The following response has been sent by e-mail, but no responsive letter could be sent since I don’t know the person who sent the e-mail. I don’t even know which department to send a letter to since it could be fromt he FOIA, the Departments of Homeland Security, or the Office of the Inspector General.


As I write this reply to your e-mail, I hope you can imagine my frustration in attempting to reply to someone who sent me an e-mail which was signed “FOIA/DHS-OIG.” I have no way of knowing the identity of the person with whom I am communicating, or even what department you are in…the FOIA department of Homeland Security, the Department of Homeland Security generally, or the Office of the Inspector General. You have suggested that it is my job to request documents from particular “components” within Homeland Security. However the experience I have just had with you is the very reason that it would be duplicitous and impossible for me to know which subsection of Homeland Security to which I should address my request.

The very reason that it was confusing for you to send me an e-mail regarding the request from 2012 is that I thought that the Secret Service, as a Department of Homeland Security, had the authority and power to negotiate regarding all documents of Homeland Security. In the past I have received letters from Brady Mills, Special Agent in Charge, Freedom of Information Act & Privacy Officer, and A.T. Smith, the Deputy Director of the Secret Service. Now that I have received a denial of my request, almost two years later, from Mr. Mobbs of the Inspector General’s office, it appears the Inspector General has documents that were responsive to my request, but which are not being produced. Please confirm that, so that I can file the appropriate pleadings in Court to assert my right to access any and all documents that are, or could be, responsive to my request, from your department.

Thank you,
Malia Litman

boys will be boys

Stephen James has announced the exciting news that a casting director has been appointed to begin the process of identifying talent to star in the movie, Boys Will Be Boys. Here is the announcement:


As a Fan, you hear it first!

And we’re true to that promise. Firstly, welcome to all our new fans – we’re delighted to have you on board and we recognize you all as “part of the team” at BWBB.


This is hot on the heels of receiving tacit agreement from TWO of Louisiana’s leading actors (to be announced), AND a similar agreement from a well-credited Hollywood Director.

SO THINGS are moving forward apace!

The newly-appointed CASTING DIRECTOR is MAE CHAPMAN, who is a leading casting director in her own right, having been involved with such movies as “The Butler”, “In the Electric Mist” featuring Tommy Lee Jones, Zydeco Productions/Disney TV pilot “Sunday, Sunday, Sunday”, and a host of TV shows for BET and History Channel, among others.

Mae has also been involved with casting music videos, commercials, and theater productions, and her highly-professional attitude and commitment will be a huge boon to “Boys WIll Be Boys”.

I will be updating the web-site with this information very soon, but of course I wanted YOU to hear it first. In the meantime, please encourage others to visit the web-site and to “Like” the BWBB FB page by clicking on the link in the web-site.

Oh, and I almost forgot: YOU have your own email address to which you can write YOUR thoughts and comments:

Thank you all for your support, and looking forward to hearing from you all.

Best always,


The Butler is one of my recent favorite movies, so I am thrilled to hear that Mae will be helping select the stars of this movie! The involvement of such a well known casting director immediately gives the movie a legitimacy that some might have questioned!

“It’s not my job.” Yesterday I posted a letter and my reply to that letter to the Inspector General’s office regarding the detailed history I have with the six recent FOIA requests that have been file this year, and the two that were filed in 2012 and 2013. Without providing an answer to the questions asked, the following e-mail was sent this morning:

Ms. Litman,

Thank you for contacting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

As Mr. Mobbs indicated in his letter to you, dated April 15, 2014, he affirmed the OIG’s action on your FOIA Request Number OIG 2012-133 (OIG Appeal 2012-A13.) The DHS-OIG has not received any other FOIA requests from you.

For your information, FOIA processing in DHS is decentralized, and it is the responsibility of each component to process their own FOIA requests. If you have questions about FOIA requests you submitted to other components of DHS, you should contact those entities, rather than this office.

For information on whom to contact regarding your FOIA requests to other DHS entities, please visit the following website: Each component should be able to advise you on their preferred communication method.

We trust this addresses your questions, and we now consider this matter closed.




