Tahirih Files Lawsuit Challenging the Use of CBP to Conduct Credible Fear Interviews

by Tahirih Justice Center

Washington, D.C. - April 2, 2020 - (The Ponder News) -- The Tahirih Justice Center filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the use of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents to screen asylum seekers for their ‘credible fear’ of persecution. This policy change violates federal immigration law and was enacted by officials who did not have the authority to do so. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of women and children currently detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley. Tahirih has also sought information on this clandestine policy through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to compel the government to release records on this troubling practice.

“Credible fear interviews are supposed to be the non-adversarial, first step in the extensive asylum process, in which asylum seekers who have experienced severe violence recount intimate details of their persecution. For decades, these interviews have been conducted by asylum officers, specially trained to work with individuals who have experienced trauma,” said Julie Carpenter, Tahirih Senior Litigation Counsel. “Using Border Patrol—federal law enforcement officers whose mission is to capture and detain immigrants—to conduct these immediate interviews intentionally puts the fate of survivors of gender-based violence, and other asylum seekers, in the hands of agents who lack the necessary expertise in asylum law.”

Franklin Circuit Court judge instructs reporters on the importance of the open records law

Source: Bluegrass Institute

Franklin, KY - September 22, 2017  (The Ponder News) -- The sparsely attended hearing conducted in the Franklin Circuit Court on September 20 belied the importance of the issue before the court.

Judge Thomas Wingate clearly understood the importance of the issue.

What was that issue?

Whether a public university can ignore the express language of a statute that authorizes the Kentucky Attorney General to obtain and examine — but maintain the confidentiality of — records relating to allegations of sexual harassment leveled against university employees in order to determine the propriety of the university’s denial of a request for those records?

Under Kentucky’s Open Records Law, the Attorney General is required to review public agency denials of requests for agency records and issue decisions stating whether the agency violated the law in denying the requests. Those decisions — referred to as open records decisions or ORDs — “have the force and effect of law” if not appealed to the appropriate circuit court within 30 days of issuance.

The single most important tool available to the Attorney General in discharging this statutory duty — the tool that enables him to independently verify that an agency’s denial is supported by law — is under assault by three public universities: the University of Kentucky, Western Kentucky University, and Kentucky State University.

Each university received an open records request from the University of Kentucky’s student newspaper, The Kernel, each located records confirming incidents of sexual harassment of students by university employees, and each denied The Kernel access to the records based on a federal law prohibiting disclosure of student “education records.”

When The Kernel appealed those denials to the Attorney General under the statute described above, each university refused to honor the Attorney General’s statutorily authorized request to examine the disputed records so that he could independently verify that the records relating to sexual harassment of students by university employees were or were not, in fact, federally protected “education records.”

Because the Attorney General could not substantiate the universities’ claim of exemption, he ruled against the universities and in favor of The Kernel. The universities responded by suing The Kernel and its student editor.

And, for the first time in the forty plus years since the enactment of the Open Records Law, the Attorney General intervened in the open records dispute between the universities and The Kernel to preserve his office’s statutory right to confidentially review agency records in open records disputes. Until recently, agencies have more or less willingly cooperated with the Attorney General by honoring his requests for the records to ensure proper resolution of the open records issue presented to him on appeal.

The Open Records Law assigns the burden of proving that a denial is proper to the universities in the same section of the same statute that authorizes the Attorney General to obtain disputed records for purposes of substantiating an agency’s denial before rendering an open records decision. Moreover, Kentucky’s  courts have declared that an agency “cannot benefit from intentionally frustrating the Attorney General’s review of an open records request; such result would subvert the General Assembly’s intent behind providing review by the Attorney General.”

For these reasons, Judge Wingate repeatedly asked counsel for Kentucky State University why his client objected to providing the disputed records to the Attorney General for statutorily authorized confidential review.

Why, indeed?

For all the university’s overblown rhetoric concerning the dire consequences of disclosure of sexual harassment records to the Attorney General under an unambiguous statutory mandate, its position is based on a single nonbinding  “opinion letter” issued by the federal Department of Education Family Policy Compliance Office to the Texas Attorney General in 2006.

In the University of Kentucky’s case, it is more likely based on the non-disparagement clause in the attractive separation agreement it entered into with its rogue professor.

WKU and KSU followed its highly questionable lead.

In the course of this hearing, Judge Wingate repeatedly emphasized the importance of the open records issue presented and the role of the Attorney General. As the parties concluded their arguments, and the courtroom began to fill for the next hearing, he reminded those who had just arrived what the next hearing was about. “Bourbon,” he derisively declared more than once.

He then directly engaged the reporters who were gathering for the hearing on the Pappy Van Winkle heist. He admonished them for their failure to cover the open records hearing that was concluding and suggested that a bourbon heist should not command the level of media attention that a case involving the media’s lifeblood — the open records law — commands.

We are grateful to the Attorney General for his unflagging commitment to preserving the statutory mechanism so vital to the meaningful discharge of his duty under the open records law. But for his candor and indignation — not to mention his unexpected shout out from the bench — the Bluegrass Institute Center for Open Government wishes to express its appreciation to Judge Thomas Wingate.

Retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Sues Justice Department for Records About Top FBI Official Ties to Top Clinton Ally

Source: Judicial Watch



Washington, D.C. - September 3, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Judicial Watch announced that it today filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of Jeffrey A. Danik, a retired FBI supervisory special agent, against the U.S. Department of Justice for records concerning FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (Jeffrey A. Danik v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01792)). Danik worked for the Federal Bureau of Investigation for almost 30 years.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia in support of Danik’s October 25, 2016, and February 28, 2017, FOIA requests for records about McCabe’s “conflicts of interest” regarding his wife’s (Dr. Jill McCabe’s) political campaign, and McCabe’s reporting to the FBI of any job interviews or offers. Specifically, the two FOIA requests seek:

Text messages and emails of McCabe containing “Dr. Jill McCabe,” “Jill,” “Common Good VA,” “Terry McAuliffe,” “Clinton,” “Virginia Democratic Party,” “Democrat,” “Conflict,” “Senate,” “Virginia Senate,” “Until I return,” “Paris,” “France,” “Campaign,” “Run,” “Political,” “Wife,” “Donation,” “OGC,” Email,” or “New York Times.”

In 2015, a political action committee run by McAuliffe, a close friend and political supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, donated nearly $500,000 to Jill McCabe, wife of McCabe, who was then running for the Virginia State Senate. Also, the Virginia Democratic Party, over which McAuliffe had significant influence, donated an additional $207,788 to the Jill McCabe campaign. In July 2015, Andrew McCabe was in charge of the FBI’s Washington, DC, field office, which provided personnel resources to the Clinton email probe.

“I am saddened by how the FBI’s reputation has been tarnished by the poor judgement and ethics of its leadership,” stated Mr. Danik. “I know I’m not the only retired (or serving) FBI special agent who is concerned about Mr. McCabe’s conflicts of interest on the Clinton email matter. The agency seems to be illegally hiding records about this scandal, which is why I’m heading to court with Judicial Watch.”

“We’re honored to help Mr. Danik hold accountable the FBI—the agency he served for decades,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We believe Mr. McCabe’s text messages and emails will be particularly enlightening to the public seeking answers about the Clinton email debacle.”

In July 2017, Judicial Watch filed three FOIA lawsuits seeking communications between the FBI and McCabe concerning “ethical issues” involving his wife’s political campaign; McCabe’s communications with McAuliffe; and McCabe’s travel vouchers.