Posted on 11/09/2010 1:00:45 PM PST by Nachum
Organizations Hand-Picked by Justice Department Reap Large Financial Rewards from Lawsuits to which They Have No Official Connection
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain information about a DOJ policy that directs large sums of cash settlements from DOJ Civil Rights Division discrimination lawsuits to organizations that are not officially connected to these lawsuits (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Justice (No. 10-1783)). According to Judicial Watch's lawsuit, filed on October 25, 2010:
In August 2010, Judicial Watch commenced an investigation into [the DOJ's] practices regarding the distribution of leftover settlement funds to 'qualified organizations' not otherwise connected with the settled litigation. [Judicial Watch] sought this information in furtherance of its educational mission after learning of an apparently novel settlement arrangement used in two recently settled cases brought by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, United States v. AIG Federal Savings Bank and Wilmington Finance, and United States v. Sterling. Byron York, "Justice Department steers money to favored groups," The Washington Examiner, August 5, 2010.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Klayman!
I like the effort but can anyone tell me about any Judicial Watch accomplishments?
I believe Judicial Watch has brought to light a lot of important information that would have otherwise been unknown.
Just an impression, however, since I haven’t followed them close enough to cite a specific instance.
The O-Fer crowd srikes again.
(raising hand)Oh!Oh!Oh!I can!
JW was the entity that got me intersted in 501c3 nonprofits years back. At the time there were about 500,000 nonprofits in America. Today there are 3 times that many or more. FYI, for comparison, at the time there were ZERO nonprofits in Mexico and most other countries. That has not changed.
Some here will tell you that JW has done this or that and because of "whatever" they are a good outfit. All I can say is that the last time I looked they had taken in over $100 million dollars. Yea, no kidding, over $100 million dollars! And for that it appears that they have "accomplished" basically nothing in comparison to the amount of money pulled in. Oh, they get in the media every so often like now which seems to be their main talent.
Compare the value of JW to Free Republic. FR could easily become a nonprofit and take in much more money because people would give more due to the tax writeoff. But FR does had not done that. Why? I don't really know. But look at the bang for the buck FR is compared to JW. This site is eons ahead of JW as far as informing the public. For pennies!
There are over 1.5 million nonprofits in America. The vast majority of them do not feed, clothe or house anyone. And these are "charities"? Nope! They are entities that make money for their handlers, directly compete with businesses that pay taxes or they push a particular political view all while being subsidized by the US taxpayer.
The reform of the US nonpofits corporation laws is way overdue! Way overdue! My suggestion is to do away with all corporate taxes period and stop subsidizing any expenses of any corporation. If people want to give to a charity that's fine but no more tax deductions.
Bottom line? JW does little or nothing for the amount of money they have collected. That is my opinion.....
Organizations Hand-Picked by Justice Department Reap Large Financial Rewards from Lawsuits to which They Have No Official ConnectionIt's called theft. Thanks Nachum.
the turd ‘rat Minnesota A.G. Lori Swanson did the same thing (and unfortunately just got re-elected)
In a May 12, 2008, letter to Swanson, Nobles writes:
“The judgment was signed by you, as Solicitor General … [and] provided for the distribution of money to the Legal Aid Society ($250,000), the Minnesota Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — ACORN — ($249,999) and the state of Minnesota.”
What caught Nobles’ interest here is that the complaint was settled for $749,999, perhaps in coincidence with a state statute that says any settlements of $750,000 or more go to individuals or the state. Anything less can be divvied up in other ways — in this case, the money going to those three entities. But Nobles further notes:
“It is alleged that the distribution of money to Minnesota ACORN was connected to ACORN’s endorsement of Mike Hatch for governor on March 8, 2006. Please address the allegation and explain the basis of distribution of $249,999 to ACORN, a political advocacy organization.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.