The problem is that this response presumes the citizen requesting the documents knows with “component” has documents that may be responsive. Each of my requests were sent to Homeland Security as the entity that includes the Secret Service. If the Inspector General has investigated the Secret Service in the matters of prostitution, I would have no way to know that! However my FOIA request would have included that department.

I will be posting my response to his e-mail shortly.

The following letter and e-mail attaching the letter is being sent to Mr. Michael Mobbs in response to his message yesterday.

Malia Litman
address, phone, e-mail

Mr. Michael H. Mobbs
Acting Counsel to the Inspector General
Office of Inspector General
Department of Homeland Security
Washington D.C. 20528
via certified mail, return receipt requested

April 16, 2014

Re: Letter of April 15, 2014

Dear Mr. Mobbs,

I write today hoping you can provide some clarification regarding your letter of yesterday, bearing a date stamp of April 15, 2014, and which was sent to my e-mail referenced above. You described the letter in the e-mail as the “final response” to the “above referenced” appeal. You referenced “Appeal No. 2012-A13 and Request No. 2012-133.” Your e-mail and the attached letter create more questions than answers. Please provide an explanation of your involvement at this time, and answers to the following questions:

1. Is your letter in response to my letter of April 11, 2014 directed to Delores Barber the Deputy Chief, FOIA Officer. In that letter I pleaded for an acknowledgement of five separate FOIA requests sent in January of 2014, only one of which has been acknowledged. Given your reference to the requests of 2012, I assume that you are not intending to provide a response to the requests filed in January of 2014, but I wanted to confirm that. Here is the link to that letter if you have any question about the letter to which I make reference.
2. In the future, should I direct future correspondence to you regarding all six of my FOIA requests. Because you are an attorney representing Homeland Security, I would like to make sure that I do not direct any correspondence or phone calls to another person at Homeland Security if they should be directed to you. In an effort to make full disclosure, I will advise you that I anticipate filing suit shortly regarding the failure of Homeland Security to produce responsive documents in a timely manner to each of the five requests, with amended pleadings to follow in the event documents are not produced regarding the sixth request.
3. Is e-mail an acceptable method of communication, or should I continue to communicate with Homeland Security by certified mail?

4. Perhaps you were unaware of the long history I have with Homeland Security and request for documents regarding, among other matters and people, David Chaney and Todd Palin. To ensure that you know the details of that history I provide this copy of a letter sent July 22nd to A.T. Smith setting out details of correspondence I had with Homeland Security and the misleading nature of representations made to me regarding the “enforcement proceedings” that were allegedly pending over one year ago.

The following is a copy of that letter:

Malia Litman

A.T. Smith
Deputy Director
Secret Service, a division of Homeland Security
245 Murray Drive
SW Building 410
Washington D.C. 20528

