VIDEO Somali Refugee Minneapolis Police Officer Charged With Murder of Justine Damond

Muslim refugee was fast-tracked into Minneapolis police force

Mar 21, 2018 By Dan Lyman


A Minneapolis police officer has been charged with murder in the highly controversial 2017 shooting of Justine Damond, an Australian national who was living in Minnesota with her fiancée.

Mohamed Noor, a Somali who entered the U.S. as a refugee, turned himself into authorities after a warrant was issued for his arrest, and he was charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter eight months after the killing of Ms. Damond.

According to the criminal complaint, Ms. Damond called 911 on a July evening last year to report a possible sexual assault taking place near her apartment.

Noor and his partner, Matthew Harrity, arrived on the scene and were sitting in their vehicle when Ms. Damond approached, clad in pajamas and clutching her cell phone. Noor was reportedly ‘spooked’ by her presence, and fired his service weapon across Harrity, through the driver’s window, striking Damond in the abdomen.

Officer Harrity has testified that 32-year-old Justine Damond’s final words were “I’m dying” or “I’m dead,” as she clutched her wound.

“Officer Noor recklessly and intentionally fired his handgun from the passenger seat, a location at which he would have been less able than Officer Harrity to see and hear events on the other side of the squad car,” asserts Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, adding that there was no evidence Noor “encountered, appreciated, investigated or confirmed a threat that justified the decision to use deadly force.”

Official descriptions of Noor’s charges include, “Perpetrating Eminently Dangerous Act and Evincing Depraved Mind” and “Culpable Negligence Creating Unreasonable Risk.”

The incident triggered international outrage, which was further fueled after revelations about Officer Noor’s background and career came to light.

It was discovered that Noor, who comes from a family of Somali refugees, was not only recruited as an affirmative action diversity hire, but was also fast-tracked onto the force with only seven months of training under his belt at great cost to taxpayers under an “accelerated police cadet program.”

“The seven-month training is a quicker, nontraditional route to policing aimed at helping those who already have a college degree enter law enforcement,” reported the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. “The Minneapolis program covers tuition at Hennepin Technical College and pays trainees a $20-an-hour salary with benefits while they work to get licensed. After that their salary bumps up.”

Former Minneapolis mayor Betsy Hodges issued a public statement on Facebook lauding Noor’s entry onto the MPD force in 2016.

Hodges’ post included photos of Noor surrounded by women in full Islamic garb, replete with Sharia-compliant hijabs.

In his short career, Noor racked up multiple formal complaints against him, prior to the shooting of Damond.

Noor has been on paid leave since the killing, but has yet to cooperate with investigators at the time of this writing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Gun Confiscation in Florida – Left Furious, Armed Resource Officer Stops Maryland High School Gunman

Yes, Gun Confiscation Just Happened in Florida, and it Will Happen Nationwide

Mar 19, 2018 by Jeremiah Johnson


For all those individuals who claimed door-to-door gun confiscation wouldn’t happen? Well, it just did…in Florida.  The report came out via Breitbart on 3/16/18, entitled It Begins: Florida Resident’s Firearms, Ammunition Confiscated Under Gun Control Law.

Yes, here it is: Here it starts.

Apparently, the individual is a 56-year-old man who has not committed a crime: he just falls into a category of people that could “pose a harm to the public good.” Here’s an excerpt:

The Orlando Sentinel reports that “four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition” were taken from the man, and he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”

The seized firearms were listed as “a Ruger LCP .380 pistol, an M2 Mauser .45 pistol, a Charter Arms .357 mag snub nose revolver and a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun.”

The paper notes that “the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under … new legislation — which permits confiscating guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter.

What’s even worse is that they have incorporated wonderful elements of Communism, namely stoolpigeons and snitches within the family or by order of a judge. Yes, Communism is that system that many deny, along with Marxism, that concentrated on removing undesirables and nonconformists by sending them to psychiatric wards until they displayed “correct thinking.”

For those who are not aware: Communism is the end-state, resulting in the death of all the undesirables and the enslavement of the masses. For “primers” on Communism, read George Orwell’s “1984,” and J. Edgar Hoover’s “Masters of Deceit.” Yes, Communism is alive, well, real, and waiting…in the guise of labels such as “the Progressive Movement” and “Social Justice,” clarion calls for armies of fools and illiterates who wish to change the world to be utilized in the call.

Utilized, and then liquidated after their usefulness expires: History has shown it again and again, with the “showcase era” being the entire 20th century.

Here is an excerpt that illustrates how the Communists work…turning family members against one another, using the “gendarmes” of the police force outside of their normal role, and bypassing due process of law with the use of judges:

The confiscatory order also bars the man from making new firearm or ammunition purchases. On March 9, Breitbart News reported that Gov. Scott signed a $400 million gun bill that includes orders which allows a family member or law enforcement to petition a judge to order the seizure of an individual’s firearms. The bill also put waiting periods in place for long gun purchases, raised the minimum purchase age for long gun purchases (from 18 to 21), and banned bump stocks.

Neat term, huh? Confiscatory order. Right up there with “Eminent Domain,” and “Annexation.” Chef DeJure: “Stroke of the pen…law of the land.”

Instead of denouncing the order and upholding the Constitution, the judge, addressed as “Your Honor” but without any…is now selectively interpreting the law and bypassing the 2nd and 4th Amendments to the Constitution in one fell swoop.  All of this has been initiated by a pseudo-Republican governor’s stroke of the pen…entrée de jure, courtesy of Rick Scott.

Illinois is passing a legislative ban and the mandatory turn-in of “prohibited” firearms by 18-20-year-olds. Other states are following. What is not accomplished by the federal government is being accomplished by the states. They’re using the youth and the pressure of the media and social media to mold the public into compliance. What they cannot engender in that department they’ll close with de jure legislation.

The problem with laws? Once they’re in place, they’re able to be enforced by men with badges and guns…forcing you to comply. By the time the law is scrutinized by the courts, it is too late. That court scrutiny is not a guarantee that things will be set straight: it’s most likely they will not be. They win by passing their laws, and you are a “subject.” You become the victim of the tyranny of the majority, and the “Your Honors” who are paid politicians and puppets, selectively interpreting, bypassing, and violating Constitutional law.

They are coming for the guns. Each new “venture” elicits a new response, an incremental shift of the paradigm, as they craft their socialist society. They must have the guns, and they will be coming door to door for them…as they have just done in Florida. Take your steps now while you still can. In the end, a fight is coming. To win, people need to be smart. They need to be aware of what is going on…when to hold ‘em, fold ‘em, walk away, and run…not just stand and fight. The first battle is to admit to what is happening and prepare for what is to come.

Armed Resource Officer Stops Maryland High School Gunman


Mar 20, 2018 by Tyler Durden

A 17-year-old gunman is dead following an exchange with an armed School Resource Officer (SRO) at Great Mills High School in Maryland on Tuesday morning. Two students were injured.

The gunman opened fire on a 16-year-old female student before class in a central hallway, hitting a male classmate, before the (SRO) exchanged fire with the shooter who was armed with a handgun, disabling him and ending the incident. The SRO was not injured in the exchange which began at 7:45 a.m.

The female student is in critical but stable condition at a trauma facility, while her male classmate is in stable condition. They were taken to separate hospitals in D.C. where the shooter died at 10:41 a.m.

The ATF and FBI are investigating the incident which came just days after threats were made on Snapchat against the school. The sheriff’s department reportedly investigated the threat but did not determine it to be authentic.

“This is what we train for, this is what we prepare for,” said Sheriff Tim Cameron.

Quick thinking student Jonathan Freese called CNN from his cell phone during lockdown in math class, telling the network “I’m still a little shaken up.”

Freese said the school had held drills a couple of times for this kind of situation.

“I didn’t really expect for this to happen. I do always feel safe, though, because they always have police at the school,” he said. –CNN

School busses were used to transport students to a neighboring school to be reunited with their parents.

