Rule of Law

Rule of Law

Illegal Alien Crime Wave in Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders

July 22nd, 2015 - 6:40 pm

The murder of Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero in San Francisco by an illegal alien is the most familiar example of a crime committed by an alien.  But an unreleased internal report by the Texas Department of Public Safety reveals that aliens have been involved in thousands of crimes in Texas alone, including nearly 3,000 homicides.

PJ Media obtained a never-before-released copy of a Texas DPS report on human smuggling containing the numbers of crimes committed by aliens in Texas.   According to the analysis conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, foreign aliens committed 611,234 unique crimes in Texas from 2008 to 2014, including thousands of homicides and sexual assaults.

The report describes an alien crime wave of staggering proportions exacerbated by federal officials unwilling to enforce immigration laws.

The Texas DPS report says well over 100,000 individual criminal aliens have been booked into Texas jails:

From October 2008 to April 2014, Texas identified a total 177,588 unique criminal alien defendants booked into Texas county jails. These individuals have been identified through the Secure Communities initiative, in which Texas has participated since October 2008.

There are almost certainly more criminal aliens who haven’t been identified as aliens.  The 177,588 criminal aliens identified by Texas through the Secure Communities initiative only can tag criminal aliens who had already been fingerprinted.  Arrests of illegal aliens who have not been fingerprinted prior to arrest are not included in these arrests numbers derived from the Secure Communities initiative.

That means that the already stratospheric aggregate crime totals would be even higher if crimes by many illegal aliens who are not in the fingerprint database were included.

Confessed hammer killer Juan Francisco De Luna Vasquez

Confessed Texas killer Juan Vasquez

The Secure Communities initiative is an information-sharing program between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. Presumably, both departments would have data on the number of fingerprint searches conducted that revealed a criminal act involved an alien.

Texas has been ground zero in illegal alien crossings into the United States.  The Texas DPS report shows that in the Rio Grande Valley, 154,453 illegal aliens were apprehended in 2013.


Total illegal alien apprehensions by sector. (Source: Texas DPS report).

Other Texas sectors saw approximately 86,000 illegal aliens apprehended.  All other sectors combined on the southern border only saw approximately 170,000 illegal alien apprehensions in the same time period.  The Obama administration releases a sizable portion of the illegal aliens captured.

The criminal aliens identified by the Texas Department of Public Safety have been responsible for the most heinous types of crimes — and in astonishing numbers. From the Texas DPS report:

A review of these 177,588 defendants shows that they are responsible for at least 611,234 individual criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,993 homicides and 7,695 sexual assaults.

One such murder was committed by Juan Francisco De Luna Vasquez. Vasquez confessed to killing his wife with a hammer in Laredo.

The increasing flood across the border combined with the existence of sanctuary cities bolstered by Obama administration policies allowing the release of the most violent criminal aliens has fueled these crimes.

(Source: Texas DPS)

“Other Than Mexican” apprehensions. Most are released. (Source: Texas DPS report)

The House Judiciary Committee has passed the Davis-Oliver Act, introduced (S.1640) in the Senate by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and in the House (H.R.1148) by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), which would address many of these issues.

Yesterday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) grilled Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldaña about the 104,000 criminals that ICE released in 2013, and the 68,000 criminals against whom ICE refused to start deportation proceedings.  Saldaña calls it “good news” that only 30,558 criminal aliens were released by ICE in 2014.

Federal hate crime laws criminalize racially motivated violence. The Obama Justice Department, over and over and over again, has refused to enforce these laws in a race-neutral manner. Instead, justice is available to some Americans, but not all.  Some victims are protected by federal law in the age of Obama.

Some aren’t.

The latest example of racially motivated violence the Obama administration is likely to ignore occurred in Chicago:

Broken glass littered the pavement at 60th and King Drive across from Washington Park, where the attack took place around 9 p.m. Thursday night. Pedersen says she had just dropped off a friend at the University of Chicago when she stopped at a red light and found her car surrounded by several dozen young people.