July 22, 2013
Re: Production of statement of David Chaney

Dear Deputy Director Smith:
I am in receipt of your letter and the statement of David Chaney. You letter is date stamped Jul. 10, 2013. I am well aware of the letter agreement of July 3, 2013 referenced in your letter, and will abide by the terms of that letter. Pursuant to that letter agreement you closed the files on both of my FOIA requests #20130560 and 20130568, the first of which had been pending for over one year. It was clear that the only way left open to me to get any of the documents requested was to agree to withdraw my requests or file a lawsuit. While I felt the office of Homeland Security had been evasive, and oppressive in its responses to my requests, it was difficult for an individual to take on the entire Federal Government. I made the mistake of assuming that the Secret Service and Office of Homeland Security has not been deceptive. I was obviously naïve in that regard.
Reluctantly I agreed to this proposal for production of the statement, relying on the truthfulness of previous letters and communications. However I now realize that I was a fool to trust the truthfulness of the government’s representations. I was a fool to believe that the members of the Secret Service had integrity. I was foolish to think that the office of Homeland Security would ultimately want what I wanted, which was the truth to come out regarding Todd Palin and his predatory actions.
On February 16, 2012 when Shailey Tripp published the book Boys Will Be Boys I was amazed at the revelations, and the specifics she provided regarding names and descriptions. The lack of a defamation suit by the Palins was illustrative of the truth of the information. However I personally sent letters to Todd, Sarah, and their attorneys inviting a denial of the assertions of Ms. Tripp. Predictably I received NO response to any letters.
Imagine my surprise when Shailey Tripp contacted me to advise that David Chaney, one of the agents involved in the Colombia scandal, had been introduced by Todd Palin to Shailey Tripp, and that she did provide sexual services to him. At the time I didn’t realize that Mr. Chaney has been one of the agents assigned to provide security to Ms. Palin during the ’08 campaign.
I personally put Mr. Merek Schaefer in touch with Ms. Tripp before the Senate Subcommittee on Homeland Security to whom she gave to verbal statements and one written statement confirming her introduction to, and services provided to, Mr. Chaney. I personally advised every member of the Senate Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the allegations so that they could inquire during the hearing about the allegations. I also personally advised Mark Sullivan of the allegations so that he would have an opportunity before that hearing to get to the truth.
Imagine my surprise when I listened to the Senate Subcommittee hearing and heard Mr. Sullivan testify that there was no culture of corruption within the Secret Service, and that the Colombia incident was an isolated event. I could only presume that Mr. Chaney had been asked, and denied the allegations, and that the Secret Service had a reason to believe him. However, because I believed Ms. Tripp, I filed my FOIA request in an effort to determine what Mr. Chaney had reported. That seemed like a logical response and one that every American should be entitled to know.
The Colombia scandal broke on April 11, 2012. It was reported that Mr. Chaney resigned on April 20, 2012. Sarah Palin made her infamous remark “Check this out bodyguard, you’re fired.” Merek Schaefer was notified of the allegations of Shailey Tripp as early as May 14, 2012, by an e-mail from me.
The Senate Subcommittee hearing with Mark Sullivan testifying was held on May 23, 2012, nine days after Mr. Schaefer was notified of the assertions of Shailey Tripp.
On May 28, 2012 I personally asked Merek Schaeffer what happened, and why nothing was mentioned during the hearing regarding the allegations of Ms. Tripp. No response was ever given.
On June 7, 2012 I personally asked Mark Sullivan and Charles Edwards, the Chief Investigator of Homeland Security, why nothing was mentioned. No response was ever given.
It was not until after Merek Schaefer, Mark Sullivan and Charles Edwards failed to respond to my correspondence that I was left with no option but to file a FOIA request. That original request was filed on June 18, 2012.
On June 30, 2012 Homeland responded to the request by claiming that the information requested was “personal” and “private.” On July 2, 2012 I filed an appeal of that decision asserting that there was an overriding public interest in obtaining the documents. On August 7, 2012 I sent letters to the attorneys for Todd Palin and David Chaney asking for their agreement to produce the documents. Of course I never received any response.
On August 20, 2012 I sent a letter to Ms. Ferrell, Special Agent in Charge FOIA listing the many particular reasons that there was an “overriding public interest” in obtaining these documents.
By November 15, 2012 there were articles published asserting that Mark Sullivan had lied during his testimony before the Senate Subcommittee. The articles did not mention the allegations of Shailey Tripp, but asserted that he was in fact aware of other incidents of Secret Service Agents utilizing services of prostitutes.
In spite of multiple phone calls, e-mails and letters I was unable to determine the reason for the lack of a response to my FOIA request. Just one example of such a letter was this one of December 7, 2012. Sarah Palin herself was demanding greater transparency in government, while Homeland Security was continuing to remain silent about even the reason for non-disclosure.