The shooting comes a week after Great Mills High School students staged a walk-out to protest gun violence in the wake of the February 14 school shooting in Parkland, Florida which was not stopped by the school’s resource officer, Scot Peterson.

President Trump has repeatedly called for arming teachers following the Parkland incident as a means to safeguard students against future mass shootings.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Church & State: Separation Doesn’t Mean Opposition

Mar 17, 2018

As a constitutional law attorney with a doctorate in theology and 30 years experience as a Christian social reformer, I have a special interest and expertise in the so-called “separation of church and state” I would like to share.

Coadjuvancy is a little-used but precise legal term meaning the cooperation or mutual effort of independent entities with authority to govern, such as the separate but equal sovereign powers of church and state. America’s founders considered church and state to be coadjuvants with the duty to closely collaborate for the benefit of society. The long and beneficial history of church/state coadjuvancy was carefully summarized in the United States Supreme Court case Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), which is a must-read for anyone desiring to understand the topic.

The modern notion that the separation of these powers implies opposition or incompatibility is a gross misrepresentation of the founders’ beliefs and intentions. It was imposed on the nation by a cabal of hyper-partisan Democratic secularists led by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (a virulent anti-Catholic and one-time member of the Ku Klux Klan), along with his co-conspirator Lyndon Baines Johnson, author of the Johnson Amendment that purported to ban church involvement in politics.

Black wrote the majority opinion in the 1947 U.S. Supreme Court case Everson v. Board of Education, which redefined the separation of church and state as a barrier to church/state cooperation – reversing over 150 years of legal precedent in which it had been recognized as a facilitator of church influence in government. It was this early and egregious example of judicial activism in Everson that shifted America from following the Judeo-Christian presuppositions of the founders to the secular humanist presuppositions of Cultural Marxism: preventing government from recognizing the authority of God in our law and history.

This unconstitutional, judge-created and enforced anti-religious form of secularism remains the law of the land, notwithstanding political counter-measures such as redesigning our paper currency to include our national motto “In God We Trust.” This occurred under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-61), who said, “Without God, there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first – the most basic – expression of Americanism. Thus the Founding Fathers saw it, and thus, with God’s help, it will continue to be.”

This was always a Democrat vs. Republican partisan battle. To quote from one of my previous articles, “All of the nine justices in the Everson decision were nominated by Democratic presidents (four by Roosevelt, three by Truman and one by Wilson), and all were Democrats themselves except Independent Felix Frankfurter (a founder of the ACLU), and the lone Republican, Harold Burton, a personal friend of Harry Truman from their days together in the U.S. Senate. Shamefully, all agreed with Black’s revisionist definition of the ‘Separation of Church and State’ (though four dissented as to its application to the plaintiff’s case at issue).”

In 1948, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Lyndon Baines Johnson’s ostensible victory over former Texas Gov. Coke Stevenson was clouded by serious allegations of voter fraud. Justice Hugo Black (himself a former Democratic senator from Alabama), intervened on Johnson’s behalf, issuing an order barring a federal district court in Texas from further investigation of that fraud, sealing LBJ’s victory. In 1954, Sen. Johnson furthered their mutual ideological interests by sponsoring the “Johnson Amendment” to the U.S. Tax Code, whose existence has been used for decades to unconstitutionally suppress political advocacy by churches.

(Importantly, the IRS refuses to enforce the amendment, knowing it would not survive a court challenge. This has triggered a movement wherein a large and growing number of churches, including my own, deliberately endorse candidates from the pulpit and send the video footage to the IRS, hoping to provoke litigation. President Trump has challenged the Johnson Amendment with an executive order and vowed to push a formal repeal of the amendment through Congress.)

In 1961, Black struck a second grievous blow to the nation in Torcaso v. Watkins when he led the court to define atheism as a religion toward which government must remain neutral. This effectively transformed our constitution’s “equal protection” guarantees into a weapon empowering atheists to purge Judeo-Christian influence from public life as a supposed violation of their rights. That effort began in earnest with the removal of prayer in public schools in 1963 and gradually matured into a culture-wide climate of overt hostility toward the biblical worldview and widespread active repression of Judeo-Christian beliefs and speech in all spheres of society.

As governor of Massachusetts, I would join President Trump in issuing an executive order at the state level similar to his own, and would lend the weight of my office to the efforts of Massachusetts churches seeking to put the Johnson Amendment before a court of competent jurisdiction so that it could be formally struck down.

In the mean time, I encourage churches to openly engage in political advocacy and offer myself as a teacher of their constitutional right to do in sermons from their pulpits – sermons that themselves do not test the law but only explain it.

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,
143 U.S. 457 (1892)

U.S. Supreme Court

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States

No. 143

Argued and submitted January 7, 1892

Decided February 29, 1892

143 U.S. 457




The Act of February 26, 1880, “to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia,” 23 Stat. 332, c. 164, does not apply to a contract between an alien, residing out of the United States, and a religious society incorporated under the laws of a state, whereby he engages to remove to the United States and to enter into the service of the society as its rector or minister.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error is a corporation duly organized and incorporated as a religious society under the laws of the State of New York. E. Walpole Warren was, prior to September,

Page 143 U. S. 458

1887, an alien residing in England. In that month the plaintiff in error made a contract with him by which he was to remove to the City of New York and enter into its service as rector and pastor, and in pursuance of such contract, Warren did so remove and enter upon such service. It is claimed by the United States that this contract on the part of the plaintiff in error was forbidden by 23 Stat. 332, c. 164, and an action was commenced to recover the penalty prescribed by that act. The circuit court held that the contract was within the prohibition of the statute, and rendered judgment accordingly, 36 F. 303, and the single question presented for our determination is whether it erred in that conclusion.

The first section describes the act forbidden, and is in these words:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia.”

It must be conceded that the act of the corporation is within the letter of this section, for the relation of rector to his church is one of service, and implies labor on the one side with compensation on the other. Not only are the general words “labor” and “service” both used, but also, as it were to guard against any narrow interpretation and emphasize a breadth of meaning, to them is added “of any kind,” and further, as noticed by the circuit judge in his opinion, the fifth section, which makes specific exceptions, among them professional actors, artists, lecturers, singers, and domestic

Page 143 U. S. 459

servants, strengthens the idea that every other kind of labor and service was intended to be reached by the first section. While there is great force to this reasoning, we cannot think Congress intended to denounce with penalties a transaction like that in the present case. It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often asserted, and the reports are full of cases illustrating its application. This is not the substitution of the will of the judge for that of the legislator, for frequently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of the circumstances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the particular act. As said in Plowden 205:

“From which cases it appears that the sages of the law heretofore have construed statutes quite contrary to the letter in some appearance, and those statutes which comprehend all things in the letter they have expounded to extend to but some things, and those which generally prohibit all people from doing such an act they have interpreted to permit some people to do it, and those which include every person in the letter they have adjudged to reach to some persons only, which expositions have always been founded upon the intent of the legislature, which they have collected sometimes by considering the cause and necessity of making the act, sometimes by comparing one part of the act with another, and sometimes by foreign circumstances.”

In Margate Pier Co. v. Hannam, 3 B. & Ald. 266, 270, Abbott, C.J., quotes from Lord Coke as follows: “Acts of Parliament are to be so construed as no man that is innocent or free from injury or wrong be, by a literal construction, punished or endangered.” In the case of State v. Clark, 29 N.J.Law 96, 98-99, it appeared that an act had been passed making it a misdemeanor to willfully break down a fence in the possession of another person. Clark was indicted

Page 143 U. S. 460

under that statute. The defense was that the act of breaking down the fence, though willful, was in the exercise of a legal right to go upon his own lands. The trial court rejected the testimony offered to sustain the defense, and the supreme court held that this ruling was error. In its opinion, the court used this language:

“The act of 1855, in terms, makes the willful opening, breaking down, or injuring of any fences belonging to or in the possession of any other person a misdemeanor. In what sense is the term ‘willful’ used? In common parlance, ‘willful’ is used in the sense of ‘intentional,’ as distinguished from ‘accidental’ or ‘involuntary.’ Whatever one does intentionally, he does willfully. Is it used in that sense in this act? Did the legislature intend to make the intentional opening of a fence for the purpose of going upon the land of another indictable if done by permission or for a lawful purpose? . . . We cannot suppose such to have been the actual intent. To adopt such a construction would put a stop to the ordinary business of life. The language of the act, if construed literally, evidently leads to an absurd result. If a literal construction of the words of a statute be absurd, the act must be so construed as to avoid the absurdity. The court must restrain the words. The object designed to be reached by the act must limit and control the literal import of the terms and phrases employed.”