“They were walking around both sides of the vehicle – in the front, in the back – and as they were walking across, they were hitting my car, using racial slurs and telling me that I didn’t belong in their neighborhood because I was white,” Pedersen said.

The group, all African-American, she says, kicked the vehicle and shook it violently. Her children were screaming from the back of the vehicle.

Susan Pedersen and her two children do not fit the correct victim profile to bring protection from the United States Department of Justice.

The victims

The victims

Instance after instance of racially motivated violence has gone unpunished since Obama’s inauguration in 2009 when the victim looks like Susan Pedersen.

Robert Moossy is the chief of the Criminal Section at the Civil Rights Division.  His section is responsible for bringing criminal charges in Chicago, or not.

Be sure to read: 

It’s Time to Eliminate ‘Hate Crimes’ From the American Legal System


Virginia Governor’s Guide to Free Golf

July 11th, 2015 - 2:46 pm

Thomas Jefferson wrote of his “detestation of the corruption of the English government” and wished for “an ocean of fire between that island and us” to protect America from that aristocratic culture.  Two hundred years later,  Jefferson’s successor as the governor of Virginia had aides trying to score free rounds of golf and hotel rooms.

And now, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the eleven felony convictions of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell.

McDonnell’s tawdry story of cash and favors (covered here, here and here) saw him receiving cash, clambakes, Ferrari rides, Rolexes and more in exchange for using the governor’s office to open doors in Virginia government for a tobacco-based nutritional supplement whose makers were desperate for credibility without going through the usual routes to credibility.

McDonnell tried to get Virginia government institutions to bless the tobacco pill instead of the manufacturer paying for their own clinical trials.

In exchange, the manufacturer gave McDonnell cash, loans, gifts, golf clubs, golf bags, jets, and more, much more.

Ferrari Joyride

Ferrari Joyride

But it seems McDonnell’s freeloading might have gone well beyond his cash-for-credibility pill scheme.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reveals that McDonnell’s camp was keen on scoring free golf and hotels… wherever they might find it.

Where they might find it reveals a political insider’s grift: the Virginia Governor’s Guide to Scoring Free Golf.

Enter Adam Zubowsky, McDonnell’s travel aide and eventual son-in-law.

Adam Zubowsky

Adam Zubowsky

Pages: 1 2 | 11 Comments»

Does Harvard Teach Law Anymore?

June 17th, 2015 - 11:29 am

Harvard is to law what Winchester is to bolt actions.  Powerful, dependable, well engineered and the mark of a serious craft, at least that’s what I was told.

These days, Harvard graduates probably don’t know much about bolt actions, unless they are a member of the Harvard Law School shooting club.  A stroll through the Harvard Law School course catalog also makes you wonder how much they know about the real practice of law.

The course catalog from Harvard Law School hints that the answer might be — not as much as we thought.

The Harvard Law School course catalog frequently reads more like an ideological training academy than it does a program for teaching lawyers how to practice law.

I may be unqualified to opine about Harvard Law considering that I went to a law school in the SEC.  That’s the Southeastern Conference, not the Securities and Exchange Commission.  As such, I spent most of my law school years taking courses that trained future lawyers to practice real law in real American courtrooms: remedies, civil procedure, criminal procedure, legal writing, trusts, evidence, and even more civil procedure.

Six of nine United States Supreme Court justices attended Harvard, so they must be doing something right.  But the course catalog at Harvard reveals a great divide emerging in American legal education.

Is law school about learning to practice law, or fundamental transformation?

Elite universities are graduating lawyers who seem most qualified to engineer fundamental social change, not represent clients in court.  Law schools in most of America still seem to focus on graduating lawyers who know how to practice law.  The course descriptions, below, reveal a different approach to legal education at Harvard.  The political ramifications for the nation should be obvious, especially when so many positions of power are filled with graduates of elite law schools.  That’s not just me saying it, Harvard’s own website boasts of this fundamental transformation:

Harvard Law School recently undertook a sweeping overhaul of its first-year curriculum. The new curriculum reflects legal practice in the 21st century, adding courses in legislation and regulation and international and comparative law to the traditional curriculum of civil procedure, contracts, criminal law, property, and torts. . . . In the second and third years of law school, Harvard students shape their own courses of study, selecting among a wide offering of electives. . . .  Five optional Programs of Study – Law and Government; Law and Social Change; Law and Business; International and Comparative Law; and Law, Science and Technology €”developed by the Law School faculty provide pathways through the upper-level curriculum.

