US Justice Department corrupt, Blagojevich trial, Patrick Fitzgerald, J Christian Adams
We now have multiple confirmations that the US Justice Department is corrupt and racially biased. J Christian Adams and others are speaking out. For well over a year Citizen Wells has been questioning the Justice Dept. and their actions.
Who in the US Justice Dept. made these decisions?
Wait until December 2008, after the elections, to arrest Rod Blagojevich.
Omit the following from the Indictment. The following statement was in the Criminal Complaint. “The Planning Board was a commission of the State of Illinois, established by statute, whose members were appointed by the Governor of the State of Illinois. At the relevant time period, the Planning Board consisted of nine individuals.”
Focus the prosecution of Blagojevich on the selling of the senate seat.
Indicate the trial will end much earlier than expected (month and a half vs three to four months).
And
Why did Judge James Zagel speak out and say that Tony Rezko would be a bad witness?
Was he laying the groundwork for prosecutors not calling Rezko?
Stuart Levine was the main witness in the Rezko trial. Not only was Levine heavily enmeshed in crime and corruption, he was a long time drug user. Criminals and corruption figures are routinely used as witnesses.
J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Julie Fernandez
J Christian Adams, a former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the US Justice Department, testified Tuesday, July 6, 2010, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Adams is interviewed afterwards on FOX News by Megyn Kelly.
Adams alleges that the Justice Dept ignores voter fraud and states that a mandate came from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez.
Part 2
Julie Fernandez Deputy Assistant Attorney General
From the National Review January 12, 2010.
“Politicizing the Law”
“Eric Holder’s Justice Department has exiled Christopher Coates to South Carolina.
Coates, you may recall, is a career attorney at Justice, the chief of the Civil Rights Division’s (CRD) Voting Section. More to the point, Coates recommended that the CRD file a lawsuit for voter intimidation against the New Black Panther party and several of its members, who were in paramilitary uniforms (one of them waving a nightstick) threatening elderly white voters at a polling station in Philadelphia during last year’s elections.
Political appointees at the Justice Department overrode Coates’s recommendation. They ordered him to dismiss the lawsuit against all but one of the defendants, even though they were in default because they did not defend themselves. The eventual injunction against the defendant with the weapon was laughably weak.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation of the unexplained dismissal. It has subpoenaed Coates, but Justice has ordered Coates not to appear before the panel. Indeed, the partisan Democrats running the Civil Rights Division have barred Coates and another career lawyer, Christian Adams, from providing any assistance to the commission or the Republican congressmen investigating the matter. What are they so afraid will be revealed?”
“Washington today is infested with advocacy groups run by radicals who view the law — particularly federal civil-rights statutes like the Voting Rights Act — as a weapon to be used to further ideological goals, cement political control, and demonize political opponents. By contrast, fair-minded liberals and conservatives — at least those with whom I worked in the Civil Rights Division during the Bush administration — saw their duty as one of enforcing the law in a neutral manner within the narrow and objective strictures of federal statutes and case law. They did not assume the federal government had a monopoly on civil-rights virtue. They insisted that career attorneys recognize the proper role of the judiciary in what they asked courts to do. They recognized the need for restraint in certain investigatory activity lest the threat of federal power produce results that the law would not command.
Despite this conscious, principled adherence to “blind justice” and the constitutional role of the judiciary, some in the Bush Department of Justice found themselves accused of “politicization” when they tried to hire lawyers who would respect and carry out these principles. The radical Left simply could not tolerate a system in which the liberal ideologues who already predominated the career ranks in the CRD were not replicated in all hiring decisions.
The recent personnel action against Coates exposes the injustice (and hypocrisy) of the Left’s demagoguery. For all intents and purposes, the transfer was a demotion. A demotion for doing the right thing.”
“I would trace it to his mistake of enforcing civil-rights laws even-handedly. In 2003, while I was still at the CRD, we received complaints that black officials in Noxubee County, Miss., were discriminating against white voters. Coates went down and investigated. He found blatant racial discrimination occurring in the polls. The discrimination was organized, led, and orchestrated by the black head of the local Democratic party’s executive committee, a two-time felon. A federal district court found “improper, and in some instances fraudulent conduct . . . for the purpose of diluting white voting strength.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, when it upheld the judgment against the defendants, found there was intentional discrimination against white voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Coates’s audacity, first in investigating this case and then in recommending that a lawsuit be filed, made him many enemies. Previously, he had spent his entire career filing lawsuits on behalf of minority voters who had suffered discrimination. But in Noxubee, the white voters being discriminated against were the minority, representing only about 30 percent of voters. Their race made no difference to Coates, but based on what I observed, it made a big difference to ultra-liberal lawyers inside and outside the Justice Department.
