But as the Associated Press points out, elected officials enjoy at least seven legal exemptions that the rest of us do not:

Yes, now no one can say President Obama hasn’t done anything about unemployment—he is allowing those bureaucrats who sign the checks to be recognized for their work.

In 2010, the unemployment insurance (UI) program celebrated its 75^th anniversary.  To commemorate, a new awards ceremony was introduced.  The Department of Labor (DOL) established the UI Innovation Awards and the UI Hall of Fame to recognize the outstanding work of individuals and state UI agencies.

The 2011 awards ceremony will be held Oct. 17-20 at the Biltmore Hotel in Providence, R.I.  The going rate for a junior suite with two king-sized beds during the convention is $119 a night, not too bad.   Of course since this is a federal government department, you can assume your tax dollars are paying for the convention as well as probably contributing to the UI Hall of Fame celebration.

A request of the budget for this convention from the organizer of the awards ceremonies at the Department of Labor went unanswered.  Americans for Limited Government (ALG) is currently working on a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to find out the cost to taxpayers for this event.

To nominate a person for the UI Hall of Fame, whether dead or alive, one of more of the following achievements must have occurred (as reported from the DOL’s information on the award):

1. Promoting Legislation or Public Policy

Nominee has made important contributions to the achievement of significant Federal legislation or public policies that have improved and strengthened the Unemployment Insurance program.

2. Improved System Performance

Nominee has made significant contributions to major improvements in services to workers and/or employers or system performance in the Unemployment Insurance program.

Likewise, a state UI agency can be nominated for the UI Innovation Awards if they meet the following criteria (as reported from the DOL’s information on the awards):

1. Integrity – Innovations to improve program integrity by reducing improper UI benefit payments or denials, preventing the avoidance of unemployment tax liability and/or misclassification of workers, and improving the collection of overpayments and tax assessments.

2. Improved Worker and Employer Services – Innovations to improve service delivery in the areas of benefit payments, claims processing, adjudication, and tax processing.

3. Reemployment – Innovations to improve the employment outcomes of individuals receiving UI.

All nominations will be reviewed by a panel of judges appointed by the Administrator of the Office of Unemployment Insurance.

The conference is jointly sponsored by the UI division within the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA).

It isn’t just these awards ceremonies that will occur during the conference.  Like the conference website states, “This year’s theme is ‘State of Hope’- Keeping the Safety Net Strong.  Since Rhode Island’s state motto is ‘Hope’ we are certain that you will leave Providence feeling optimistic and hopeful that the future of Unemployment Insurance will withstand and pass the test of time.”

It is good to know that the Department of Labor “hopes” for a strong future for unemployment insurance.  It would seem through award ceremonies like this that the American people would be confused by President Obama’s messaging.  Is it his priority to build up a program that hinders American workers from finding a job and living free from government intervention?

If so, the messaging would be akin to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosting a Hall of Fame ceremony recognizing which regulations killed the most U.S. jobs.

Originally posted at NetRightDaily.com

Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) and NetRightDaily.com.  You can follower her on twitter at @RebekahRast.

The order, issued by Judge Clark Waddoup in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, stemmed from the bureau’s failure to comply with a three-year-old Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Salt Lake City lawyer Jesse Trentadue, a man on a quest for answers related to the Oklahoma City Bombing and the death of his brother, Kenneth Trentadue, who died under suspicious circumstances several months later while in custody at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City.

Judge Waddoups’ order was both clear and concise. The items to which the FBI was to respond by June 30, 2011, and how the bureau responded (shown in italics after each item) appear below:

1. Affirm whether the six government officials from the FBI and CIA who had submitted affidavits in this case had misrepresented information or provided incomplete or otherwise misleading information to the Court. In response to this item, the only thing Judge Waddoups received as an affidavit from David M. Hardy, section chief of the FBI’s Record/Information Dissemination Section of the Records Management Divsion in Winchester, Va. The CIA submitted nothing.

2. Advise whether the I-Drive and S-Drive, data storage areas on the FBI computer system, were searched for the videotapes and other documents sought by my FOIA request and, if not, why not. In response, the FBI told the judge the I-Drive no longer exists and that FBI officials have no reason to believe that S-Drive would contain anything.