Sorry, but “legislation” doesn’t reflect the “legal practice in the 21st Century.”  I took legislation in law school, and a small fraction of lawyers ever dabble in the area.  Lawyers inside the D.C. Beltway seeking to expand the power of the federal government are one exception.  I’ve sat in courtrooms listening to thousands of docket calls, and never once heard “comparative law” on the menu.  Worse, in most of America, no lawyer has any use for nonsense like “Law and Social Change,” unless politics are on the agenda instead of law.

A classroom blackboard at Harvard Law

Classroom blackboard at Harvard Law

Joel Pollak, a graduate of Harvard Law School and editor at Breitbart News, told me that the shift isn’t always passive, where Harvard law students can hear both sides and peacefully choose.  “Many of the professors who teach the ‘core’ classes are conscientious about fostering debate, open to different perspectives, and able to separate their own political views from their pedagogy. Others, however, seem unable to resist the urge to foist their personal ideological convictions onto their classes, resisting questions from students who disagree.”

And therein lies the danger — law professors with a captive audience of first year students turn law into political ideology, a training academy for the institutional left at an elite law school.  And after the first year of core classes ends, just imagine what happens in these actual classes (detailed below) that are now taught at Harvard Law School:

The Art of Social Change

“We will bring into the classroom as visiting lecturers leaders from the worlds of policy, practice, and academia — people who have themselves operated as successful change agents and who represent different disciplines, career paths, and strategies for change.”

Fidelity in Interpretation

“This seminar will develop a theory of interpretation for the Constituiton [SIC!!!!!] of the United States tied to a particular conception of interpretive fidelity. The aim is Dworkinian — to develop the theory that best explains and justifies our constitutional tradition.”  A screenshot from the Harvard Law catalog, errata included.


Feminist Legal Theory


Prof. Janet Halley

“This course will survey the most important sources of feminist thinking in and around law and law reform, with attention to the ways in which differing feminist ideas have and have not become operationalized as law that actually governs. We will pay attention to the rise and fall of feminist ideas; to competitor theoretical frames and ongoing contests among different feminist worldviews for influence on law; to nonwestern sources of feminist legal thought; and to modes of transmitting feminist ideas from one national, regional, and/or international system to another. A constant theme will be the collaborations among and conflicts between feminist social movements and social movements for emancipation of groups other than women: racial minorities, sexual minorities, immigrants, the poor.”

Law and Psychology: The Emotions

Ironically taught by Professor David Cope:  “Love, jealousy, guilt, anger, fear, greed, compassion, hope, and joy play important roles in the lives of lawyers and those with whom they interact.”

Law and the Political Process

Professor Lani Guinier teaches Law and the Political Process. “Prerequisites: None. Constitutional Law is strongly recommended but is not a prerequisite for this course.”   No surprise in a Guinier-taught course.

Litigating Health Rights: Can Courts Bring More Justice to Health?

“The question of whether courts can not only call for modifying legislation and policies but also enforce affirmative entitlements to care has been answered in many contexts. Yet questions still persist as to when and how litigation can lead to greater equity in health and enhance the functioning and oversight of health systems, rather than distorting priorities and budgets.”

Animal Law

A course, perhaps, about laws surrounding animal-based commodities?  Maybe a survey of useful contractual issues involving agricultural commerce?  Stop it, this is Harvard, not the University of Wyoming!:

Animal Law Prof. Kristen Stilt

Animal Law Prof. Kristen Stilt

“The course will also engage with fundamental questions about animals and the law, such as: Are some animals more deserving of protection than others, and if so, on what basis? What role does culture and belief play in animal law—why are dogs considered pets in the U.S. and food in some parts of the world, for example? Does the status of animals as property pose an insurmountable barrier to increasing protections for animals? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the concepts of “animal rights” and “animal welfare”?

(More course descriptions on next page)

Pages: 1 2 3 | 30 Comments»

Rachel Dolezal: No Surprise Here

June 12th, 2015 - 7:03 am

I suspect most Americans who learned the story of race-morphing Rachel Dolezal were shocked.  I wasn’t.  See, I worked at the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department where Dolezal’s type of race-guilt psychosis could be found in diluted degrees.

First, for those who don’t know the story of local NAACP head Rachel Dolezal, it goes like this: young white woman lives life in black costume, sows racial grievance as NAACP official.  As one story put it:

Ruthanne and Larry Dolezal said their daughter has always identified with the African American culture and had black siblings who were adopted. They said she went to school in Mississippi and was part of a primarily African American community.

The Dolezals said Rachel married and later divorced a black man. They said after the divorce in 2004 Rachel began identifying differently. She started claiming to be partially African American and the daughter of bi-racial parents. They said they have noticed her change in physical appearance but do not know how she did so.

If you are shocked by this story, don’t be.  Dolezal had a sort of racial psychosis that you can see in lesser degrees all throughout modern America, particularly in the modern civil rights movement.

NAACP official Rachel Dolezal in costume

NAACP official Rachel Dolezal in costume (l), out of costume (r)

At the Justice Department, I encountered a white Italian who racially identified as a Sioux.  This person adopted the appearance of a native American and racially identified as Indian.  Pictures of Sitting Bull adorned the office.  If there was any Sioux blood, it was a tiny fraction.  But identification with a racial minority group has its privileges, especially at the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ.  This wasn’t the only example.

So when I heard the outlandish story of Rachel Dolezal, it wasn’t so outlandish to me.  The racial left is today built around racial division, race hatred, and racial guilt. It is full of people who see the world through an angry racial lens.

The civil rights movement once held the moral high ground by treating people without regard to skin color.

Pages: 1 2 | 45 Comments»

I joined Tucker Carlson this weekend to decode Hillary’s election law speech.  In the speech, she supported mandatory voter registration, almost a month-long election day and a variety of measures to erode election integrity.  She was also up to something more malignant involving race. The video:


The New York Times has revealed what some of us already knew: billionaire convicted felon George Soros is bankrolling attacks on election integrity laws in advance of the 2016 election. He is funding efforts to attack laws designed to aid election integrity in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio and perhaps elsewhere, according to the New York Times.

Mr. Soros is prepared to spend $5 million or more on the effort, Mr. Vachon said. Two suits that he is supporting were filed in Ohio and in Wisconsin last month, and he is also funding a case Mr. Elias is involved with in North Carolina.

These lawsuits are attacks on voter ID and other changes made to increase election integrity.  For example, in North Carolina, where same-day voter registration used to exist, over 1,000 unverified voters were permitted to cast a regular ballot in the 2012 election.  As a recent law review article of mine notes:

The problem of ballots being counted without verification of eligibility due to same day registration was so acute in the town of Pembroke, North Carolina, the North Carolina State Board of Elections was forced to order a new election because the outcome was tainted due to same day registration.

Soros is funding a lawsuit attacking North Carolina’s termination of this bad policy.

A number of years ago Media Matters labeled me as “conspiratorial” for noting that Soros is fueling the anti-election integrity effort.

Adams completed his transformation from wannabe whistleblower to right-wing pontificator by using his first official PJM column to cry “Soros,” utilizing the well-worn right-wing shtick of connecting every liberal group or activity they despise back to the alleged manipulations of billionaire philanthropist/super-villain George Soros, as if Soros’ involvement was, ipso facto, evidence of the groups’ sinister intentions.

You have to love that ipso facto part. See, the piece was written by Brian Powell.


Powell’s Media Matters bio says that he is a graduate of the University of North Carolina School of Law.  Media Matters is full of lawyers who went to law school and don’t practice law.  Hiring law graduates who will make less at Media Matters than they paid for their law school education seems to be a trend at the Soros-funded blog.  Good career judgment need not apply.


The Obama Justice Department has quietly launched an effort to erode traditional state powers over elections.

In the first instance, Attorney General Loretta Lynch has drafted and sent a bill to Congress which would force state election officials to turn over power to tribal governments to determine the location and number of polling places on Indian reservations in state-run elections.

In the second instance, the DOJ is seeking to erode the power of states to prohibit the mentally incompetent from voting, as long as they express a desire to vote to their caregiver, often a unionized government worker.

In both instances, the Justice Department is acting at the behest of activist groups and undermining powers the Constitution gives to the states.

Given the election results of the last twenty years, it might be surprising to learn that the California constitution says that “no idiot or insane” person shall be entitled to vote. Understand that “idiot” is a legal term used to denote someone who is literally incompetent or incoherent. Other states use the term “imbecile” or the more modern, ‘incompetent.”

While the terms may be anachronisms, the reasons behind the prohibition on voting are as valid today as they were in 1849. Allowing someone who is not competent or aware to vote corrupts elections — and invites the patient to be victimized by someone effectively stealing that patient’s vote.

Under the Qualifications Clause of the Constitution, states are vested with the total power to determine who is eligible to vote, subject to bans on racial discrimination in the 15th Amendment, gender discrimination in the 19th Amendment, payment of poll taxes in the 24th Amendment, or the 18-year-old vote in the 26th Amendment.

The Obama Justice Department, however, has launched an effort against California to erode powers under the Qualifications Clause, claiming that practices disqualifying the incompetent might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Civil Rights Division has told California it is opening an investigation into how it decides who is incompetent and thus disqualified to vote. The focus of the investigation is on the Los Angeles Superior Court, the entity which decrees incompetence and then often appoints public guardians to oversee the care of those deemed incompetent to take care of themselves and to vote.

The form used by the court touches on whether the patient has dementia, is in a “state of lethargy” or “stupor,” is able to concentrate, recognize familiar faces, is “nonsensical,” “incoherent,” or has hallucinations.

The Disability and Abuse Project sparked the Justice Department action. The project is a function of a Spectrum Institute and the American Association for Single People (AASP), an organization which aggressively opposes the value of marriage and boasts a board member who is an “advanced practitioner in ‘Thought Field Therapy,’” to some, a discredited New Age pseudoscience. The Spectrum Institute/AASP enjoys tax exempt 501(c)(3) status from the IRS.


Though it informed the Spectrum Institute about the action it was taking in California, the DOJ never informed the public. The Justice Department action also comes just in time to bolster support for California Senate Bill 589, which would give those deemed incompetent and put into a conservatorship the right to vote, as long as they express a “desire to participate in the voting process.”

In Los Angeles County, members of public sector unions and the purple-shirted SEIU are responsible for the care of many for whom the Superior Court has appointed a conservator.

Pages: 1 2 | 13 Comments»

I was on the Kelly File last night discussing the Department of Justice’s action against the Cleveland Police Department.  The video:

“DOJ should have to prove these cases in court.  These agreements make cops spend time doing reports, cops have to go to sensitivity training taught by people contracted by the DOJ. . . .  Places where the DOJ has done this like Los Angeles has resulted in more crime, more lawlessness more mayhem.  But that doesn’t matter to the ideological bureaucrats who are pushing these actions.  They care about an anti-police agenda more than they care about safe streets.  This is part of a broader effort to make cops beholden to Washington D.C. instead of good policing on the streets.

Don’t forget the people who are doing these DOJ reports believe that cops are guilty until proven innocent. A few racists emails does not violate federal law.  Cops are allowed to be racist and as bad as that is it doesn’t violate federal law.  It requires a pattern or practice, which means an ongoing continuing thing.  And the people who write these reports at DOJ have biases against police officers.”



The Justice Department yesterday announced a simultaneous lawsuit and settlement with the Cleveland police department.  The settlement will impose significant federal mandates on the police.  This comes after a Cleveland police officer was acquitted of wrongdoing by a court after the officer shot a suspect at the conclusion of a 100 mph car chase.

The agreement imposes a ten-member “community police commission” who will watch over the police, only three of whom have any law enforcement perspective.  The remaining seven are sure to include individuals either actively involved in the racialist anti-police efforts or one degree of separation from the same.  The agreement imposes a federal monitor, a person likely to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in this role.  The police will have to undergo “bias free policing principle” training.  The Obama Justice Department uses an outfit funded by George Soros and affiliated with former Black Panther (and still communist) Angela Davis to train police about bias.  Any time a Cleveland police officer unholsters his or her weapon, a report must be filed with the federal monitor.

In Los Angeles, a similar DOJ enforcement scheme led crime to spike and police officers to refuse to work on gang units.

Some will say that the Cleveland police department has a pattern or practice of excessive force. After all, a Justice Department report said so!

When Justice Department reports are used to support Justice Department lawsuits it’s important and very relevant to learn the radical backgrounds of the lawyers writing the reports and pushing the lawsuits.  PJ Media has already conducted an extensive investigation into the radical backgrounds of the Justice Department lawyers hired by the Obama administration’s Civil Rights Division.

These radical ideologies of Washington D.C. Justice Department lawyers result in ideologically driven law enforcement.  When lawyers believe the police are part of a racist structure, questionable enforcement actions by those lawyers will result

Worst of all, Cleveland didn’t even make the Justice Department prove their case.  They just rolled over and died.  When targets don’t fight back and force the Justice Department to prove their case in court, the federalist balance of power suffers.  Local governments are supposed to run their own police departments, no matter what the Obama administration wishes the Constitution says to the contrary.

So let’s meet the lawyers who brought the case against Cleveland resulting in federal oversight of the police department.  Excerpts from the PJ Media expose of the Special Litigation Section that brought the case against Cleveland.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta is a former ACLU lawyer.  She most famously said that the Baltimore riots were caused by slavery and Jim Crow laws.  Enough said.



Jack Morse: Mr. Morse comes to the Civil Rights Division straight out of law school, during which time he interned for the ACLU of Georgia’s National Security/Immigrant Rights Project and for the Georgia Innocence Project. He also helped draft reports for the ACLU suggesting that the “287(g) program” (which allows local law enforcement to participate in enforcement of federal immigration laws) contributes to racial profiling and should be eliminated. Anyone still confused by Mr. Morse’s views might peruse his law review article in which he argues that the federal government may not legitimately classify material support of terrorism as a war crime (!) and that the U.S. thus improperly tried Salim Hamdan (OBL’s driver) by military commission. …. It’s nice to know that there are so many advocates of Guantanamo Bay terrorists in the Special Litigation Section.

Rashida Ogletree: The daughter of Obama pal and Harvard Law professor Charles Ogletree, Ms. Ogletree joined the Section after working as a staff attorney at the District of Columbia Public Defender’s Office. Before that, she had interned at the Legal Action Center, which describes itself as “the only non-profit law and policy organization in the United States whose sole mission is to fight discrimination against people with histories of addiction, HIV/AIDS, or criminal records, and to advocate for sound public policies in these areas.” She also participated in the Brennan Center for Public Policy Advocacy Clinic, where she worked on efforts to give voting rights to convicted felons. Leaving no activist stone unturned, she preceded those activities with internships at the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem and the EEOC, as well as a gig as the Education and Enforcement Coordinator for the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston. And to top it all off, she served as an editor of the “progressive” Review of Law and Social Change at NYU Law School.

Judy Preston was a long time Justice Department employee and is characterized by former DOJ officials as “one of the biggest bleeding hearts” in the entire Division.

Emily Gunston: Ms. Gunston arrived at Justice after working for nearly 10 years as a public defender in Contra Costa County, California. While a law student at Berkeley, she also interned at the Homeless Action Center, a group dedicated to agitating for government entitlement payments.

Naturally nobody on the DOJ has any experience outside of the leftist civil rights echo chamber.  Naturally nobody has any experience in law enforcement.  After all, that doesn’t matter.  What matters is ideological leftists with high-paying jobs in Washington D.C. telling local police departments who to listen to and how to behave.