue of standing, Judicial Watch contends that Mr. Rodearmel "demonstrated in the district court that he is being injured in his employment by being required to serve under, take direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior, Mrs. Clinton. This is because [Mr. Rodearmel] has been placed in a position where he either must violate his oath of office or risk substantial, adverse consequences to his employment."
With respect to Congress' attempt to circumvent the Ineligibility Clause by "rolling back" compensation for the position of Secretary of State to the level in effect on January 1, 2007, Judicial Watch maintains: "This [fix] does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate."
"The Supreme Court has an obligation to settle the Ineligibility Clause issue once and for all," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "If our government and courts will not observe even the plain and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution, then we are cut adrift from the anchor of law and liberty and the rule of law is in jeopardy. We hope the Supreme Court takes this opportunity to vindicate the Constitution."
Rodearmel v. Clinton
Appeal to the Supreme Court: Jurisdictional statement
Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides:
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."
This provision, known as the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. The "Ineligibility Clause" is interpreted by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government.
On January 29, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the ground that she is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State under the Ineligibility Clause. The "emoluments" or salary of the U.S. Secretary of State increased at least three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's recent resignation.
Judicial Watch's lawsuit is on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel, a retired Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General Corp. See Rodearmel v. Clinton, Case No. 09-171 (U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Col.)). The lawsuit maintains that Mr. Rodearmel cannot serve under Secretary of State Clinton as it would force him to violate an oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States. For more information on Mr. Rodearmel, see below.
In December 2008, Congress attempted to evade the clear prohibition of the Ineligibility Clause with a so-called "Saxbe fix," reducing the Secretary of State's salary to the level in effect on January 1, 2007. This maneuver, first used in the Taft Administration, has been more frequently used in recent years by both parties, most notably allowing Republican Senator William Saxbe to become U.S. Attorney General in 1973 and Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen to become Treasury Secretary in 1993. A similar "fix" has been enacted for Senator Ken Salazar to join the Obama Cabinet as Secretary of the Interior. These attempted "fixes," however, are insufficient, as they cannot alter the historical fact that -- as in Mrs. Clinton's case -- salaries increased during the terms for which these officials were elected, thereby violating the Ineligibility Clause.
The lawsuit was reviewed on an expedited basis by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who held that Mr. Rodearmel did not have standing and did not comment on the constitutional questions. Judicial Watch filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Obama Administration Denies Judicial Watch FOIA Request for White House Visitor Logs