By December 30, 2012 I wrote directly to Janet Napolitano pleading for her help in producing the documents to which I was entitled.
On January 13, 2013 I sent an e-mail to Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins requesting their help. I received no response to those e-mails.
On February 1, 2013 Mark Sullivan announced his resignation.
On February 4, 2013 I sent yet another letter to Janet Napolitano requesting production of the documents, and pleading with her to produce the documents without the necessity of a law suit.
On February 18, 2013 I sent a letter to President Obama, asking for his help, since not a single call, letter, or e-mail had even been returned. That letter, like the others, was posted on line through my blog.
On February 19, 2013, the next day, a letter was mailed by Homeland Security agreeing to produce the documents requested in my FOIA request. However just six days later another letter was mailed asserting that the document s were NOT going to be produced. That letter stated “Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 (B)(7)(A) your file is being exempted since disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”
At that point Homeland Security indicated that there was some new type of investigation that was being undertaken, that I could only assume related to Todd Palin and David Chaney. Wanting to be supportive of such an investigation, I did not publish anything about that investigation on my blog for an extended period. In spite of repeated calls I was unable to determine what investigation was underway, of whom, by what agency of government.
On March 29, 2013 I submitted a second FOIA request asking for documents to reveal the retirement benefits U.S. tax payers were paying David Chaney and Mark Sullivan.
On April 8, 2013 I sent a letter directly to Todd Palin and his attorney inviting a denial of the allegations of Shailey Tripp. No response was received from Todd or his attorney.
On April 17, 2013 you sent a letter denying my request for the retirement benefits stating that:
“Pursuant to Title 5 United States Code Section 552(b)(7)(A) the information you requested is being withheld from disclosure as the information was compiled for law enforcement purposes and such disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”
Of course you are aware I appealed your decision on May 7, 2013.
In a final plea of desperation before filing suit I sent this letter on June 25, 2013. Your letter agreement was sent on July 3, 2013. I agreed to it and returned it to you the day it was received.
Your letter producing the statement of David Chaney was received by me on July 11, 2013. It included a three page statement of David Chaney. Other than formalities, the statement itself consisted of a total of a mere 7 lines. The statement was dated June 6, 2012 which was two weeks after the Senate hearing on May 23rd. Obviously this statement was not taken before the Senate hearing. Either no attempt was made before the Senate hearing to determine if a Secret Service agent had used prostitutes while on assignment in the United States before the Senate hearing, or if another statement was taken of David Chaney it was not produced.
The statement of Chaney that was produced indicated that on June 6, 2012 he was still employed by the Secret Service. That was contrary to the information reported indicating that Mr. Chaney had resigned on April 20, 2012. The statement itself indicated that Mr. Chaney denied even knowing Ms. Tripp. If that is the only information you had regarding Ms. Tripp’s allegations then it is hard to imagine why there would suddenly be an investigation undertaken in February of 2013 that would relate to the documents requested, and would justify withholding of the documents.
The denial of David Chaney is also contrary to other information I have received indicating that David Chaney charged the services he received from Ms. Tripp on credit card #5185 6401 011 3587. The amount processed was $40.00 and was for the month ending 8-31-08. It is difficult to reconcile his denial of even knowing Shailey Tripp with this charge.
Please be advised that I am still waiting for the documents requested. I recognize that if you refuse to produce them, that I can’t re-file my formal request for them again until the 6 month period has passed. However please be advised that as soon as I can, I will be requesting the documents again. I hope that there is an investigation underway and that you will be able to make the public aware of your findings, and file appropriate charges soon. I would hate to think that this is just a part of a large cover-up. I would hope that the office of Homeland Security would never refuse to produce documents that should be produced and take advantage of a citizen trying to find the truth.
Because I plan to re-file my FOIA requests in 6 months, please do the necessary to ensure that the documents are neither lost or destroyed during this interim period. Also, please understand that the applicable statute of limitations under Alaska law may run in August of this year, so time is of the essence. More importantly, I have previously advised you that Shailey Tripp had received death threats , and the apartment building she is living in had a fire set in an apartment adjoining hers, when her neighbors were not at home. Disclosure of any information in the possession of Homeland Security regarding this matter might promote the safety of Ms. Tripp.
If the purpose of Homeland Security is to promote the safety and security of U.S. citizens, and if there is a presumption of openness in government, then you will act now.
Malia Litman