In United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 74 U. S. 486, the defendants were indicted for the violation of an act of Congress providing

“that if any person shall knowingly and willfully obstruct or retard the passage of the mail, or of any driver or carrier, or of any horse or carriage carrying the same, he shall, upon conviction, for every such offense, pay a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars.”

The specific charge was that the defendants knowingly and willfully retarded the passage of one Farris, a carrier of the mail, while engaged in the performance of his duty, and also in like manner retarded the steamboat General Buell, at that time engaged in carrying the mail. To this indictment the defendants pleaded specially that Farris had been indicted for murder by a court of competent authority in Kentucky; that a bench-warrant had been issued and

Page 143 U. S. 461

placed in the hands of the defendant Kirby, the sheriff of the county, commanding him to arrest Farris and bring him before the court to answer to the indictment, and that, in obedience to this warrant, he and the other defendants, as his posse, entered upon the steamboat General Buell and arrested Farris, and used only such force as was necessary to accomplish that arrest. The question as to the sufficiency of this plea was certified to this Court, and it was held that the arrest of Farris upon the warrant from the state court was not an obstruction of the mail or the retarding of the passage of a carrier of the mail within the meaning of the act. In its opinion, the Court says:

“All laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always therefore be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter. The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffendorf, that the Bolognian law which enacted ‘that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity’ did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same common sense accepts the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of 1st Edw. II which enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire, ‘for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt.’ And we think that a like common sense will sanction the ruling we make, that the act of Congress which punishes the obstruction or retarding of the passage of the mail, or of its carrier, does not apply to a case of temporary detention of the mail caused by the arrest of the carrier upon an indictment for murder.”

The following cases may also be cited: Henry v. Tilson, 17 Vt. 479; Ryegate v. Wardsboro, 30 Vt. 743; Ex Parte Ellis, 11 Cal. 220; Ingraham v. Speed, 30 Miss. 410; Jackson v. Collins, 3 Cowen 89; People v. Insurance Company 15 Johns. 358; Burch v. Newbury,10 N.Y. 374; People v.

Page 143 U. S. 462

Commissioners of Taxes, 95 N.Y. 554, 558; People v. Lacombe, 99 N.Y. 43, 49; Canal Co. v. Railroad Co., 4 G. & J. 152; Osgood v. Breed, 12 Mass. 525, 530; Wilbur v. Crane, 13 Pick. 284; Oates v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 239.

Among other things which may be considered in determining the intent of the legislature is the title of the act. We do not mean that it may be used to add to or take from the body of the statute, Hadden v. Collector, 5 Wall. 107, but it may help to interpret its meaning. In the case of United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 6 U. S. 386, Chief Justice Marshall said:

“On the influence which the title ought to have in construing the enacting clauses much has been said, and yet it is not easy to discern the point of difference between the opposing counsel in this respect. Neither party contends that the title of an act can control plain words in the body of the statute, and neither denies that, taken with other parts, it may assist in removing ambiguities. Where the intent is plain, nothing is left to construction. Where the mind labors to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes everything from which aid can be derived, and in such case the title claims a degree of notice, and will have its due share of consideration.”

And in the case of United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610, 16 U. S. 631, the same judge applied the doctrine in this way:

“The words of the section are in terms of unlimited extent. The words ‘any person or persons’ are broad enough to comprehend every human being. But general words must not only be limited to cases within the jurisdiction of the state, but also to those objects to which the legislature intended to apply them. Did the legislature intend to apply these words to the subjects of a foreign power, who in a foreign ship may commit murder or robbery on the high seas? The title of an act cannot control its words, but may furnish some aid in showing what was in the mind of the legislature. The title of this act is ‘An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.’ It would seem that offenses against the United States, not offenses against the human race, were the crimes which the legislature intended by this law to punish. ”

Page 143 U. S. 463

It will be seen that words as general as those used in the first section of this act were by that decision limited, and the intent of Congress with respect to the act was gathered partially at least, from its title. Now the title of this act is

“An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia.”

Obviously the thought expressed in this reaches only to the work of the manual laborer, as distinguished from that of the professional man. No one reading such a title would suppose that Congress had in its mind any purpose of staying the coming into this country of ministers of the gospel, or, indeed, of any class whose toil is that of the brain. The common understanding of the terms “labor” and “laborers” does not include preaching and preachers, and it is to be assumed that words and phrases are used in their ordinary meaning. So whatever of light is thrown upon the statute by the language of the title indicates an exclusion from its penal provisions of all contracts for the employment of ministers, rectors, and pastors.

Again, another guide to the meaning of a statute is found in the evil which it is designed to remedy, and for this the court properly looks at contemporaneous events, the situation as it existed, and as it was pressed upon the attention of the legislative body. United States v. Union Pacific Railroad, 91 U. S. 7291 U. S. 79. The situation which called for this statute was briefly but fully stated by MR. JUSTICE BROWN when, as district judge, he decided the case of United States v. Craig, 28 F. 795, 798:

“The motives and history of the act are matters of common knowledge. It had become the practice for large capitalists in this country to contract with their agents abroad for the shipment of great numbers of an ignorant and servile class of foreign laborers, under contracts by which the employer agreed, upon the one hand, to prepay their passage, while, upon the other hand, the laborers agreed to work after their arrival for a certain time at a low rate of wages. The effect of this was to break down the labor market and to reduce other laborers engaged in like occupations to the level

Page 143 U. S. 464

of the assisted immigrant. The evil finally became so flagrant that an appeal was made to Congress for relief by the passage of the act in question, the design of which was to raise the standard of foreign immigrants and to discountenance the migration of those who had not sufficient means in their own hands, or those of their friends, to pay their passage.”

It appears also from the petitions and in the testimony presented before the committees of Congress that it was this cheap, unskilled labor which was making the trouble, and the influx of which Congress sought to prevent. It was never suggested that we had in this country a surplus of brain toilers, and least of all that the market for the services of Christian ministers was depressed by foreign competition. Those were matters to which the attention of Congress or of the people was not directed. So far, then, as the evil which was sought to be remedied interprets the statute, it also guides to an exclusion of this contract from the penalties of the act.

A singular circumstance throwing light upon the intent of Congress is found in this extract from the report of the Senate committee on education and labor recommending the passage of the bill:

“The general facts and considerations which induce the committee to recommend the passage of this bill are set forth in the report of the committee of the house. The committee report the bill back without amendment, although there are certain features thereof which might well be changed or modified in the hope that the bill may not fail of passage during the present session. Especially would the committee have otherwise recommended amendments, substituting for the expression, ‘labor and service,’ whenever it occurs in the body of the bill, the words ‘manual labor’ or ‘manual service,’ as sufficiently broad to accomplish the purposes of the bill, and that such amendments would remove objections which a sharp and perhaps unfriendly criticism may urge to the proposed legislation. The committee, however, believing that the bill in its present form will be construed as including only those whose labor or service is manual in character, and being very desirous that the bill become a law before the adjournment, have reported the bill without

Page 143 U. S. 465


P. 6059, Congressional Record, 48th Cong. And referring back to the report of the committee of the house, there appears this language:

“It seeks to restrain and prohibit the immigration or importation of laborers who would have never seen our shores but for the inducements and allurements of men whose only object is to obtain labor at the lowest possible rate, regardless of the social and material wellbeing of our own citizens, and regardless of the evil consequences which result to American laborers from such immigration. This class of immigrants care nothing about our institutions, and in many instances never even heard of them. They are men whose passage is paid by the importers. They come here under contract to labor for a certain number of years. They are ignorant of our social condition, and, that they may remain so, they are isolated and prevented from coming into contact with Americans. They are generally from the lowest social stratum, and live upon the coarsest food, and in hovels of a character before unknown to American workmen. They, as a rule, do not become citizens, and are certainly not a desirable acquisition to the body politic. The inevitable tendency of their presence among us is to degrade American labor and to reduce it to the level of the imported pauper labor.”