When Coates first went to Noxubee to investigate the complaints, a number of the Voting Section’s career lawyers expressed disgust that we would bother to protect white voters. Coates was astonished by the blatantly illegal behavior he saw going on in the polls, but many of his colleagues wanted to ignore it. Several career lawyers in the section flatly refused to work on the case.”
“That brings us to the real bone of contention, the final reason Coates has been transferred: the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther party. NBPP members were hurling racial epithets and threatening voters at a polling place in Philadelphia. It was among the most blatant cases of voter intimidation the CRD had seen in decades. Adams was one of three lawyers assigned to the case by Coates, no doubt because, unlike the other career lawyers in the Voting Section, Adams would not refuse to sue non-white perpetrators of voter intimidation. The other two lawyers on the New Black Panther party case were Robert Popper and Spencer Fisher, both highly dedicated voting-rights attorneys as well.”
“One former Voting Section career lawyer who had left the Justice Department to go to work for the NAACP, Kristen Clarke, admitted to the Washington Times that she talked to the new political leadership after Obama was inaugurated, berating them for not dismissing the case. Sources at Justice tell me Clarke made an identical pitch to her former colleagues in the Voting Section once Obama and Eric Holder came to power.
The entreaties proved productive. According to the Washington Times, Loretta King, whom Obama named the acting assistant attorney general of the CRD, ordered Coates to dismiss the case against three of the defendants despite their default. King apparently received approval from Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli to do so. Who else Perrelli spoke with in the Justice Department and the White House is the subject of continued stonewalling in response to the subpoenas served on Justice by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission
Meanwhile, the forced dismissal of the New Black Panther case turned out to be just the beginning of the misery heaped on Coates. According to multiple sources at Justice, King and the political appointees who came in soon after Obama’s inauguration — particularly Julie Fernandez, an ideological firebrand and former lawyer for the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights — put severe restrictions on Coates almost as soon as they arrived and began micromanaging all of his work. The new political apparatchiks stripped Coates of virtually all discretionary authority, delegated responsibility for most decisions to more “results-oriented” underlings in the Voting Section, and rendered him a virtual figurehead.”
“Like Coates, Adams and the entire New Black Panther party trial team are consummate professionals who seek to enforce the laws without political or ideological considerations. Unfortunately, such lawyers are a rarity within the Civil Rights Division, which is without doubt one of the most insidiously partisan places I have ever worked, inside or outside of government.
Over the past year, all hiring within the CRD has been done on a purely partisan, ideological basis. Doubtless that will continue to happen over the next three years.”
“Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department.”
J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Fox News interview
J Christian Adams testimony, a former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the US Justice Department, testified Tuesday, July 6, 2010, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Adams has leveled a new charge against the Justice Department of not enforcing voter registration. Adams is interviewed afterwards on FOX News by Megyn Kelly.
US Justice Department corruption, Voter intimidation, New Black Panther case dismissal
I am watching the Rod Blagojevich trial unfold. I have been monitoring this since before the Tony Rezko trial ended. There were many disturbing signs well before the Blagojevich trial began. Many of us questioned Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department. Now we have J. Christian Adams and Bartle Bull speaking out, lending credence to our concerns. I have more thoughts on the Blagojevich trial that I will commit to words soon.
Bartle Bull interview, Obama a hustler, Megyn Kelly, Fox News
Bartle Bull, a lifelong Democrat and civil rights activist, was interviewwed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News today, July 1, 2010. Mr. Bull reacted to J Christian Adams resignation and statements about the US Justice Dept. dropping the lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. Bartle Bull was also a witness to the voter intimidation by the Black Panthers in 2008. Mr. Bull had this to say about Obama.
“I didn’t like Obama from the beginning,
I thought he was a hustler
and I think he still is.”
J Christian Adams resignation, US Justice Dept. corrupt?, Biased?, Fox News coverage
J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.
“The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”
Obama and US Justice Dept corruption, Obama agenda, Racial bias, New Black Panther Party case dismissed
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”…2001 Barack Obama interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ
J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.