3. State whether the Evidence Control Centers or other evidence storage facilities located at FBI Headquarters, the FBI Crime Lab and FBI Oklahoma City Field Office were manually searched for the videotapes and other requested materials and, if not, explain why such searches were not done. The FBI responded by saying their headquarters does not have an Evidence Control Center and that the FBI Crime Lab was instructed to send all OKBOMB materials to the Oklahoma City FBI Field Office, where they were placed in a warehouse. According to Hardy, “it is always possible” that these materials/evidence “might have been misfiled and thus could be located somewhere other than in the OKBOMB file (though it would be impossible to know where).”

4. Manually search the OKBOMB physical files at FBI Headquarters, the FBI Crime Lab and the FBI Oklahoma City Field Office for the videotapes and other requested documents or provide evidence as to why such a search would be too burdensome. The FBI responded, explaining to the judge that no manual search was done because to manually search the 450,000 pages of the physical file that might contain the location of this evidence, would require one and one-half years of an FBI agent’s time.

5. Provide the court with an affidavit from Mr. Hardy stating that he does not know of either the existence of or the likely locations of the videotapes and that he is unaware of anyone else that may know of the existence or likely locations of the videotapes. The FBI response via Hardy: “I am unaware of the existence or likely location of additional tapes responsive to the plaintiff’s FOIA request, including tapes from the Murrah Building or any additional Hanger tape other than the tape that plaintiff already received, and do not know of anyone who would know where additional tapes would be located.”

In an email this morning, Jesse Trentadue pointed out several things to me about the FBI’s response as being “noteworthy.”

“There is no affidavit from someone within the FBI stating that the tapes do not exist,” he wrote, adding that FBI officials couldn’t make such a claim, because it would conflict with three sworn affidavits, the contents of which had already been made public in a post published April 7.

In that post, I shared documents Trentadue had shared with me that contain fodder provided by three people — OKC police officer Don Browning, private security specialist Bradford Cooley and FBI Agent Ricardo Ojeda — that sheds light on the FBI’s response to the FOIA request.

Browning noted in a declaration to the court that he and other non-federal rescuers were ordered to leave the Murrah Building soon after the bomb exploded despite the need to move quickly in hopes of locating and, hopefully, saving victims trapped by the blast. In addition, he wrote the following:

That same morning, I observed men wearing jackets with “FBI” printed on the back removing the surveillance video cameras from the exterior of the Murrah Federal Building. I thought this was part of the FBI’s evidence gathering or “chain of custody” procedures since those exterior cameras would have shown and recorded delivery of the bomb in a Ryder truck that morning as well as the person or persons who exited that truck.

I knew from my training and experience as a police officer that an investigation of the bombing and prosecution of those involved would require not only preserving the videotapes of the event but also require preserving the cameras and tape decks by which those videotapes were made. Nevertheless, I did think it odd that the FBI’s removal of those cameras was taking place while many people were still trapped alive in the rubble of the Murrah Federal Building and so many of us were working desperately to find them.

Cooley’s declaration, in which he outlined his knowledge of the surveillance systems at the Murrah Building, included the following hard-to-ignore observations:

From my knowledge of the video surveillance system in place at the Murrah Federal Building, an my presence on scene just after the bomb exploded, I have no doubt that the two external cameras on the Northwest and Northeast corners of the Building would certainly have recorded the entire event. Those cameras would even have recorded the delivery of the bomb to the Murrah Federal Building in a Ryder truck and, most importantly, those cameras would also have recorded everyone who exited that truck prior to the explosion. Because of their distance from the Murrah Federal Building, ADT’s offices were not destroyed or otherwise damaged in the bombing, which means that the videotapes should still exist.

In a sworn affidavit dated May 21, 2001, Ojeda outlined how the FBI handled information they did not want to see brought up in court:

The FBI also kept “zero files,” which were reports containing information that the FBI would not generally want disclosed to the defense and which were kept separate from a specific case file. These files were kept internally within the Bureau and typically were not turned over to the prosecution or the defense. Files would be assigned numbers bases on the type of offense or investigation involved, for example, a bank robbery would be assigned a particular number. A letter A after that number would mean highest importance. A zero after that number would mean that the report should go into the “zero” file.