Page 5359, Congressional Record, 48th Congress.

We find, therefore, that the title of the act, the evil which was intended to be remedied, the circumstances surrounding the appeal to Congress, the reports of the committee of each house, all concur in affirming that the intent of Congress was simply to stay the influx of this cheap unskilled labor.

But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from “Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Castile,” etc., and recites that “it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the

Page 143 U. S. 466

ocean will be discovered,” etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from “Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland, Queene, defender of the faith,” etc., and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that “they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England.” The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words:

“We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well intended Desires.”

Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611, and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites:

“Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid.”

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration:

“Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence

Page 143 U. S. 467

so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike state or Comonwelth, and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus weh we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, weh according to the truth of the said gospell is now practiced amongst vs.”

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited:

“Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare,”


Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thet are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . . . We therefore the Representatives of the united states of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,”


“And for the

Page 143 U. S. 468

support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the Constitution of Illinois, 1870:

“We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations,”


It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, “so help me God.” It may be in clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, Art. XI, section 4: “The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God.” Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Maryland, 1867:

“That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he

Page 143 U. S. 469

believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution.”

Or like that in Articles 2 and 3 of part 1st of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780:

“It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. . . . As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality, therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.”

Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Mississippi, 1832:

“No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. . . . Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state.”

Or by Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware, (1776), which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration:

“I, A. B., do profess

Page 143 U. S. 470

faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that

“Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.”

And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294-295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:

“The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious

Page 143 U. S. 471

subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.”

And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 2 How. 127, 43 U. S. 198, this Court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: “It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.”

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name of God, amen;” the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?

Page 143 U. S. 472

Suppose, in the Congress that passed this act, some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that if any Roman Catholic church in this country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this country and enter into its service as pastor and priest, or any Episcopal church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar, or any Baptist church should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon, or any Jewish synagogue with some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, and the church making it be subject to prosecution and punishment. Can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct. It is a case where there was presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of reaching all phases of that evil, and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts under those circumstances to say that, however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.

The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

VIDEO Planning For OIG Release, President Trump Hires Joe diGenova…. – DOJ, FBI Abuse of FISA Court

Planning For OIG Release – President Trump Hires Joe diGenova….

Things are proceeding swimmingly.  How is it possible to outline the biggest political corruption scandal in modern U.S. history; which utilized the full weight of the institutions of government and the vast intelligence community; against the predictable tide of a mainstream U.S. media apparatus who will shout ‘conspiracy theory’; while every single entity associated with the collaborative effort will protect the group behind the scandal?

There’s the challenge.  How do you introduce the scale and scope of corruption to almost half the country who have relied upon the false narrative delivered by fake news for the past two years?

Answer: You assemble a strategic communications team, timed to activate when a key series of events takes place.   Joe diGenova is part of that strategic communicationsteam. The triggering event is the OIG release.  The purpose of the team is to help the news consumer digest the corruption elephant one bite at a time.

As each individual indictment is parsed and delivered, there will be tens-of-thousands of pages of evidence, multiple witness statements, and a tsunami of investigative supporting material that needs to be unpacked -per person- and understood against the backdrop of the bigger story.

Understanding the scale and scope is why CTH put together the video series to help grasp the larger issues; and that video series only highlights the FBI and DOJ part of the story. [fyi, that video series will air as a single 30 minute documentary as part of the toolbox].

When does it all happen:


All by careful design…

Planning For OIG Release – President Trump Hires Joe diGenova….

The DOJ and FBI Abuse of The FISA Court – Three Part Video Series…

The release of a memo today by HPSCI ranking member Adam Schiff, a feeble attempt to defend evidence of DOJ/FBI abuse, provides an opportunity for a recap of the surrounding issues.  Here’s the full three-part video series: Why – How – Who?

“WHY” – The first video highlights the historic backdrop of DOJ/FBI FISA court abuses:


“HOW” – The second video highlights the specific example of how the DOJ and FBI used false information to the FISA Court to secure a fraudulent ‘Title-1’ surveillance warrant:


“WHO” – The third video highlights who the primary players were within the scheme:


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO Questions Still Surround Robert Mueller’s Boston Past – McCabe’s Dig At Trump Undermine Comey?

Questions Still Surround Robert Mueller’s Boston Past

Mueller’s involvement in one of the FBI’s most embarrassing cases

Mar 19, 2018 by Sara A. Carter


Mueller’s actions while in Boston as a criminal prosecutor raised questions about his role in one of the FBI’s most controversial cases involving the use of a confidential informant

President Donald Trump directed angry tweets at Special Counsel Robert Mueller over the weekend. The tweets were prompted by the Department of Justice’s decision to fire Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Friday as recommended by the bureau’s Office of Professional Responsibility took action on McCabe after the DOJ’s Inspector General handed over evidence that the former FBI agent lied under oath and leaked information to the media.

Trump’s Tweets on Mueller appeared to some Republicans and Democrats be a veiled threat to fire Mueller. Those lawmakers warned the president that it would be the ‘beginning of the end for his presidency’ if Trump fired the special counsel. They also criticized Trump’s attorney John Dowd for suggesting over the weekend that the Mueller probe should end. Ty Cobb, the president’s personal attorney, reassured lawmakers on Monday that the president does not plan to fire Mueller.

But Dowd is not alone.

McCabe’s firing should raise serious questions as to where Mueller’s investigation is going.  Mueller’s past involvement in cases cast a very different light on the former FBI director than the one painted by his proponents and the media, said David Schoen, a civil right’s and defense attorney. Schoen has been outspoken on the special counsel and criticized Mueller’s top attorney Andrew Weissmann’s involvement in the investigation, as reported.

“We all have the right – even the obligation – to demand fairness in the process and this process is not the least fair and the “investigation” and the “investigations” lack integrity,” said Schoen. He noted that as a defense attorney, Dowd should question how the investigation against Trump and his campaign came to be and if it was based on false information in an unverified dossier paid for by political opponents then the investigation is moot, said Schoen.

Robert Mueller

The Trump Russia investigation appears to be based on unverified and circumstantial evidence, coordinated actions of political opponents and a group of partisan bureau officials who were bent on bringing charges against Trump, said Schoen. Although some lawmakers have asked for a second special counsel to investigate the FBI and DOJ’s actions in investigating Trump, many still continue to support Mueller’s ongoing investigation, which began at the behest of those being accused of wrongdoing in the FBI.

Schoen is surprised that lawmakers have lauded Mueller as a stellar and well-respected former FBI director but have little knowledge about the former bureau director’s past from the criticism during his years in Boston, challenges with the 911 Commission findings when he was first appointed to the FBI and handling of the Anthrax case to name a few, he said.

Mueller In Boston

In the early 1980s, before Mueller became the second longest serving FBI director, he was a criminal prosecutor in the Boston office of the Justice Department and then became the Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston from 1986 through 1987.

It was Mueller’s actions during that time that raised questions about his role in one of the FBI’s most controversial cases involving the FBI’s use of a confidential informant that led to the convictions of four innocent men, who were sentenced to death for murders they did not commit.

Local law enforcement officials, the media, and some colleagues criticized Mueller and the FBI for what they believed was the bureau’s role in covering up for the FBI’s longtime dealings with mobster and informant James “Whitey” Bulger.