“On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter -intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”
“Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.
“The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ’s skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the “facts and law” did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let’s all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.
Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal – Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum – did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation.”
““The communities that we serve must see that the federal government is really committed to the impartial and aggressive enforcement of our nation’s laws, and these communities must know that we will do all that we can to enforce the law that protect our civil rights with the same vigor that we enforce the laws that protect our public safety.”
“Despite those comments, Holder dismissed default judgments that the Bush Justice Department had filed against Malik Shabazz and Jerry Jackson in January 2009.
The suit alleged that Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP), “managed, directed and endorsed” the incident, in which Jackson and a third defendant, Samir Shabazz, wore NBPP uniforms that included “black berets combat boots, bloused battle dress pants, rank insignia, (NBPP) insignia, and black jackets.”
Samir Shabazz also was accused by the Bush DOJ of having “brandished a deadly weapon,” described as a nightstick, and “pointed it at individuals” while the polls were open for voting in the presidential election.
Jackson accompanied Samir Shabazz throughout that activity, and both “made statements containing racial threats and racial insults” and made “menacing and intimidating gestures statements and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.”
When the defendants did not respond to the complaint from the federal government, the Bush DOJ won default judgments against Jackson and Malik Shabazz, but Holder’s DOJ chose to dismiss them in May 2009.”
“Holder also assured ADC members attending the convention that hate crimes cases would be a priority of the Obama administration, and that it was working hard on a crime against Muslims in Florida.”
““Already, we have several investigations open under the new law, and I want you all to know that we are currently working with local law enforcement to investigate the recent pipe bomb attack on a Florida mosque.”
A pipe bomb exploded during evening prayers at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida on May 10. No one was injured inside the Jacksonville mosque, but police and the FBI are investigating it as a possible hate crime.
“This case is a top concern for the FBI,” Holder said.”
Rezko lousy witness?, Rezko bad for Blagojevich and Obama, Judge Zagel
From the Chicago Tribune June 29, 2010.
“Judge: There’s a word for witnesses like Rezko”
“One big question hanging over the trial of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been whether his convicted fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, would appear at these proceedings to testify against his old friend. Rezko, now imprisoned at a federal facility in Wisconsin, has been cooperating with government agents since shortly after his 2008 conviction.
It’s still not certain whether Rezko will testify, but at a hearing before testimony resumed today, U.S. District Judge James Zagel strongly suggested that Rezko would make a lousy government witness.
Zagel said there was a word to describe witnesses like Rezko who damage whatever side calls them to testify. That, said Zagel, “generally explains why they’re not called.” Zagel refrained from actually saying what the word was, leaving the suggestion it was less than polite.”
“Schar said that Rezko has since recanted the letter and provided “a certain amount of information that incriminates Blagojevich.”
All of this talk occurred outside the earshot of jurors, but defense lawyers would like the jury to hear about the Rezko letter. Zagel said he would wait until after Balanoff takes the stand to rule whether the letter can be brought up. ”
November 2010 elections, Not the end, End of beginning, Winston Churchill
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”…Winston Churchill
I greatly admire Winston Churchill. His words, his actions preceding and during World War II were the glue that saved England and the world. His words still ring true.
We must change congress this November 2010. That, as Churchill stated, is not the end, but perhaps the end of beginning. Once we change congress we must forever remain vigilant and clean up the US Justice Dept., courts and state and local government. This is an ongoing duty.
Here is an example from my home state of NC. I received the following in an email this morning.
“The following is a condensed timeline created by NCGOP staff from Exhibit 1 of the SBOE report on gubernatorial candidates released June 25. This version focuses on the Perdue Campaign Committee. It is not intended to be a verbatim recreation of the SBOE timeline. It includes excerpts from the BOE timeline, but also includes content that is wholly the work of the NCGOP, not the SBOE. However, it is accurate in its description of events included in the SBOE timeline.”
“Bev Perdue and the Perdue Campaign lied about reasons for non-disclosure of flights. On October 15, the NCGOP conducted a press conference outlining our suspicions that, like Mr. Easley, Gov. Perdue and her campaign had utilized private and corporate aircraft in violation of NC law by not disclosing properly or reimbursing properly the flights.
Subsequently, on two different dates, the Perdue campaign acknowledged a total of 41 flights it had failed to disclose. According to the Governor and her campaign staff, this long pattern of non compliance and non disclosure was the result of “computer software glitch.”