On the last page of his affidavit, Ojeda added the statement below:

Although there are many very good FBI agents, there are also FBI agents, including some who worked on the Oklahoma City bombing case, who are willing to subvert the truth in order to protect fellow agents.

In addition to the conflicts surfacing between the FBI’s stance and statements made in the affidavits above, it appears FBI officials are playing a shell game with Jesse Trentadue and the judge.

Jesse Trentadue pointed out that, for the first time in three years, the FBI said that all Oklahoma City Bombing-related evidence and documents are in a warehouse somewhere in Oklahoma City. In addition, he noted that bureau officials misrepresented the purpose of the S-Drive before the court.

“This was the time and the place for FBI officials to come forward with evidence of no tapes, but they did not,” said Jesse Trentadue during an interview Friday about the matter. “They are, in plain English, in contempt of the court’s order.”

Click here to read my previous posts about my investigation into the Oklahoma City Bombing.

The hearing will take place with Judge Clark Waddoups presiding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. It comes some three and a half years after Utah attorney Jesse Trentadue used FOIA to request the FBI turn over copies of surveillance video captured April 19, 1995, by more than 20 cameras operating in the vicinity of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City.

I don’t agree with Trentadue’s belief that the bombing was likely a U.S. government-sponsored operation; instead, I side with the conclusions offered by Jayna Davis, award-winning investigative reporter and best-selling author, in her 2004 book, “The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing.” Still, I remain troubled that the FBI has fought the release of videotape footage likely to reveal the identity of at least one additional person involved in the bombing that took place less than 30 minutes from where I was living at the time.

Specifically, Trentadue requested footage captured prior to 9:02 a.m. Central, when a truck bomb exploded, killing 168 people, and footage from the dashboard camera of Oklahoma Highway Patrolman Charles Hanger’s vehicle showing the arrest of Timothy McVeigh. He received footage from several cameras, but not from the cameras on the Murrah Building itself; hence, the reason for the May 11 hearing.

In his Memorandum in Support of Rule 56(f) Motion for Continuance Pending Discovery, Trentadue explained that his lawsuit “is not about reports and documents” and is, instead, “a case about videotapes.”

It is also a case about the most crucial evidence in what was then the biggest investigation ever handled by FBI Defendants: the bombing of the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murray Federal Building, he wrote. The videotapes at issue will expose that others were involved in that terrorist attack.

After explaining that FBI defendants do not present the court with any proof that these tapes do not exist and that their claim that the tapes cannot be found despite a computer search for this evidence does not relieve them of their FOIA obligations, Trentadue directed the court’s attention to ordinary Americans:

The American public has a right to know what happened in Oklahoma City on the morning of April 19, 1995 and, more importantly, why? Yet, it is obvious that for some reason FBI Defendants do not want the truth about the Oklahoma City bombing made public. Perhaps the reason is as simple as: the Federal Government’s prior knowledge of that planned attack and failure to prevent it, or that there were others involved whom the Federal government chose not to expose and/or prosecute. But whatever the reason, that is precisely why the FOIA became law: to protect the right of American citizens to know their own history and, more importantly, their government. And that is why the Court should reject the FBI Defendants’ claim that their only obligation is to search their computerized records for this evidence knowing that it is not there and once that search they knew would fail has been concluded, they need do no more.

After citing several legal precedents to back up his argument, Trentadue shared documents with me that contain fodder provided by three people — OKC police officer Don Browning, private security specialist Bradford Cooley and FBI Agent Ricardo Ojeda — that sheds light on the Bureau’s response to the FOIA request.

Browning noted in his declaration to the court that he and other non-federal rescuers were ordered to leave the Murrah Building soon after the bomb exploded despite the need to move quickly in hopes of locating and, hopefully, saving victims trapped by the blast. In addition, he wrote the following:

That same morning, I observed men wearing jackets with “FBI” printed on the back removing the surveillance video cameras from the exterior of the Murrah Federal Building. I thought this was part of the FBI’s evidence gathering or “chain of custody” procedures since those exterior cameras would have shown and recorded delivery of the bomb in a Ryder truck that morning as well as the person or persons who exited that truck.