5. Having waited the requisite 6 months, I refilled the two new FOIA requests, on Jan. 12, and Jan. 13th. These two new requests were identical to the FOIA requests that had previously been filed and which related to David Chaney, Todd Palin, and Shailey Tripp. For your reference here are links to those requests.

a. 1-12-2014 First Request:

b. 1-13-2014 Second Request:

I have not received acknowledgement of these requests. In addition to re-filing identical requests for information, I filed three additional requests. They were:

c. 1-14-2014 Third Request:
This was a new request asking for documents relating to the “enforcement proceedings” to which Homeland Security referred in their response to me of a year ago regarding why they were unwilling to produce the documents requested. Homeland Security has failed to acknowledge receipt of that request.
d. 1-15-2014 Fourth Request:
This is the only one of the five for which I have received an acknowledgement, but I haven’t received any documents, and have not been promised that a decision would be made by any particular date, in spite of multiple requests. No reason has been given to justify non-production of the documents requested.
This fourth request for documents was focused on the information available to Mark Sullivan prior to his testimony before the Senate. If he lied during that testimony, these documents might provide the needed proof of his untruthfulness.

e. 1-17-2014-Fifth Request:
This request for documents relates to the history of the Secret Service’s culture of corruption including use of prostitutes, and information that was available to Homeland Security both before and after the Colombia scandal.
Homeland Security has failed to acknowledge receipt of that request.

6. On April 9, 2014 I filed a sixth request regarding the incident involving the Secret Service in Amsterdam that preceded the President’s visit. While I have not received an acknowledgement of receipt of this request, the statutory period for responding to this request has not yet passed.

Thank you in advance for providing answers to these questions.


Malia Litman

Yesterday I received an e-mail from Michael H. Mobbs, the “Acting Counsel to the Inspector General”. The e-mail itself was short, and direct:
Ms. Litman:
Attached please find DHS-OIG’s final response to the above-referenced FOIA Appeal.
The e-mail included an attachment which was a also short and direct. The stationery carried the heading of the “Office of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security”. The “RE” of the letter included the following:

“Appeal No. 2012-A13
Request No. 2012-133
Reviewer: JAK”

The letter attached read as follows:

“You appealed from the action of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) on your requests for various records concerning “David Chaney” a third party. Your appeal was received by this office on July 5, 2012.

After carefully considering both your appeal and supplemental appeals, I am affirming the DHS-OIG’s action on your request.

The DHS OIG properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of any records responsive to your request. Without consent, proof of death, official acknowledgment of an investigation, or an overriding public interest, confirming or denying the existence of law enforcement records concerning this individual would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. See 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (b)(7)(C).

If you are dissatisfied with my action on Your appeal, you may seek judicial review in accordance with the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (a) (4)(B).

Michael H. Mobbs
Acting Counsel to the Inspector General”

The letter was date stamped April 15, 2014, and was addressed to my home, so it appears the letter was mailed by regular mail yesterday.

My reply e-mail will be posted later today. I will be asking for clarification of the letter sent, since it was my impression that the documents requested regarding David Chaney were the subject of a FOIA request sent in January of this year, the receipt of which has never been acknowledged by Homeland Security. The fact that this letter comes from an attorney in the office of the Inspector General may be significant!

Michael Mobbs joined the OIG in October 2013 as Deputy Counsel to the Inspector General. That means he hasn’t worked for the Office of Inspector General as long as I’ve been trying to get the documents regarding David Chaney. He has had a long career in government service, including key positions at the Department of Defense. Mobbs most recently served as General Counsel to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. He is a graduate of Yale University and the University of Chicago Law School.

According to the Office of the Inspector General for Homeland Security his “Mission” is:

“The Counsel to the Inspector General provides legal advice to the IG and other management officials; supports audits, inspections, special reviews, and investigations by ensuring that applicable laws and regulations are followed; serves as the OIG’s designated ethics office; manages the OIG’s Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act responsibilities; furnishes attorney services for the issuance and enforcement of OIG subpoenas; and provides legal advice on OIG operations.”

lawyer catfish joke
Joke 1:

A lawyer dies and goes to Heaven. “There must be some mistake,” the lawyer argues. “I’m too young to die. I’m only 55.” “Fifty-five?” says Saint Peter. “No, according to out calculations, you’re 82.” “How’d you get that?” the lawyer asks. Answers St. Peter, “We added up your time sheets.”

Joke 2:

What’s the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer?

A bad lawyer can let a case drag out for several years. A good lawyer can make it last even longer.

Joke 3:

One day in Contract Law class, the professor asked one of his better students, “Now if you were to give someone an orange, how would you go about it?”

The student replied, “Here’s an orange.”

The professor was livid. “No! No! Think like a lawyer!”

The student then recited, “Okay, I’d tell him, ‘I hereby give and convey to you all and singular, my estate and interests, rights, claim, title, claim and advantages of and in, said orange, together with all its rind, juice, pulp, and seeds, and all rights and advantages with full power to bite, cut, freeze and otherwise eat, the same, or give the same away with and without the pulp, juice, rind and seeds, anything herein before or hereinafter or in any deed, or deeds, instruments of whatever nature or kind whatsoever to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding…”

Joke 4:

As the lawyer awoke from surgery, he asked, “Why are all the blinds drawn?” The nurse answered, “There’s a fire across the street, and we didn’t want you to think you had died.”

Joke 5:

A woman and her little girl were visiting the grave of the little girl’s grandmother. On their way through the cemetery back to the car, the little girl asked, “Mummy, do they ever bury two people in the same grave?”

“Of course not, dear,” replied the mother, “Why would you think that?”

“The tombstone back there said… ‘Here lies a lawyer and an honest man.’”

Joke 6:

Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, an honest lawyer and an old drunk are walking down the street together when they simultaneously spot a hundred dollar bill. Who gets it? The old drunk, of course, the other three are fantasy creatures.

Joke 7:

At a convention of biological scientists, one researcher remarks to another, “Did you know that in our lab we have switched from mice to lawyers for our experiments?” “Really?” the other replied, “Why did you switch?” “Well, for three reasons. First we found that lawyers are far more plentiful, second, the lab assistants don’t get so attached to them, and thirdly there are some things even a rat won’t do.”

Joke 8:

What does a lawyer get when you give him Viagra?


Joke 9:

The lawyer’s son wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps, so he went to law school and graduated with honors. Then he went home to join his father’s firm.

At the end of his first day at work, he rushed into his father’s office and said, “Father, father! In one day I broke the Smith case that you’ve been working on for so long!”

His father yelled, “You idiot! We’ve been living on the funding of that case for ten years!”

Joke 10:

How many lawyer jokes are in existence?

Only three. All the rest are true stories.

lawyer shark cartoon


What’s the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder, and the other is just a fish.

Mother Jones reports that the Scum-Sucking Bottom Feeder, Dan Backer, is working to put Sarah Palin on the ballot in Alaska to challenge March Begich for his Senate seat. The logical question is why would Backer, a D.C. based attorney care who was the Senator from Alaska? Another more obvious question would be why would anyone promote Sarah Palin for political office in Alaska, after she quit her job half-way through her first term? The answer to both questions is money.


The U.S. Supreme Court in the last week has issued its opinion in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC which involved the question of limiting the aggregate amount of funds an individual could donate during any particular season. Specifically, the Court addressed the limit of $48,600 that an individual could contribute to specific candidates, and limited the total contributions to political parties and committees to $74,600. The Court ruled that the limits on individual donations to a specific candidate would remain at $2600.00, per election. What has changed is the “aggregate limit” on how many candidates and committees an individual may support.

Dan Backer was the lead attorney for the Plaintiff in the McCutcheon case. Over the last three election cycles Mr. Backer has “overseen a proliferation of new PACs and helped organize what may be the largest-ever joint fundraising committee.” While Mr. Backer has declared that he doesn’t think the new rule will lead to a proliferation of new PACs and joint fundraising committees, others disagree.

Certainly Mr. Backer is one of the most prolific attorneys for creating and managing PACs.

“ According to data, in 2010, Backer was the treasurer for four committees registered with the FEC. In 2012, the number was 18, and so far in 2014, he is listed as the treasurer for 38. And in many cases he’s more than just a name on the paperwork; a number of the groups have paid his law firm, DB Capitol Strategies, for political and legal advice.

Correspondingly, his firm’s receipts have sharply increased: According to an analysis of expenditure data, in 2010 DB Capitol Strategies was paid about $9,300 by federal committees; that increased to $167,648 in 2012, and so far in the 2014 cycle it has been paid $288,127.

One of Backer’s most prominent projects has been the Conservative Action Fund, which operates as both a traditional PAC and a super PAC, with two separate accounts and fundraising operations. On the PAC side, the group raised just $25,646 in 2012, but on the super PAC side, it raised $205,000 — most of which ($185,000) was donated by Backer’s star client, Shaun McCutcheon. McCutcheon also loaned an additional $121,620 to the group — a loan Backer said he forgave. Conservative Action Fund reported making about$134,000 in independent expenditures, including some against a handful of Republicans.

The TeaParty.Net Leadership Fund has been, by far, Backer’s biggest client, paying his firm more than $167,000 over the last two cycles. The organization, a hybrid that is part PAC and part super PAC, has raised more than $3.8 million so far in the 2014 cycle, and is an excellent example of how Backer’s many groups serve multiple purposes. The group has spent $238,000 against Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) and has also transferred more than $138,000 to other organizations — including $40,000 to the In Defense of Free Speech Joint Fundraising Committee, which lists another lawyer at Backer’s firm as treasurer.

In Defense of Free Speech passed the money on to the Senate campaigns of Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and, interestingly, John Cornyn (R-Texas) — the opponent of another client of Backer’s, Rep. Steve Stockman. The only other contributor to In Defense of Free Speech JFC was a PAC, also run by Backer, called Unum E Pluribus, which lists the same address as the TeaParty.Net Leadership Fund.
Still another of Backer’s committees, Freshman Hold ‘Em PAC, was possibly the largest congressional JFC of the last election cycle. It raised $202,000 and distributed about $192,000 to at least 31 different candidates.”

Hence Backer doesn’t appear to care who much money is wasted, or if Sarah Palin wins an election. He is focused on his own fees generated from creating and managing more PAC’s. It appears his motivation is not to get Palin elected, but to increase the number of PACs that contribute to her campaign, and give her donors a way to donate more money.

dan backer

Given the recent news that Stephen Colbert is moving to the Tonight Show, enjoy going down memory lane.

couple intrudes on presidential dinner

In 2009 when a couple crashed the Presidential state dinner, it was an example of the incompetence of the Secret Service.

incompetence one

incompetence four

You may have heard about the “shoe throwing” incident during the speech of Hillary Clinton at the re-cycling convention in Las Vegas.

If you hadn’t heard about it that was probably because Hillary wasn’t hit by the shoe. I was a shoe and not a gun. The perpetrator walked out of the room on her own accord, without restraints and not in custody. Hillary made jokes about the assault, rather than blaming the Secret Service for their utter failure in providing for her protection. Members of the Secret Service were attending the conference to provide protection to Hillary, not because she will likely be the Democratic candidate for President in 2016, but because she is part of the First family of an ex-President, and as such is entitled to life-time protection.
This incident is a prime example of the total and dangerous failure of the Secret Service.

Specifically, Hillary was speaking at a conference where attendees were required to wear identification badges, and were required to present photo identification to obtain entry into the ballroom where Clinton was giving her speech. Because the ballroom had over 1000 people attending the speech, it is clearly possible that someone could gain access to the former First Lady by simply complying with a few simple security measures. However Alison Ernst didn’t have an identification badge, or show her photo identification when she entered the ballroom. She simply walked right in carrying her purse, which contained the shoe, and which could have contained a gun. Instead of throwing a shoe, and missing Hillary, she could have easily brought a gun into the ballroom and hit her target. The frightening part of this story is that Alison Ernst was crazy enough to do that very thing.

shoe thrower hillary

Alison Ernst is the woman who threw the shoe. She was arrested for only a misdemeanor of “disorderly conduct,” rather than a more serious crime like assault. Ernst has not been formally charged with anything. To make matters worse, she was released on her own recognizance on the same day she was taken into custody. She is not scheduled to appear in Court for at least 2 months, so for that period she is free to assault, batter, or even kill anyone she deems unworthy. Why should we be concerned? Ms. Ernst is mentally ill, and she has a documented history of acting out on that illness. Ernst is “obsessed” with mass shooter James Holmes,

james holmes red hair

once filing a lawsuit claiming the man who killed people during a showing of the movie “Batman,” had invaded her head. On the occasion of the shoe throwing, Ms. Ernst’s head was covered by a blond wig. In 2012 she shaved her head and interrupted court proceedings for Holmes saying she had evidence “vital to the defense.” She later filed a suit outlining her obsession with Holmes, who is accused of killing 12 people and wounding 70 in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater. She reported that:

“James enters my head like Dennis Quaid in ‘Innerspace’ and he zooms to my heart and plays with it and forces me to care for him,” she noted in her federal court document. “I seek a restraining order to stop Holmes from entering my mind through subliminal messaging and causing me to be obsessed with him on a daily basis.”

