Thanks to Sharon…
Attorney General Perez Obstructs Justice?
Violates civil rights of residents of St. Paul… All Americans?
The following two links are only for education. Caution is urged before exercising your Constitutional rights in seeking redress due to known cases of corrupt and unconstitutional practices employed by the DOJ the Courts systems and supporting military, civilian, government and police agencies to protect the corruption.
For those who accept the risks and chose to move forward and act as responsible Americans, to begin to end corruption your options are provided below:
Your Constitutional Duty and Authority is provided here:
18 USC § 4 – Misprision of felony
USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version.
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
To file criminal complaint see more details here:
Complaint form here:
Joint Staff Report: Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: How Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez Manipulated Justice and Ignored the Rule of Law
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa , House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley released a joint staff report “Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: How Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez Manipulated Justice and Ignored the Rule of Law”. The report details how DOJ’s civil rights division chief Thomas Perez made a secret deal with the City of St. Paul that ultimately prevented the Justice Department from recovering up to $200 million for taxpayers.
- The Department of Justice entered into a quid pro quo arrangement with the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, in which the Department agreed to drop two cases — United States ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul and United States ex rel. Ellis v. City of St. Paul et al. — in exchange for the City withdrawing Magner v. Gallagher from the Supreme Court.
- In declining to intervene in a whistleblower complaint as part of the quid pro quo with the City of St. Paul, the Department of Justice gave up the opportunity to recover as much as $200 million.
- The initial development of the quid pro quo by senior political appointees, and the subsequent 180 degree change of position, confused and frustrated the career Department of Justice attorneys responsible for enforcing the False Claims Act, who described the situation as “weirdness,” “ridiculous,” and a case of “cover your head ping pong.”
- The “consensus” of the federal government to switch its recommendation and decline intervention in Newell was the direct result of Assistant Attorney General Perez manipulating the process and advising and overseeing the communications between the City of St. Paul, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Civil Division within the Department of Justice.
- Assistant Attorney General Perez attempted to cover up the quid pro quo when he personally instructed career attorneys to omit a discussion of Magner in the declination memos that outlined the reasons for the Department’s decision to decline intervention in Newell and Ellis, and focus instead only “on the merits.”
- Assistant Attorney General Perez attempted to cover up the quid pro quo when he insisted that the final deal with the City settling two cases worth potentially millions of dollars to the Treasury not be reduced to writing, instead insisting that your “word was your bond.”
- Assistant Attorney General Perez made multiple statements to the Committees that contradicted testimony from other witnesses and documentary evidence.
- The ethics and professional responsibility opinions obtained by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez and his staff were narrowly focused on his personal and financial interests in a deal and his authority to speak on behalf of the Civil Division, and thus do not address the quid pro quo itself or Perez’s particular actions in effectuating the quid pro quo.
- The Justice Department marginalized a whistleblower and reduced him to a “bargaining chip” in his own words to advance their agenda.