We now know this was a lie.
On page 6 of the Board of Elections report on campaign flights, there begins a lengthy discussion of $28,000 in corporate flights paid for by New Bern lawyer and good friend of the Governor, Buzzy Stubbs. This discussion consumes many paragraphs and several pages of the report.
John Wallace, the Perdue committee’s lawyer, who performed a similar function for Mike Easley, and therefore should have plenty of experience in these matters, initially explained “that flights were not disclosed and/or properly paid because the campaign was unaware that Mr. Stubbs was paying for flights.”
But according to what Mr. Stubbs told Kim Strach and Chairman Leake, he had on many occasions told the campaign that he was paying for the flights and inquired about how his payments for the flights had been handled, because he was aware that he had already given the maximum amount allowed by law to the Perdue campaign. Mr. Stubbs specifically identified Peter Reichard and John Wallace as individuals with whom he had discussed his concern about proper accounting for his payments. Mr. Stubbs stated that he had been told of a variety of ways the travel payments could be handled and he often was not comfortable with the information he was being provided.
Finally, on October 23, 2008, Mr. Stubbs sent a letter to the Perdue committee with copies to Wallace and Reichard.
In the letter, Mr. Stubbs states that he has personally reimbursed his law firm in the amount of $28,498.04 for “payment in kind in the form of airplane transportation for Bev Perdue.” He included a copy of his personal check to the law firm in that amount.
Despite this very tangible evidence from a donor of over $28,000 in flights, Gov. Perdue and her campaign failed to disclose the flights as required by law in their 48 hour reports. Nor did they disclose these flights in their 2008 year end report, filed over three months after they received Mr. Stubbs letter on October 23.
No, Gov. Perdue and her committee didn’t acknowledge the flights at all until their 2009 mid-year semi-annual report in July 2009. And only after the Easley investigation indicated to them they had better get busy.
It is pretty clear that, were it not for the ramifications of the Easley hearings, Gov. Perdue and her campaign would never have disclosed or paid for the flights. Keep in mind that the Stubbs flights represent only half of the flights that were ultimately disclosed.
In addition to the bogus excuse about the mysterious “computer software glitch” and Mr. Wallace laughably disingenuous claim that the campaign was unaware that Mr. Stubbs was paying for the flights, the Perdue committee has offered various other explanations as to why the flights were not disclosed.
My personal favorite, expressed by Mr. Reichard was that “the campaign had no process in place to track and disclose information regarding flights.” Not only does this fly in the face of Mr. Stubbs many conversations with Reichard and Wallace, it also does not align with documentation provided by the Perdue committee.
A quote from the report on page 5: “based on the documentation…completed.”
What we have here is the Gov. Perdue campaign first knowingly and willfully failing to disclose contributions as required by law, and then engaging in lies in an attempt to cover up.
Now might be an appropriate time to remind you of some public utterances from our Governor while all this was going on.
“In the 21st century we must conduct the business of government in ways that bring transparency and accountability to the people… I have set high expectations for myself and for everyone who works for North Carolina. We will be open, ethical, and put the public’s interest first.” March 9, 2009 State of the State Speech
“I’m the Governor who has thrown open the windows of the state government. I believe in hanging it out there to share. I don’t try to hide anything.” December 14, 2009
“I am really sick of all this, I’ve been very, very driven by the need for transparency and ethics in government…. I myself did an audit of my campaign. I paid people money to audit my campaign. I want to be sure every “i” is dotted and every “t” is crossed. I’ve been doing that relentlessly for a year.” February 18, 2010
“I’m the governor for 15 months who’s done anything possible to throw open the windows of state government, to have full transparency, to focus on ethics and how people set government straight,” April 20, 2010
That brings me to the 2nd revelation and major conclusion.
That Gary Bartlett, Chairman Leake, and John Wallace colluded in an attempt to derail, distract, and obstruct the investigation by SBOE into the financial irregularities and illegalities of the Perdue for Gov. Campaign.
I now refer to the timeline that is an addendum to the SBOE report.
It documents that we first filed a complaint on October 15, 2009, asking the SBOE to investigate the Perdue Committee.
According to the timeline developed by SBOE staff, there is no mention of taking any action on the complaint until almost 3 months later, on January 12.
