Tag Archives: Judicial

Court Slaps Down Obama Administration Secrecy, Rules White House Visitor Logs Subject to Open Records FOIA

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that a federal court ruled today against the Obama administration that Secret Service White House visitor logs are agency records that are subject to disclosure under the  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  The decision was issued by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, in Judicial Watch v. Secret Service (No. 09-2312).

In its lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service, Judicial Watch asked the court to order the release of Secret Service logs of White House visitors from January 20, 2009, to August, 10, 2009.  The Obama administration attempted to advance the erroneous claim that the visitor logs “are not agency records subject to the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act].”  As Judicial Watch noted in its complaint filed onDecember 7, 2009, this claim “has been litigated and rejected repeatedly.”  Despite White House misinformation to the contrary, tens of thousands of visitor logs are being withheld from disclosure by the Obama administration.  These records are now subject to disclosure under FOIA.

Judge Howell ruled that “the proper course of action by the Secret Service is duly to process [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request, disclose all segregable, nonexempt records, and then assert specific FOIA exemptions for all records it seeks to withhold.”  Currently, the White House releases visitor information at its own discretion, the timing and specifics of which, it insisted,  was not subject to court review.

“This is a major victory for open government and an embarrassing defeat for the Obama administration,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “This administration will now have to release all records of all visitors to the White House – or explain why White House visits should be kept secret under law.  It is refreshing to see the court remind this administration that the rule of law applies to it.”

Casey Anthony, Not Guilty! Well Kinda

“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” seems appropriate as the news media pounces Casey Anthony’s jurors for making what they consider the wrong decision. In the court of public opinion, she is guilty! As the news media creates the newest reality star, they did not fall short on the accusations of the flaws within our judicial system.

If you were on trial, where would you fall within the realm of media scrutiny? Would you be treated as guilty until proven innocent or on the elite pedestal of innocence? Whether you were guilty or not, would you receive media protection or scrutiny? Most of us fall into the guilty until proven innocent category whereas the media treat us as a hindrance. As with Casey Anthony, a jury of her peers found her “Not Guilty” of first-degree murder. It reminds me of the media circus for OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson trials. They harped over the alleged injustices for the victims of OJ and Michael. It seemed that the spin was how the media viewed the individuals. With Scott Peterson convicted to death row, his story did not prove the flaws of our court system. So, they moved on.

Meanwhile, Hollywood figures like Roman Polanski, a 43-year old moviemaker, who was convicted of raping a 13-year old, gets a pass. In 1977, he fled the nation prior to his sentencing that could have been up to 50 years. Whereas, the elites are protesting for charges to be dropped, they even correct the charge from rape to “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.” Do you wonder if you would get this much support from the Hollywood elites or the media?

With the Casey Anthony case, she was not presumed innocent but she was found NOT GUILTY. The media pundits blame the court system and the 12 jurors that did not run the right script. Could it have been the prosecutor’s inability attempt to get the death penalty? They placed the death penalty and then expect people to disregard death as a possibility in determining the verdict. Please. The prosecutors have massive resources and were still unable to present a solid case. To send her to death on the evidence that was presented would have been a sin. They couldn’t even determine the cause of death.

In 1994, Susan Smith drowned her two sons in a South Carolina lake. She was convicted in July 1995. Just three months later, OJ Simpson would be found not guilty. It appears that our media is eagerly awaiting the next court case so they can justify the flaws within our judicial system. Here we have another infamous mother to add to our list of Susan Smith, Andrea Yates and China Arnold.

HLN’s ratings during this episode boosted from a typical 283,000 people watching to 5.2 million. Apparently, Americans aren’t so glued to the boring TV as we’re led to believe…but I digress.

Actually, our civilian judicial system is something to be proud of. It is a jury of your own peers that must come to a unanimous decision in determining your conviction. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt. This is much better than some bureaucrat or media pundit who has political gains or ratings to decide. The prosecutor did not make the case, simple as that. But the mobocracy wants someone’s death for Caylee Anthony’s, ginned up by the media. To say she was a liar or a narcissist might be an understatement. For her lying and deceitfulness, she did her time.

As our media questions our judicial (trial) system, ask yourself whether the media should be questioned. As they appear to be in the bag for the establishment, convicting and enticing the mob. You could get Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Keith Olbermann or Bill O’Reilly as judge and jury but we don’t. Our judicial system may not be perfect, but being judged by our peers truly makes it the best system in the world.