Follow BeltwayBlips on Twitter
-
rjdmru WILL THE DEPARTMETN OF JUSTICE INVESTIGATE ITS OWN?
March 29, 2009 Certified Mail 7103 7975 6410 3203 5540
Senator Harry Reid
333 Las Vegas Blvd., South # 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Dear Senator Reid:
As a respected elected official and concern for the public interest the enclosed a matter of bribery and influence peddling in the Executive Branch, Department of Justice. The correspondence or evidence is seen to prevent an investigation of a federal criminal statute, title 18 sec. 1510. Casework, or review, is provided in the enclosed Integrity Committee letter dated February 13, 2009.
To directly or indirectly, corruptly give, offer or promise anything of value to influence an act or to prevent an act can be construed as bribery.
The Integrity Committee letter states the Inspector General EEOC has discretion to open an investigation of a violation of law, title 18. This is patently untrue. To forward a matter of apparent violation of title 18 to a criminal investigator is a 15-minute task. No mention of EEOC ethics official that is required by 28 U.S. Code sec. 535 to report any information relating to violation of any criminal statute, title 18. Assistant Legal Counsel APR 2006 letter has an opposite story to direct a matter of alteration of records, title 18 sec. 1001, to the United States Attorney’s Office. No mention in the OLC letter the IG discretion to open an investigation. What is EEOC hiding not to comply with laws, rules and regulations of the United States? How many other hard working Americans may have been denied fair and impartial treatment?
The Inspector General apparently was promised or given something of value to have duped, misled, or possibly lied to a federal investigative agent to make a false writing of a review in a civil rights claim. Public service is public trust. Each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens. This is a force, sense of duty an obligation of public service to comply with the law, rules, and regulations of the United States. Clearly EEOC Washington, DC, field offices, Nevada, California, Arizona, North Carolina and others have a double standard of the obligation of public service and do not share the concept of equal treatment under the law.
As an elected official and Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution and equal treatment under the law that your office promptly forward the entire correspondence to the Attorney General for comment. It is the obligation, an Oath of Office the Attorney General to defend the Constitution and defend equal treatment under the law. Not to do so would only embolden others in public service to perpetuate bribery and influence peddling for private gain. This would add the perception there are those that choose not to have a responsibility to the United States and its citizens may not be fit for public service.
I feel confident your office and colleagues would like to hear the comment and proposed action by the Attorney General of the United States in a civil rights matter.
Sincerely,
CERTIFIED MAIL
Richard J. Davidson
5122 Cedros Ave.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Enclosures
cc: Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker
EEOC & others
US Attorney General Ignores Inconvenient Legal Opinion, Shops Around For One He Likes Better
Ace of Spades HQ —
US Attorney General Ignores Inconvenient Legal Opinion, Shops Around For One He Likes Better You see, Eric Holder is brave while you my dear fellow American are simply a coward. That's why he gets to ignore his Office Of Legal Council's judgment that the bill to give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House is blatantly unconstitutional l and simply find a political hack who will back the ...
Attorney General Subverting the Constitution
Wizbang —
... grant D.C. residents a right to elect a voting representative in Congress." Attorney General can argue that he thinks this is bill is constitutional until he's blue in the face, but his won't be the final decision. His job is to uphold the law, not to interpret it the way he wants based upon his political proclivities. It's the judiciary's job to interpret the law and it will be the judiciary that has the final say on whether this bill is constitutional, not AG Holder. Andy McCarthy weighs in and takes Holder to task for his attempts to maneuver around the Constitution: The ...
The rule of non-frivolous "law"
Power Line —
... A lawyer representing an ordinary client is free, and may in some cases be obligated, to take weak but non-frivolous legal positions to promote a client's interests. But the United States is not an ordinary client. And the Department of Justice should be what its name says, not the Department of Promoting the Political Goals of the President. As Andy McCarthy puts it, " the Justice Department is supposed to take the most legally sound position, not any position preferred by the president that may pass the laugh-test." ...
Happy Hour Links
Weekly Standard Blog —
Eric Holder v. the U.S. Constitution
Obama gives the Queen of England an iPod with his speeches on it.
Paul Ryan: "The GOP's Alternative Budget"
Judd Gregg: "A Budget To Beggar Us"
Kirsten Powers: "Abortion-rights activists sneer about anti-abortion advocates ignoring science. But the reality is that science is not on the side of NARAL or their ilk, and they know that. That’s why they don’t want women looking at ultrasounds or hearing that what they call a 'little clump of cells' has a heartbeat at 3 ...
Holder: Get me another brief
TigerHawk —
As Andy McCarthy comments on over at The Corner, the Washington Post reported this morning that Attorney General Eric Holder asked for a second opinion regarding the constitutionality of the D.C. voting rights bill, after receiving an opinion from his own Office of Legal Counsel earlier this year that ...
Scrutinizing Holder’s Actions on Guantanamo - And Beyond
Pajamas Media —
... revealed that Holder had overridden the legal finding of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which determined that the legislation to provide voting rights for the District of Columbia was unconstitutional. Conservative critics were quick to point out that it was just this sort of political arm-twisting of career attorneys which brought scorn upon (and eventually the resignation of) George W. Bush’s attorney general, ...