Bulger was a kingpin and a confidential informant for the FBI from the 1970s in the bureau’s efforts to take down the Italian mafia in Boston. But Bulger’s relationship with his FBI handler Special Agent John Connolly became toxic. It was later discovered that Connolly went out of his way to protect Bulger and aided the crime boss against investigations being conducted by the Boston PD and the Massachusetts State Police. According to reports at the time, Connolly would inform Bulger of wiretaps and surveillance being conducted by law enforcement.

Journalist Kevin Cullen wrote extensively about the FBI’s involvement with Bulger and raised concerns about the old case in a 2011 article in after Obama asked Congress to make an exception to allow Mueller to stay on two-extra years beyond the mandated 10 year limit as FBI director.

Cullen said in his story that Mueller who was first an assistant US attorney, “then as the acting US attorney in Boston” had written “letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies. Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.”

In 2001, those four men, who were convicted in 1965 of Teddy Deegan’s murder were exonerated by the courts. It was discovered that the FBI withheld evidence from the court to protect their informant that would have cleared the men, according to reports.  At the time, the bureau buried the truth to protect Vincent “Jimmy’’ Flemmi, their informant, who was the brother of Stevie Flemmi, a partner of Bulger.

Coleen Rowley is an American former FBI special agent and whistleblower, and was a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) candidate for Congress in Minnesota's 2nd congressional district
Coleen Rowley is an American former FBI special agent and whistleblower and was a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) candidate for Congress in Minnesota’s 2nd congressional district

Coleen Rowley, a former FBI special agent and former Minneapolis Division legal counsel of the FBI, wrote a Op-Ed in the Huffington Post last year No, Robert Mueller and James Comey Aren’t Heroesstated that when the truth about Bulger “was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI operated) Bulger gang.”

But according to Cullen, Mueller never was asked by Congress, “what did you know about Whitey Bulger, and when did you know it?”

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner in Boston said the bureau helped convict the four men of a crime they did not commit, and the three of them had been sentenced to die in the electric chair.

“This case goes beyond mistakes, beyond the unavoidable errors of a fallible system,” Gertner wrote in a 228-page decision, which called the FBI’s defense — that Massachusetts was to blame for an inadequate investigation — “absurd,” according to Cullen’s article.

Schoen noted for these reasons alone there should be concern about Mueller’s special counsel.

“As I have mentioned before, under Mueller’s watch in Boston, the second most corrupt relationship between an FBI agent (John Connolly, now in prison for murder-related charges) and his information (Whitey Bulger) unfolded,” said Schoen. “Mueller was neck deep in it and has never answered the questions that the media asked rhetorically, but that should have been asked by a grand jury of Congressional Committee. Even such dubious sources as the NY Times, Boston Globe, and Huffington Post have demanded answers.  Many have suggested he should never have been FBI Director.”

“Central tenet of the criminal justice challenge the integrity of the investigation”

Attorney David Schoen

Over the weekend, Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Oversight Committee was one of those members.

“If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act like it,” Gowdy told “Fox News Sunday,” who added Mueller’s probe should continue.

Like Gowdy, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also stressed that there should be a second special counsel, telling this reporter, “the system is working, we should let it work. Firing Mueller would be a grave mistake.”

But Schoen disagrees with Gowdy and Graham saying, “it is a central tenet of the criminal justice system that one may always challenge the integrity of the investigation/prosecution and it is reckless for a member of Congress to suggest otherwise,” said Schoen.

Schoen and the former FBI official disagree with Graham. The former FBI official, who worked on counterintelligence cases, said if the foundation of the investigation isn’t based on credible solid evidence “then Mueller’s investigation is one in search of a crime and that is not what you want and that’s not how it should be done.”

Friendly Fire: Did McCabe’s Dig At Trump Undermine Comey?

McCabe440px-Comey-FBI-PortraitBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper on the implications of the termination of Andrew McCabe and his revealing public statement.  The statement presents a particularly difficult problem of former FBI Director James Comey.

Here is the column:

Following his termination late Friday night, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe declared that he was “singled out” after “unrelenting” attacks by President Trump and critics. McCabe’s objections are less than credible, given the virtually unprecedented recommendation of career officials to fire the one-time acting FBI director.

However, McCabe may have rectified his “singled out” status with his long statement criticizing his termination: In the middle of it is a line that could be viewed as incriminating fired FBI director James Comey, not just in leaking sensitive information but also in lying to Congress.

McCabe is accused of misleading investigators about allegedly giving information to a former Wall Street Journal reporter about the investigation of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton family’s charitable foundation. McCabe asserts in his post-firing statement that he not only had authority to “share” that information to the media but did so with the knowledge of “the director.” The FBI director at the time was Comey.

“I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor,” McCabe stated. “As deputy director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter.”

If the “interaction” means leaking the information, then McCabe’s statement would seem to directly contradict statements Comey made in a May 2017 congressional hearing. Asked if he had “ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation” or whether he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation,” Comey replied “never” and “no.”

The Justice Department’s inspector general clearly saw this “interaction” as problematic in seeking answers from McCabe. If the inspector general considered this to be a leak to the media, any approval by Comey would be highly significant. Comey already faces serious questions over his use of a Columbia University Law School professor to leak information to the media following his own termination as director.

In leaving the FBI last year, Comey improperly removed memos about the Russian investigation that he wrote concerning meetings with Trump. Since these memos discussed an ongoing FBI investigation and were written on an FBI computer, the bureau reportedly confirmed they were viewed as official documents subject to review and approval prior to any removal or disclosure.

Comey could have given the memos to the congressional oversight committees. Instead, he removed at least seven memos and gave at least four to his professor-friend to leak to the media. Four of the seven memos that Comey removed are now believed to be classified. Since he reportedly gave four memos to his friend to leak to the media, at least one of the leaked memos was likely classified.

Now, McCabe appears to be suggesting that Comey was consulted before the alleged leak to the media on the Clinton investigation. Many of us had speculated that it seemed unlikely McCabe would take such a step without consulting with Comey. Yet, Comey repeatedly stated that he had never leaked nor caused anyone to leak information to the media.

The timing for Comey could not be worse. He already has started selling tickets, for roughly $100 each, to attend the tour for his forthcoming book, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.” If he gave McCabe the green light for his “interaction,” the title could prove embarrassingly ironic.

If this was determined to be a leak with his approval, Comey likely would be labeled not just a leaker but a liar. Worse, his second-in-command just lost his pension after more than 20 years with the bureau, while Comey is about to cash in on a book and publicity tour potentially worth millions.

Comey also will be releasing his book around the same time as the inspector general’s report is expected to be made public. The inspector general reportedly will detail a number of irregularities under Comey’s watch. So the book could look more like a work of fiction if the inspector general finds that the FBI was a mess under Comey’s “leadership.”

McCabe’s termination is likely to only add to Comey’s problems. Four U.S. senators are calling for appointment of a second special counsel to investigate the Justice Department during the Clinton investigation. Moreover, there could be serious questions raised over the indictment of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn for misleading investigators, which is the same allegation that McCabe faced before his termination. McCabe’s case could still be referred to prosecutors for possible indictment under the same provision used against Flynn.

The McCabe controversy could also make life tougher for special counsel Robert Mueller. While McCabe lashed out at Trump in his statement, he may have just given Trump the long-sought cover to use his pardon power. If McCabe is not charged, Trump could cite that decision as the basis for pardoning Flynn, as a matter of equity and fairness.

More generally, the apparent conduct of both McCabe and Comey have fulfilled the narrative long advanced by Trump of a biased and unprincipled FBI investigation. Given Trump’s ill-advised inclination to fire Mueller in the past, these allegations of leaks and misrepresentations inside the FBI could rekindle Trump’s interest in forcing an end to the investigation that has dogged his administration for a year.

Trump would be unwise to take such action. Instead, McCabe’s firing should reinforce calls for an independent investigation with the maximum level of transparency. The same is true for the Russia investigation of the Trump campaign. This country is deeply divided over the allegations against Trump and his opponents. We will not overcome this chasm until we are satisfied that we have the full factual record from the Clinton and Russia investigations.