I knew from my training and experience as a police officer that an investigation of the bombing and prosecution of those involved would require not only preserving the videotapes of the event but also require preserving the cameras and tape decks by which those videotapes were made. Nevertheless, I did think it odd that the FBI’s removal of those cameras was taking place while many people were still trapped alive in the rubble of the Murrah Federal Building and so many of us were working desperately to find them.

Cooley’s declaration, in which he outlined his knowledge of the surveillance systems at the Murrah Building, included the following hard-to-ignore observations:

From my knowledge of the video surveillance system in place at the Murrah Federal Building, an my presence on scene just after the bomb exploded, I have no doubt that the two external cameras on the Northwest and Northeast corners of the Building would certainly have recorded the entire event. Those cameras would even have recorded the delivery of the bomb to the Murrah Federal Building in a Ryder truck and, most importantly, those cameras would also have recorded everyone who exited that truck prior to the explosion. Because of their distance from the Murrah Federal Building, ADT’s offices were not destroyed or otherwise damaged in the bombing, which means that the videotapes should still exist.

In a sworn affidavit dated May 21, 2001, Ojeda outlined how the FBI handled information they did not want to see brought up in court:

The FBI also kept “zero files,” which were reports containing information that the FBI would not generally want disclosed to the defense and which were kept separate from a specific case file. These files were kept internally within the Bureau and typically were not turned over to the prosecution or the defense. Files would be assigned numbers bases on the type of offense or investigation involved, for example, a bank robbery would be assigned a particular number. A letter A after that number would mean highest importance. A zero after that number would mean that the report should go into the “zero” file.

On the last page of the sworn affidavit, Ojeda added the statement below:

Although there are many very good FBI agents, there are also FBI agents, including some who worked on the Oklahoma City bombing case, who are willing to subvert the truth in order to protect fellow agents.

It will be interesting to see how the judge rules in this case, but I won’t be holding my breath in anticipation of a groundbreaking ruling. Neither will Trentadue.

“If the Utah Federal Court does rule in my favor and order the tapes produced,” he told me via e-mail today, “I expect the FBI to again go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to have that order set aside.”

Noting that the Bureau has a track record of successfully appealing lower court rulings, Trentadue offered a prediction.

“In short, May 11, 2011, will be just another battle in a very long war and not the end of the war.”

RELATED LINKS:

To learn more, click here to find links to all of my posts about the Oklahoma City Bombing.

For an overview of why Jesse Trentadue became interested in the bombing, visit KennethTrentadue.com, the web site he created after his brother Kenneth died under suspicious circumstances while in custody at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City.

As his other project, the University of Virginia, gets further backed into a corner on the ‘Hockey Stick’ records it is spending upwards of a half a million dollars to keep from the public (even though the public paid for and has every right to them), we now see what Charlottesville radio host Joe Thomas of WCHV likes to note in this context as “UVA getting its Nixon on”. This time with a little help from its friends outraged that laws would be applied to the academic class:

Delegate David Toscano
211 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.220.1660 PHONE
434.220-1677 FAX
www.davidtoscano.com

******MEDIA ADVISORY******

Press Conference

Richmond –Senator A. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico), Senator J. Chapman Petersen (D-Fairfax) and Delegate David Toscano (D-Charlottesville) will hold a press conference on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, in Senate Room 1 at the Capitol at 10:45 am to discuss their proposed legislation that repeals and limits the authority of the Attorney General to issue civil investigative demands.

Who: Senators McEachin, Petersen and Delegate Toscano

What: Press Conference on CID authority

Where: Senate Room 1

When: 10:45 am

Why: Limit the Attorney General’s authority to issue CIDs

At this press conference someone in the press might ask (hey, stop laughing) why the legislators in unanimously passing this law in both chambers forgot to exempt the academic class when passing the law. Or, did they just think it would be applied to people doing things they didn’t approve of?

As to why this troublesome law needs to be nipped in the bud, one need look no further than the transcript of oral argument on the matter August 20, 2010, in Albemarle County Circuit Court:

[Deputy Attorney General Wesley] RUSSELL:  The scope was limited when the University called and said, look, we don’t have one e-mail server.  They’re department by departments.  To check the e-mails as [the CID is] phrased, we which would have to check literally every server on campus because we don’t have a central e-mail server.

Specify the departments, would you do that? So we did.  And we specified I think eight specific departments.  We said, limit your  servers to that.  If you have a central e-mail server, just run the search terms like anybody would in any discovery.  But as far as going to individual departments, these are the only individual departments you have to go to.

And, of course, this comes out in this case with this history.  Prior to Attorney General Cuccinelli even being sworn in, various FOIA requests were made for both Mr. Mann’s e-mails and e-mails of other scientists in the Climate Science Department.  By the way, the University said to the responders that they raise no objection that the e-mails weren’t discoverable under FOIA or available under FOIA.  In fact, for some they said, yes, we have them.  Pay this fee and we’ll produce the e-mails to you [referring to a Greenpeace request for 'skeptic' Dr. Pat Michaels' emails].

Regarding Dr. Mann, specifically, they said, we have no e-mails.  And, in fact, in our papers we have attached the response of the University’s FOIA officer who said, we’ve had two IT engineers search exhaustively. There are no e-mails.

In my first conversation with [Associate UVA Counsel] Mr. Meek when a request for an extension was made I said, look, do you have any of these e-mails?  I don’t want to give you a 60-day extension and then at the end of the 60 days you say, we never had anything anyway.

Mr. Meek represented to me that a backup e-mail server had been found, which may have responsive data on it.

If we are entitled to every inference, and I don’t mean to suggest in any way any ill play by the University, but at this stage based on their cases we’re entitled to every inference.  You can draw a heck of an  interesting inference from that one, that it took the CID to discover the backup e-mails.

So, now that — thanks to Mr. Cuccinelli’s CID — the University’s claim that the records do not exist is no longer operative, and having said they identified the particular server , we have moved under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act, directing to them to conduct a very inexpensive, targeted search for those (already found) documents on that (already identified) server.

UVA’s last-minute response to us on Thursday rang similar to their responses to the AG’s office, in that they claimed more time to respond, on the basis of the request being broad (of course, they’ve already conducted the search…), and implying under the law’s requirements they are producing the records. Except their history is one of doing everything possible to not produce the records. Using this time to simply delay formally denying us the records is consistent with past UVA behavior, but not with the law. So, more on what is going on here as we proceed this week.

Several times during the past 18 months, I’ve contacted people at the National Institute of Justice — the research, development and evaluation arm of the DoJ in Washington, D.C. — with seemingly-innocuous questions about a grant the agency awarded to a state mental health agency in Oklahoma almost five years ago. NIJ’s answers would better equip me to explain to my readers how NIJ works. Unfortunately, it seems NIJ officials prefer I remain “blind” to what’s going on inside the agency.

Some background: Curious to learn details about NIJ’s criteria for granting non-competitive awards, I forwarded several questions to Jolene Hernon July 28. After pointing out to my contact in the NIJ Office of Communications that less than one percent of the total amount of NIJ’s annual awards in 2009 was non-competitive, according to the Guidelines Regarding Non-Competitive Awards published on the NIJ web site, I asked several questions as follows:

• I asked Hernon to explain whether or not the guidelines used in granting non-competitive awards have changed since Jan. 1, 2005, and, if they have changed, asked her to explain those changes;

• Prefacing my request with “If the guidelines have not changed,” I asked her to explain the basis upon which a particular non-competitive award was granted; and

• Finally, I asked for a copy of the NIJ director’s “determination in writing,” as called for in the current guidelines, that the award in question was worthy of non-competitive status.

I asked the final question above after reading on the NIJ web site that the agency’s policy is to make non-competitive awards only under the following circumstances:

• Only one reasonable source — instances where only one responsible applicant can perform the work of the proposed award. Circumstances under which this may occur include when the NIJ Director has determined in writing that:

~ The applicant has proprietary information or proposes a project involving a unique idea, method, or approach toward advancing criminal justice, policy, and practice in the United States.

~ The applicant has made a substantial investment in an activity that would advance criminal justice policy and practice in the United States. The majority of NIJ’s non-competitive awards to other Federal agencies fall into this category. These agreements are developed to leverage the investment or infrastructure of these agencies to criminal justice application.

~ The applicant is the only entity known to possess the capability to perform the work.

• Compelling public interest — instances where the NIJ Director has determined in writing that exigent, urgent, or other compelling circumstances exist that make it in the public interest to make an award non-competitively. One example of such an instance might be an unusual and compelling urgency to execute a pilot project within a short window of opportunity to affect a public policy decision.

• Statutory requirements — instances where a funding recipient is specified by an appropriations act or other applicable law.

• Recommendations in Congressional reports, when a non-competitive award would be consistent with applicable law — instances where a House, Senate, or Conference Report accompanying an appropriations act or other law recommends an award to a particular recipient, and an award may be made consistent with applicable law, including any applicable executive orders.

I closed my request by asking Hernon to “Please let me know if you plan to respond to this as a media inquiry or whether I must submit the questions above via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).”

Make no mistake, I have received several short e-mail bursts from Hernon since July 28, but none qualify as answers. For instance:

• On July 28, she wrote, “I will respond. But it will take me a day or two to find out the answers to your questions.”

• On July 30, she assured me, “I am still working on getting answers to your questions.”

• On Aug. 12, she explained, “As I am not a grant manager, I do not know the system very well. So I have been coordinating with others here at our agency.”

• On Aug. 20, she told me, “The people who can help answer your questions have scheduled a meeting for next week. I will be back in touch.”

On Wednesday, after going 34 days without an answer, I sent this message to Hernon:

“I think you would agree that 34 days should be plenty of time for any government agency to answer my questions — unless, that is, they’re trying to cover things up or rewrite history. Should I expect answers anytime soon? Please advise.”

What happened to the citizen’s right to know?  Right now, I feel blind.

In a letter dated Sept. 11 that terminated the Census Bureau’s relationship with ACORN, Census director Robert M. Groves wrote

Over the last several months, through ongoing communication with our regional offices, it is clear that ACORN’s affiliation with the 2010 Census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general public, has indeed become a distraction from our mission, and may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting 2010 Census efforts.

While not decisive factors in this decision, recent events concerning several local offices of ACORN have added to the worsening negative perceptions of ACORN and its affiliation with our partnership efforts.

The Census had to act because it’s important to keep dishonest and incompetent workers far away from the nation’s once-a-decade Census.

The data gathered are used to help determine who gets what and how much in the nation’s federalist system of governance. Population figures arrived at through the Census decide which states gain and lose seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, the redistricting of state legislatures, county and city councils, and electoral districts.

False or inflated population figures can water down or negate entirely the value of an individual’s vote just as effectively as stuffing ballot boxes.

That’s why Americans were outraged last year when they learned the Obama administration bent over backwards to give ACORN a major role as a “national partner” in the 2010 Census.

In March, after the Obama administration tried unsuccessfully to consolidate control over Census operations in the White House, officials downplayed the significance of ACORN’s participation in the Census:

Any charge or claim that a Census Bureau partner could influence or have direct input into census operations is baseless and inaccurate … the Census Bureau has strict quality assurance procedures in every operation to prevent the introduction of errors and/or fraudulent information into the national count.

The official statement was, however, largely beside the point.

After Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the administration the Census Bureau disclosed that ACORN’s involvement gave it ample opportunities to influence how the count would be conducted.

ACORN’s status as a “national partner” in the Census entitled it to “[i]dentify job candidates and distribute recruiting materials,” and “[p]rovide space to train new employees.”

Just what the Census needs: radical left-wing community organizers as employees, recruiters, and trainers.

The “national partner” status also would have helped ACORN to pose as a respectable group by allowing it to “[u]se census drop-in articles, messages and logos in newsletters, mailings, etc.” (See page 113 of the Census Bureau’s May 15, 2009 Freedom of Information Act response to Judicial Watch.)

“Given its history of illegal activity and fraud, ACORN should be nowhere near the 2010 Census,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said last year.

Follow me on Twitter.