Raises Issues Not Previously Briefed Before The Eleventh Circuit; Apparent Clinton-Gore Administration/Castro Collaboration In Returning Elian To Cuba
Judicial Watch. June 19, 2000
Press Conference At 12:00 Noon at National Press Club in Lisagor Room
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 Time: 12 O'clock Noon (EDT) Place: National Press Club Lisagor Room 529 - 14th Street, N.W. Washington, DC
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public-interest law firm that battles corruption in government, has been active during the Elian saga. Recently, in its Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, it uncovered documents, pursuant to Court order, showing that there is no valid policy with regard to
deciding Elian's request for an asylum hearing, but that instead the Clinton-Gore Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") had, pursuant to an apparent deal, decided to become the de facto agent of the Cuban government. Accordingly, the INS' decision to return Elian to Cuba is void
and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals must reconsider its prior order. The documents underpinning this argument were not discovered until recently, and that is why Judicial Watch is filing an amicus curiae brief with the Eleventh Circuit. The lawyers of the Miami relatives did not raise these
arguments in the brief they filed last Thursday.
At the press conference today, Donato Dalrymple will appear via telephone hookup from South Florida.
For more information, contact Richard Tomkins, Director of Communications, at Judicial Watch, for further information - (202) 646-5172.
Judicial Watch, Inc. © 2000, Judicial Watch, Inc. ® All rights reserved.
Related Documents
- BRIEF OF JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC - Brief as filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit (06/20/2000) -
MOTION OF JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC - Brief as filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit (06/20/2000) |