This is particularly true for the FBI, which will not be able to regain the trust of many Americans without making a clean break from scandal. That means total transparency, which runs against the bureau’s culture. Yet, without greater disclosure, the public will be left wondering if a sense of Comey’s “Higher Loyalty” dangerously blurred the lines between “Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Friendly Fire: Did McCabe’s Dig At Trump Undermine Comey?



Call it the Four Tweets of the Mueller Apocalypse which foretold laws would be broken in order to take down President Donald Trump.

While everyone from mainstream media pundits to green journalists on Twitter were trumpeting the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller on  May 17, only a handful of well-placed sources went against the media’s Mueller love fest.

Mueller was appointed to investigate the alleged collusion of President Trump’s White House with Russia during the 2016 election.

Within an hour of the Mueller appointment, True Pundit’s Thomas Paine, who had worked with the FBI and was familiar with Mueller as the Bureau boss, warned the news site’s followers that this was the first sign of a disaster.

In four consecutive Tweets, Paine — among the harshest media critics of former FBI boss James Comey — foretold the current Mueller and Comey debacle two months ago, raining on everyone’s celebration, based on the group-think that Mueller would exonerate President Trump. Paine clearly knew the opposite was true.

The final Tweet — which said Mueller would break laws in order to take down Trump — was deleted by Twitter, which is common on Paine’s social media feed, as his followers clearly know but we have recovered it and included it below.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO Either McCabe or Comey Is Lying, Or Both Are – ‘Legal Colonoscopy’ – Exquisite Corpse

Dershowitz: Either McCabe or Comey Is Lying


Mar 19, 2018 by  

Dershowitz: Either McCabe or Comey Is Not Telling the Truth

“One of them is not telling the truth,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said today on Fox Business Network’s Mornings With Maria. Dershowitz was referencing the remarks made by Andrew McCabe (fired on Friday from the FBI by Attorney General Jeff Sessions) that he had been given authority by former FBI Director James Comey to share information with the media concerning the investigations of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton family’s charitable foundation, and that he had done so with knowledge of “the director.” The firing was a result of the report of the inspector general of the Justice Department. Attorney General Sessions cited the I.G.’s report in his termination of McCabe.

The “director” at the time of the media leaks by McCabe was James Comey, who testified to Congress in May 2017. He was asked if he “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation.” Comey answered “never” and “no.”

Dershowitz is a strong Democrat, but he has been very critical of former director Comey, who was fired by President Trump. Dershowitz has said that Trump had every legal right, as president, to remove Comey as FBI director.

Dershowitz has been very critical of Comey for leaking information about the investigations into President Trump. “Obviously we know that Comey leaked and laundered information through a Columbia law professor. He didn’t have the courage to stand up in front of the television cameras and express his views that a special counsel should be appointed, so he laundered the information through a law professor. And we know therefore that he does and has leaked.”

Four senators have called for a second special counsel to investigate the handling of the Clinton investigations by the Justice Department, but Dershowitz does not support that. He also did not support the appointment of Robert Mueller to look into allegations of Russian collusion. In his recent book, Trumped Up, Dershowitz wrote, “The role of the special counsel should be limited to investigating and prosecuting violations of federal criminal statutes.… He is not a private investigator.”

Instead of a special counsel, Dershowitz argued to Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business that he preferred a non-partisan investigative commission, saying the problem with the selection of a special counsel is that “everything becomes a criminal investigation,” instead of a search for the truth. Specifically, Dershowitz argued that the report of the inspector general should be released to the public, and let them make up their own minds about it. “These investigations become so darn partisan. We don’t have trust in the investigators,” Dershowitz lamented, adding that we need someone to guard us from the guardians.

In his book, Dershowitz noted that Comey “leaked the contents” of his communications with Trump “in a calculated, and successful effort to have a special counsel appointed.” Then, to compound the violation of fairness, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “selected a close friend and longtime professional colleague of Comey [Robert Mueller] to be the special counsel.”

McCabe’s firing was strongly condemned by former CIA Director [under President Barack Obama] John Brennan, who made a public tweet to President Trump: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America.… America will triumph over you.”

That vitriolic tweet was answered by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky), who has made no secret of his disdain of Brennan. “This man [Brennan] had the power to search every American’s records without a warrant. What’s disgraceful is attacking the Bill of Rights and the freedom of every American.” Paul was referencing revelations that the CIA had spied on staffers of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Before that, in 2013, Paul conducted a 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor to block Brennan’s nomination as CIA director.

Paul could have also noted that Brennan’s vote for the Communist Party candidate for president — Gus Hall — years ago. After all, communists are not noted for their dedication to civil liberties.

McCabe’s firing, just two days before he could become eligible for a full pension, has been criticized on the Left. But the fact that President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Mike Flynn is being forced to sell his Alexandria, Virginia, home to pay mounting legal bills, doesn’t seem to bother them. Also, the head of the group Americans for Limited Government, Rick Manning, reported that unless McCabe is prosecuted and convicted of a crime, he will end up getting his pension, regardless of the firing.

Image of McCabe (left) and Dershowitz: Screenshot of Fox Business Network video


At the turn of the last century, surrealists had a parlor game in Paris called “The Exquisite Corpse” where writers would create collective stories by writing lines without knowing what preceded them. The lines were often nonsensical like the line that gave the game its name: “Le cadavre exquis boira le vin nouveau. ” (“The exquisite corpse shall drink the new wine.”) With minutes of his firing, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe became such an exquisite corpse with various politicians adding lines to his story that seemed entirely disconnected to his story. Former FBI Director James Comey used McCabe to pitch his upcoming book while former Attorney General Eric Holder used him to effectively attack career staff at his former agency. The point of the game in both politics and literature is not to advance a coherent narrative but insert your own lines into a collective story.

Before turning to the new wine given to the exquisite corpse by various players in Washington, it would be useful to address a few misconceptions about the prior story of Andrew McCabe.

McCabe was fired at the recommendation of career staff members in the Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General’s office. He was previously forced to take a terminal leave by the current (and apolitical) director Andrew Wray after Wray reportedly read the still unreleased IG report findings. Attorney General Jeff Sessions noted, in accepting the recommendation of the career staff, that “[b]oth the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor − including under oath − on multiple occasions.” Reports indicate that McCabe was viewed as misleading investigators on one of the core issues under investigation: the leaking of “sensitive information” about the investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

While it is not true that McCabe lost his roughly $2 million pension,  he was prevented from taking an early pension.  There are more serious concerns however for McCabe who is not necessarily out of the woods since he could be the subject of a criminal referral by the IG. McCabe alleged misconduct is strikingly similar to that of Michael Flynn, who was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for misleading investigators. While McCabe insists that he had the authority to give non-public information to the media, Flynn also had authority to meet with Russian diplomats as part of the transition period. Both men were targeted not due to the underlying actions but allegedly lying about them.

Now to the contributions to the Exquisite Corpse:


Various media outlets portrayed McCabe as the victim of a type of presidential bloodlust, ignoring the fact that both the IG and OPR are composed of career officials insulated from such pressure. CNN Chris Cillizza asked “If you think firing McCabe was totally the right thing to do and fully justified, ask yourself this: Why was it done at 10 pm on a Friday night?” Cillizza ignores the common practice of releasing such decisions on Friday nights by prior administrations. In 2010, for example, Obama’s Justice Department did a “Friday night dump” on allegations of professional misconduct by the authors of the “torture memos,” John Yoo and Jay Bybee. High-ranking officials however overruled career staff who recommended findings of violations of professional standards. The report was released late Friday and simply referred to the former Justice officials as having “exercised poor judgment.” Figures like Cillizza also ignore that the McCabe recommendation was only given to Sessions a short time before the deadline and McCabe was allowed to make his case at Main Justice. Finally, as noted above, he did not lose his pension.