It is not until March 23, according to the timeline, before Bartlett authorizes Kim Strach to interview the first witness that same day, after waiting over 5 months to begin the investigation. Bartlett tells Strach that the board wants a resolution to the matter quickly so the interview needs to be wrapped up quickly.
By contrast, again according to the timeline, Mr. Bartlett received a letter from NC Democrat party Executive Director Andrew Whalen on February 15 requesting all correspondence between candidates Smith and Graham and SBOE office and any rules on advisory opinions on the subject.
The next day, Feb 16, Bartlett advises Strach to draft a letter for Whalen and compile all responsive documents. The letter is completed and the documents collected that same day.
The next day, two days after Whalen’s request, Bartlett directs Strach to hand-deliver letter and documents to Andrew Whalen at NCDP headquarters. It is delivered that day.
That same day, and only because I asked for a meeting with Bartlett, I received a one paragraph letter acknowledging an investigation of the Perdue campaign is underway, four months after we filed a complaint.
Later, on Feb 23, Whalen filed a complaint regarding Republican candidates. Bartlett and Strach meet the same day to discuss. It took three months before our complaint was even discussed at the SBOE.
As weeks go by, on repeated occasions, Chairman Leake and Mr. Bartlett direct Strach not to personally follow-up with campaign staff, but to restrict her contact to letter drafted by Mr. Bartlett.
Then, unbelievably, as detailed in several places in the timeline, Strach is told by both Bartlett and Leake that John Wallace and Zach Ambrose, Perdue COS as Lt. Governor, her campaign manager for Gov, and her COS as Governor, will determine who Strach will be allowed to interview.
It is unheard of for a law enforcement agency to allow attorneys with clients under investigation, or as in Mr. Ambrose’s case, targets of the investigation, to determine which witnesses will be allowed to testify. This is collusion and obstruction of justice.
Leake takes over the investigation on or about April 1, when Strach becomes aware of a notebook in John Wallace’s possession that has detailed information regarding flights that Perdue took.
Strach makes repeated attempts to obtain the notebook from Wallace. As before, with flight information at his disposal (see page 4 of the report, first two paragraphs) Wallace delays, and finally offers the assertion that the notebook is protected by “attorney-client privilege.”
Weeks go by and Strach has still not been granted access to the notebook and Bartlett is aware of this.
Then on April 27, Strach advises Bartlett that she will be in Wilmington the following day to deliver the Rusty Carter report to the New Hanover Assistant DA, Tom Old.
April 28 – Bartlett sends two SBOE staffers (McClean, Wright) who have had no involvement in the investigation henceforth to interview Wallace while Strach is out of town.
Strach finds out about this while she is in Wilmington and contacts Bartlett to make sure he tells McClean and Wright to copy the entire contents of the notebook. Bartlett tells Strach that Wallace will not allow that.
With the discovery of the notebook, Leake inserts himself into the investigation, apparently in collusion with John Wallace. Leake begins to schedule interviews, some of which Strach is excluded from. He and Bartlett prevent her from interview Wallace and Ambrose. Leake sits in on interviews with Strach and in some instances limited the length and breadth of the interviews.
This is highly inappropriate behavior and fraught with conflict. This is like a judge sitting in on witness depositions in a case he will be called on to judge impartially.
It is apparent that Bartlett, Leake and Wallace, acted, often consulting with each other on several occasions, to derail the investigation away from issues and witnesses they considered dangerous to Gov. Perdue and her committee.
And Mr. Bartletts’ conclusion in his memo the Board that there is no evidence that there is no intent of wrongdoing is an embarrassment to the people of North Carolina.
Accordingly, we call today for Executive Director Bartlett and Chairman Leake to resign their positions immediately. It would be the first honorable thing they’ve done in this matter. Failing that, Gov. Perdue should remove Chairman Leake, appoint a replacement, and ask the Board to immediately begin a search for a new Executive Director.
Because any of this is unlikely to happen, by letter today, we are asking Wake County District Attorney to launch an investigation into obstruction of justice at the NC BOE, particularly the actions of Mr. Bartlett and Chairman Leake.
Furthermore, we intend to press forward with our public records request. We want all documents, correspondence, email, records of phone conversations and drafts of reports leading up to the one released on Friday. We specifically want to see if Mr. Bartlett or Chairman Leake edited the request and the timeline submitted by the Kim Strach before releasing it on Friday. We will press on until the people of North Carolina get the answers they deserve. “
Unknown Feed
Citizen WElls 