Last week, the LAPD came under fire for using what some have labeled as “inappropriate force” against violent illegal immigration “reform” protestors. This is how the Associated Press chose to report the incident: “Rally organizers denounced police actions as brutal and unnecessary, and worried what the clash could mean for an immigration rights movement known for its peaceful rallies.”

Peaceful rallies?

According to the authorities, some of the protesters had moved off the sidewalks and onto the streets, where they did not belong, precipitating the conflict. As the police attempted to maintain order, some of protestors started throwing rocks and bottles at them. Judicial Watch, in prior investigations and lawsuits, is familiar with the anarchists and Aztlan-types likely behind the violence. The illegal acts caused the police to warn the mob to disperse, the commands were ignored, and the police sought to gain control by firing rubber (non-lethal) devices and using batons when necessary, as they are trained to do. No one was seriously injured, though many police had minor injuries thanks to the mob violence. But that hasn’t stopped the illegal immigrant lobby from turning the matter into a media circus. The FBI has announced it will now investigate the LAPD’s use of force against the protesters. And Police Chief William Bratton, for his part, says the tactics used by his officers “were inappropriate.”

Instead of berating police officers, who had an extremely difficult job controlling a violent mob of illegal aliens, Chief Bratton and the other politicians of LA should be held to account for how their own policies and procedures have contributed to the illegal alien problem. For instance, Special Order 40, the LAPD’s version of an illegal alien “sanctuary policy,” prevents police officers from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status and freely communicating with federal immigration officials. Such policies are illegal and only serve to worsen the illegal immigration problem by inducing illegals to cross the border.

Last month, Judicial Watch deposed two LAPD police officials and continued to collect evidence in its lawsuit, brought on behalf of a LA taxpayer, against the LAPD over Special Order 40. If Chief Bratton is concerned about the rule of law in Los Angeles, he would work to rescind Special Order 40 and allow his officers to do their job, helping to enforce all the laws, including our nation’s immigration laws.

Republican Presidential Candidates Dodge Question on Clinton Corruption

During the Republican debate, which was held at the Reagan Presidential Library, of course, the issue of ethics was largely ignored. However, the candidates were given a golden opportunity to address the serious issue of Clinton corruption, and, with one exception, their responses were lacking.

Here was the question, posed by the moderator, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “Would it be good for America to have Bill [and Hillary] Clinton back living in the White House?” Now, I know how I would have responded to this question, but check out what the Republican candidates for president said:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney expressed his fears of having the Clintons and Pelosi direct the war on terror. Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore talked about Hillary Clinton’s efforts to socialize medicine. Senator Sam Brownback raised the prospect of tax hikes. Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson talked about a national ID card. Former New York Mayor Giuliani reminded the audience about Bill Clinton’s impotent response to “Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.” And Arizona Senator John McCain talked about the need to nominate conservative Judges.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, had the only decent response: “I am known for sticking to principle and not flip-flopping. I voted to impeach him, so...”

I’m not saying the issues raised by the candidates are not important. The question invited specific responses on Clinton corruption. How can one address the concept of having the Clintons back in the White House without talking about their corruption? This subject seems to be off limits for Republicans. According to a recent Zogy poll sponsored by Judicial Watch 36% of likely voters, more than one-third, do not trust Bill Clinton to behave honestly in the White House if Hillary is elected president. And that concern has nothing to do with national ID cards or tax hikes.

JW Files Complaint against Judge for Releasing Violent Criminals Back into Society

On April 26, I sent a formal complaint to the Virgin Island Commission on Judicial Disabilities against Superior Court Judge Leon Kendall. (According to the U.S. Virgin Islands Code “any person” can submit such a complaint.) Why? We were approached by concerned citizens and so Judicial Watch acted. Here’s what I wrote in my complaint letter:

“By numerous accounts, Judge Kendall has engaged in a disturbing pattern of conduct that has undermined public confidence in the judiciary and the administration of justice. On at least eight occasions, Judge Kendall reportedly has allowed persons arrested for violent crimes to be released back into society with little or no bail.”

Here’s just one example:

Daniel Castillo was arrested and charged with a violent attack on a woman. Despite the fact that he had an extensive criminal history, including charges of rape, assault, and weapons violations, Judge Kendall released Castillo on his own recognizance. (In other words, Castillo was allowed to leave without paying bail so long as he “promised” to appear in court when required.) Shortly after being released by Kendall, Castillo was arrested and charged with murdering a 12-year old girl. He has confessed to the crime.

Castillo is just the tip of the iceberg. Click here to read the full complaint, which describes a litany of other examples of Judge Kendall’s lax and reckless approach to the problem of violent crime.

Needless to say, the behavior of Judge Kendall has led to a massive public outcry in the Virgin Islands. Judicial Watch is calling for the commission to fully investigate and hold to account Judge Kendall. I’ll let you know when I receive a response from the commission.

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.