In the news coverage, some media figures suggested that McCabe could be protected from any real pension loss. AIn a tweet from NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell, there was a suggestion that a “friendly member of Congress” hire McCabe briefly so he could “qualify for pension benefits by extending his service the extra days.” Democratic members responded with offers for McCabe to negate the sanction proposed by career ethics staff. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) offered to make McCabe his new “election security” expert and denounced the finding of an ethical violation as merely an effort to “discredit the FBI and undermine” Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Others like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) reportedly made similar offers.  As I have previously discussed, it may not be this easy since McCabe was fired “for cause” and needs a “law enforcement” position.

James Comey

440px-Comey-FBI-PortraitFor James Comey, the firing controversy appeared an ideal time to pitch his forthcoming book, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.” Comey is about to start a publicity tour in which like-minded citizens are asked to pony up roughly $100 for a few words and possible autograph with Comey. In response to an equally cringe-worthy tweet by President Donald Trump celebrating the termination of McCabe, Comey declared “Mr. President, the American people will hear my story very soon. And they can judge for themselves who is honorable and who is not.” This apparent pitch for book sales was declared “a total burn” by supporters who relished the twitter war between the two. (While many of us recoiled when Trump displayed his own brand wine, water, and steaks in 2016 to prove he is a successful businessman, it now appears perfectly permissible to hawk your own book as proof of being an honorable man).

Eric Holder

Eric_Holder_official_portraitPerhaps the most bitter wine given the Exquisite Corpse came at the hands of former Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder declared “[t]he timing appears cruel and a cave that compromised DOJ independence to please an increasingly erratic President who should’ve played no role here. This is dangerous.” First and foremost, the “timing” was not of the choosing of the Administration. The career staff issued its recommendation shortly before the retirement of McCabe. After that date, they would lose effective jurisdiction over McCabe and the ability to punish him directly for what they saw as a major professional and ethical breach.

Holder’s attack also effectively threw the career staff under the bus. He ignored that they reached this recommendation on the merits and were seeking to enforce core Justice Department rules of ethics. Instead, he portrayed them as “caving” to pressure.

It could not be a more ironic, if exquisite, contribution. Holder was Attorney General when findings of professional misconduct in the torture memo were scuttled. It was also Holder who was rightfully voted in contempt of Congress for his own obstruction of a congressional investigation into the outrageous “Fast and Furious” operation. He was not prosecuted because the Obama Administration refused to submit the case to a grand jury. Finally, it was Holder who (as Deputy Attorney General) was implicated in the pardon scandals of the Clinton Administration when Clinton pardoned one of the least worthy candidates in history: Democratic donor and international fugitive Marc Rich. Clinton at the same time pardon his own brother, Roger, in a corrupt and disgraceful use of federal authority to benefit his family. Holder’s record was so controversial that, at his confirmation hearing, he expressed regret over the pardon scandal and promised not to cave to political pressure – a promise left unfulfilled in the view of many critics.

In fairness to Holder and the rest, the point of his parlor game is not coherence but creativity. However, for the public, there is an understandable frustration with these news stories being cycled through the salons of the Beltway.  There is also a danger to playing the Exquisite Corpse.  While these political surrealists are not making a particularly compelling story, they are building a case for the appointment of a second Special Counsel.


Dershowitz: Mueller performing ‘legal colonoscopy,’ never should have been appointed

Mar 20, 2018 BY JOE CONCHA


Lawyer Alan Dershowitz on Tuesday said Democrats are “fueling the speculation” around President Trump possibly firing special counsel Robert Mueller, adding that “there never should have been an appointment of special counsel.”

“That would create a real problem on the Republican side of the aisle. I don’t think he’ll fire him or should fire him,” he added.

“America’s Newsroom” anchor Sandra Smith pressed Dershowitz on Trump’s weekend tweets.

“The president with his tweets over the weekend and Monday morningsaying ‘this is the ultimate witch hunt’ adds fuel to the fire saying this investigation never should have began in the first place. So what is the strategy there? Why put those things out there?” asked Smith.

Dershowitz responded by saying there had been “no probable cause” of crimes committed by Trump and that meant a special counsel was not necessary.

“First of all, the president is 100 percent right. There never should have been an appointment of special counsel and there was no probable cause that crimes were committed,” said Dershowitz. “I’ve seen no credible evidence that crimes were committed by the president.”

“The investigation should never have begun. The question is how does he deal with it. He’s playing good cop, bad cop. He has some lawyers cooperating and some attacking Mueller because he wants to be ready to attack in the event there are recommendations that are negative to the president.”

The Harvard law professor emeritus went on to describe the Mueller investigation as a “legal colonoscopy” that is looking at “every conceivable aspect” of Trump’s business life.

“Who knows how many people can survive that kind of an inquiry,” Dershowitz said. “I think on the public things being the Russia thing and obstruction of justice these are safe grounds, but on the material of his business dealings there’s no way to know.”

The White House has reiterated that it has no plans to fire Mueller.

The president also added attorney Joseph diGenova to his personal legal team on Monday.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

IRS Documented 1.3M Identity Thefts by Illegal Aliens; Can’t Say It Referred Any for Prosecution

Mar 16, 2018 By Terence P. Jeffrey

(Screen Capture from IRS instructional video)

( – The Internal Revenue Service in 2011 through 2016 documented more than 1.3 million cases of identity theft perpetrated by illegal aliens whom the IRS had given Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN), which are only given to people who are ineligible to work in the United States or receive Social Security Numbers, according to information published by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration(TIGTA).

However, in response to inquiries from, the IRS could not say if it had referred even one of these cases for criminal prosecution.

TIGTA, which is the inspector general responsible for overseeing the IRS, discovered another approximately 1.2 million cases in 2017 in which an illegal alien working in the United States had filed a tax return reporting wages that had been earned using a Social Security Number that belonged to someone else or was fabricated.

Yet the IRS also could not say whether it referred any of these cases for criminal prosecution.

(To see the questions asked the IRS, TIGTA and the Justice Department about these cases and the agencies’ responses to those questions click here.)


‘Shall Be Guilty of a Felony’

Using a stolen or fake Social Security Number is a felony.

“The Social Security Act,” TIGTA has noted, “provides that whoever, with the intent to deceive, falsely represents a number to be his or her SSN when, in fact, that number was not assigned to that person, shall be guilty of a felony and subject to a fine, imprisonment, or both. This includes using a false SSN to obtain employment.”

When processing individual tax returns, according to reports filed by TIGTA, the IRS ordinarily encounters two types of identity theft. One involves what TIGTA calls “refund fraud” and the other involves “employment-related fraud.”

In an August 10, 2016 report (“Processes Are Not Sufficient to Assist Victims of Employment-Related Identity Theft”), TIGTA published this graphic explaining the difference between “refund fraud” and “employment-related fraud:”

In cases of refund fraud, the “identity thief” uses another person’s Social Security Number and personal identification information “to file a fraudulent tax return, reporting fictitious wages and withholdings and obtains a tax refund.”

“Cases of employment identity theft identified by the Internal Revenue Service usually involve an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) filer who used the Social Security Number of another individual, i.e. victim, to gain employment,” TIGTA said in a report released in February.

“Employment identity theft can cause a significant burden to innocent taxpayers, including the incorrect computation of taxes based on income that does not belong to them,” said the report.

The approximately 1.3 million cases of employment-related identity theft documented and recorded by the IRS in 2011 through 2016, involved foreign nationals whom the IRS had given Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs).

So, too, did the approximately 1.2 million cases of illegal aliens using Social Security Numbers that belonged to someone else or had been fabricated that TIGTA discovered in 2017.

The numbers of these cases were cited in the TIGTA report released last month. It was entitled, “Most Employment Identity Theft Victims Have Not Been Notified That Their Identities Are Being Used by Others for Employment.”