This mentally ill person was released from jail the night of the shoe throwing and is free to re-appear anywhere in the next two months, with any form of wig or skull adornment, having bought an assault weapon which could be used to kill whoever James Holmes might tell her to kill. If James should “enter her head” in the next two months, and tell her to shoot somebody, people will wonder why she was allowed to be released from prison, buy a gun, and enter any public place with the gun. No doubt the NRA would defend her constitutional right to bear arms, …or shoes. No doubt the Secret Service would try to distance themselves from any responsibility. However the thought that such a mentally ill person could gain access to the most popular candidate for President in 2016, and a former First Lady, and get close enough to have fired a weapon and stuck her is disconcerting. The fact that the assailant was not immediately restrained and her purse confiscated is unforgivable. Even after the assailant was identified as the person assaulting Hillary, she was free to pull anything else out of her purse, and she could have turned and fired another shot at Hillary, whether a bullet or a shoe. The Secret Service failed to protect the best hope we have for President in 2016. From passing out in the hall of a hotel in Amsterdam, leaving a bullet in the hotel room of a strange woman, being intoxicated and causing an automobile accident, to bringing prostitutes to hotel rooms in Colombia, the Secret Service has demonstrated it’s lack of discipline and it’s culture of corruption. We can now add to that list of attributes, incompetence.

incompetence three

incompetence two

incompetence jet

scales justice
I am pleased to report that after an exhaustive search, I am hopeful that I have identified an attorney to handle the claim against the government for production of the documents requested from Homeland Security. Because I am cognizant of the attorney-client relationship I will be very careful about what I report on this blog, until it is a public filing. However as soon as possible, I will report to you the filing of suit and any other relevant matters.
I sent the following letter on Friday by certified mail:

Malia Litman
Phone, e-mail
Department of Homeland Security Deputy Chief FOIA Officer
Delores Barber
Deputy Chief, FOIA Officer
The Privacy Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
245 Murray Lane SW
STOP – 0655
Washington D.C. 20528-0655
Via certified mail, return receipt requested

April 11, 2014
Re: Failure to Acknowledge FOIA requests

Dear Ms Barber:

I have enclosed a complete copy of my correspondence to you of January 13th and January 17th 2014. As you will see, these letters include five separate FOIA requests. To my surprise only one of the 5 has been acknowledged by Homeland Security. However as of the date of this letter, I have received no determination as to whether Homeland Security will agree to produce the records requested in that fourth request that was acknowledged, or when the documents would be produced. The acknowledgement of the fourth request is enclosed for your records, and is numbered 2014-HQFO-00296. This failure to even acknowledge receipt of the requests is especially troubling as the first two requests were identical to those sent on June 18, 2012, #2012-133, and that sent on March 29, 2013 .

On March 17, 2014, I resubmitted all 5 of the requests that were previously sent on January 13th and 17th, and this time I sent them by certified mail, return receipt requested. I have not received confirmation that those requests were received by your office. However the U.S. Post Office web site for receipt number 70122920000226499865 indicates that the letter with all 5 requests was delivered to your office on March 24, 2014 and the copy to Jeh Johnson was received that same day by his office. I anxiously await acknowledgement of the requests and the production of documents that are responsive to those requests.

Malia Litman


As referenced in the letter the post office’s web site contains information to confirm that my letter of March 17th was received on March 24, 2014. I expect Homeland Security to acknowledge receipt of that letter shortly. When the suit is filed I am hopeful that there will be a national story about the allegations in the suit! We will all be looking for that!

palin funny one

Just Say NO to BS

The Ignorance of Sarah Palin

Rebuttal to the Rogue


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 755 other followers

Share This Blog

Follow Malia on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 755 other followers