In the approximately 1.3 million cases, TIGTA said the IRS had placed a “marker” on the accounts of taxpayers whose identities the IRS believed had been stolen. In the approximately 1.2 million cases, TIGTA itself discovered the misuse of Social Security Numbers by ITIN holders by reviewing IRS records.

“The IRS placed the employment identity theft marker on 1,346,485 taxpayer accounts between PY [processing years] 2011 and 2016 through the e-file ITIN/SSN mismatch process,” said the TIGTA report.

The IRS’s ITIN/SSN mismatch process showed which electronically filed tax returns had been filed by ITIN holders but had a W-2 showing wages earned with a Social Security Number.

TIGTA further reported that in analyzing IRS data for processing year (PY) 2017 it had “[i]dentified 1,227,579 tax returns…in which the ITIN does not match the SSN on the Form W-2.”

In response to questions from, TIGTA said that in these 1,227,579 cases “over 1 million valid” SSNs issued by the Social Security Administration were used by ITIN holders. In the remainder of the cases, the ITIN holders used fabricated SSNs.

The IRS first began issuing ITINs in 1996. The purported purpose was to give foreign nationals who have a tax liability inside the United States an identification number to use when filing tax returns. To qualify for an ITIN, an individual must be a foreign national and must not be eligible to receive a Social Security Number.

So, who gets an ITIN? The chief counsel of the IRS determined that the foreign nationals living inside the United States who qualify for an ITIN—because they are not eligible for a Social Security Number—are in fact illegal aliens.


A Policy to “‘Legalize’ Illegal Aliens”

A January 2004 TIGTA report said: “The IRS Office of Chief Counsel determined that, ‘the group of persons with United States federal tax obligations who are not eligible to obtain an SSN is limited to non-citizens who either do not reside in the United States or reside here illegally.”

In 1999, TIGTA released a report warning that with its ITIN program the IRS had embraced a policy to “‘legalize’ illegal aliens” that “increases the potential for fraud.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers (Photo/ICE)

In a follow-up report in 2004, TIGTA concluded that ITIN holders who filed tax returns using a Social Security Number were in fact illegal aliens.

“Our conclusion is that, generally, the individuals who file a United States (U.S.) Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040) with an ITIN as the identification number and receive wages that are identified with a Social Security Number (SSN) on the attached Wage and Tax Statements (Form W-2) are unauthorized resident aliens,” said TIGTA.

Then-Deputy IRS Commissioner Mark Matthews responded to this TIGTA report by conceding that ITIN holders who filed tax returns reporting wages earned in the United States were likely to be illegal aliens and that if they used a SSN it was “stolen or fabricated.”

“The Service has concluded that most resident aliens who hold ITINs and who report and pay tax from wage income are not legally employed in the United States,” he told TIGTA in a memo. “This is because such a taxpayer would have a valid SSN if the holder were legally employed in the United States, making procurement of an ITIN unnecessary and duplicative.”

“In addition,” said the deputy IRS commissioner’s memo, “the Service believes that most ITIN holders whose wages are reflected on valid Forms W-2 furnished to the Service are using stolen or fabricated SSNs, because employers are prohibited from employing individuals who lack an SSN and employers use the SSN provided by such employees in reporting Form W-2 information.”

In 2011, as reported by TIGTA, the IRS started systematically placing “a code on the tax account of the innocent taxpayer whose SSN was used to commit employment-related identity theft” by ITIN holders who filed electronic—but not paper—returns.

At the urging of the inspector general, the IRS also began notifying these taxpayers when the IRS used this code to mark them as having been the victim of this type of identity theft.

In 2014, the IRS ran a small pilot program to make these notifications. Then, in 2017, it attempted to notify all victims who were discovered through its tracking of electronic tax returns. This year, it intends to inform all victims, including those whose SSNs were used by an ITIN holder filing a paper return.

The inspector general’s report released last month noted some problems in the IRS’s process of notifying victims. For example, the IRS “did not notify 458,658 repeat victims of employment identity theft that it identified in PY 2017” and it “erroneously” notified 15,168 taxpayers, who in “most cases…were spouses of ITIN owners who filed returns listing their ITIN and their spouse’s SSN on the return.”

But the two largest numbers in the report were 1,346,485 and 1,227,579. The 1,346,485 were taxpayers the IRS had “marked” as victims of employment identity theft because their SSNs had been used by ITIN holders on tax returns that the IRS processed in 2011 through 2016. The 1,227,579 were tax returns filed by ITIN holders in 2017 that TIGTA discovered had used an SSN that did not belong to the ITIN holder or was fabricated.

When it notifies victims of employment identity theft, the IRS does not tell the victim the name of the person who stole their identity. The notification form it used in its pilot program told the victim: “Federal law prevents us from providing specific details regarding the identity of the individual who used your SSN for employment purposes.”

However, the IRS can refer identity theft cases to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

So, how many of the 1,346,485 cases of employment-related identity theft the IRS documented in 2011 through 2016 did it refer to DOJ? How many of the 1,227,579 cases in 2017 where an ITIN holder used an SSN that was fabricated or had not been issued to them did the IRS refer to DOJ?

The IRS’s Criminal Investigation division publishes an annual report stating how many “prosecution recommendations” it makes each fiscal year and the crimes for which it makes them. In the six fiscal years from 2011 through 2016, according to these reports, IRS CI made 20,986 prosecution recommendations and 4,329 of them were for identity theft cases.

If everyone one of these identity theft prosecution recommendations had been for a case of employment identity theft—rather than refund-fraud identity theft—that would have equaled 0.3 percent of the 1,346,485 ITIN-holder cases the IRS documented in those years.

Similarly, in fiscal year 2017, when TIGTA discovered 1,227,579 tax returns filed by ITIN holders that included W-2s with “over 1 million valid” SSNs on them, IRS CI made only 403 prosecution recommendations in identity theft cases.

On its website, the IRS has posted 369 examples of successful identity theft investigations that IRS CI conducted and recommended for prosecution in fiscal years 20152016 and 2017. But only five of the 369 examples mention the ITIN and each of these five describe a scheme to engage in refund fraud not employment-related fraud. (To see the five examples of successful prosecution recommendations in identity theft cases click here.) asked the IRS a series of questions about the employment-related identity theft cases cited in the TIGTA reports. These included: How many of the 1.3 million ITIN identity theft cases and 1.2 million misused SSN cases were referred to DOJ? Was it the policy of the IRS not to make prosecution recommendations in cases where ITIN holders stole someone’s SSN to engage in employment identity theft as opposed to refund fraud? Could the IRS provide specific examples in the years from 2010 to 2017 where it made a successful prosecution recommendation in a case involving an ITIN holder who had committee employment identity theft but not refund fraud? (The full text of’s questions to the IRS can be seen by clicking here.)

The IRS responded with a statement. It said:

“Over the last few years, IRS-Criminal Investigation prioritized its limited resources pursuing identity thieves who stole millions of identities from innocent taxpayers and applied for, and received, tax refunds based on those identities.

“Additionally, based on how IRS-CI captures case-related information and how prosecutions are based (the federal violation utilized), it is not possible to ascertain the exact information for the question regarding how many cases IRS pursued criminally where ITIN holders utilized another individuals’ SSN.

“To put it another way, in investigating the type of criminal activity that you inquired [about], IRS-CI, in addition to its traditional criminal tax statutes, would also likely utilize other statutes, such as 18 USC 661, 18 USC 1028 or 18 USC 1028(A), which carry a more significant impact than the law cited in the 2004 TIGTA report regarding the fraudulent misuse of a social security number.”

The three sections of federal law cited by the IRS include provisions that prohibit taking property “of a value exceeding $1,000” (661); and “fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents” [1028 and 1028(A)].” also asked the Department of Justice how many of the cases cited in the TIGTA report were referred by the IRS to the DOJ, and, if the IRS did not refer some or any of these cases, why not. (To see the text of the questions asked the Justice Department click here.)

“We don’t confirm or deny investigations or comment on referrals,” said a Justice Department spokesperson.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments
%d bloggers like this: