United Airlines’ illegal abatement at former World Headquarters exposing employees to airborne asbestos fibers
Marty Watters, Investigative Reporter
United Airlines has been illegally removing asbestos from its former World Headquarters and training center, knowingly exposing its employees to airborne asbestos fibers.
Wow! If United can do something this deplorable to its own employees, how seriously do they take the safety of the flying public?
The laws and regulations governing the removal and disposal of asbestos are expensive, burdensome and impose substantial liabilities.
Who needs that headache? Certainly not a Chicago-based, politically-connected, large corporation like United Airlines.
United management apparently determined that it is better for their bottom line to simply ignore those pesky laws!
For example, United proceeded to secretly remove asbestos spray-on fire proofing material from classrooms at its training center in Elk Grove Village, IL.
Here's how they went about it:
United hired outside contractor A&E Services, Inc. to come in and scrape the asbestos-containing material from the classroom ceilings. This was done without the mandated notifications and safety measures required by law.
In addition, A&E was clandestinely bagging the asbestos material and related contaminated waste. Then the contractor illegally transported the bags filled with asbestos to a dumpster that Robert Nykaza, the owner of A&E, had secretly placed in a friend's residential driveway miles away from the United training center.
This was clearly an egregious violation of EPA regulations.
While all this was going on, United employees were unwittingly being exposed to cancer-causing airborne asbestos fibers.
But wait, it gets even better.
A&E left behind piles of the friable asbestos material on top of the duct work for the building's ventilation system..
United employees were then directed to enter the asbestos contaminated classrooms and install a suspended ceiling below the duct work where large amounts of loose asbestos fibers came to rest, concealing them from view.
End result: United classrooms are now ready for more unsuspecting employees to fill their lungs with airborne asbestos fibers.
This is just one of the many examples of how United disregards the safety and health of its employees when dealing with the serious asbestos problem it has at its former World Headquarters in suburban Chicago.
Although United was contacted multiple times, corporate officials have so far declined to respond to my request for comment.
Instead, through their attorneys at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, these same United officials have made convoluted arguments to a judge trying to impede my investigation.
Does United Airlines really believe that the federal courts should suspend the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and infringe on the freedom of the press to cover up their own wrongdoing?
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
It's no surprise that Judith Miller's long overdue book, "The Story", is permeated with falsehoods and flat-out lies.
What is as a surprise is that Scooter Libby has been so clumsy in concealing his intimate involvement in the writing and selling of Miller's latest fairy tale.
In August of 2013, roughly eight months before her book was originally due to be released, I interviewed Miller about her upcoming "memoir." My focus was primarily on the Libby trial.
During that interview, Miller confessed to me that she knew that Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage was not the person who exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA employee.
But Miller forgets to mention that fact in her book. Instead, she sticks to the government's false version that Armitage exposed Plame's identity.
Here's another fact that Miller forgets to mention in her book: She was aware of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' sworn testimony that Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman was actually the one who exposed Plame as a CIA employee in 2001.
However, Miller refused to answer any questions regarding Edmonds - stating she would address Edmonds' important testimony in her book.
Surprise, surprise. Miller apparently forgot to mention Edmonds or Grossman in her book.
What Miller did do immediately following our discussion was to inform Libby how poorly the interview went for her.
And just one hour later, I heard from Scooter himself:
From: Lewis Libby
Sent: August 28, 2013 at 5:06 PM
Subject: RE: Media inquiry (clearing your name)
Thanks for your e-mail. My apologies for the delay in responding; I have been on the road a fair amount and have had difficulty catching up.
I am grateful to you and the many others who have expressed outrage at how I have been treated and who have offered help. While I appreciate such offers, I have consistently let others know that this is not the way that I wish to proceed. That remains the case.
There may well come a time when this will shift, but for now I continue to think that this would not be a good time for others to address my case. This does not change that I remain grateful for your interest and kind inquiry.
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:06 AM
To: Lewis Libby
Subject: Media inquiry (clearing your name)
Are you OK with my attempting to clear your name?
To: Joseph Tate
Sent: August 13, 2013, 4:07 PM
Subject: Fwd: Media inquiry (U.S. v Libby)
Can I get a statement?
To: Joseph Tate
Sent: August 12, 2013, 8:04 PM
Subject: Media inquiry (U.S. v Libby)
Mr. Joseph A. Tate
Were you aware of the fact that FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds had documented for the Dept. of Justice that, "Special Counsel" Patrick Fitzgerald's star witness in U.S v Libby, Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, was the man who had blown Brewster Jennings & Associates and Valerie Plame's CIA cover in 2001? The government has it on tape.
Did Patrick Fitzgerald withhold this information from you and Mr. Libby?
What does Dechert partner Glenn A. Fine say about it? Glenn had this information before Fitzgerald was appointed "Special Counsel"
To: Patrick Fitzgerald
Sent: August 4, 2013, 12:24 PM
Subject: Media inquiry (Sibel Edmonds)
Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald
In the course of your investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee.
(1) Was Sibel Edmonds interviewed?
(2) Were you provided, or did you have access to information about Sibel Edmonds, and the information that she provided Glenn Fine and the Office of Inspector General regarding Brewster Jennings & Associates?
Writer, American Thinker website
Sent: August 3, 2013, 8:12 PM
Subject: Valerie Plame Wilson’s friend, Marc Grossman, guilty of Treason!
Valerie Plame Wilson’s friend, Marc Grossman, guilty of Treason!
First things first. I never expressed any outrage about how Scooter was treated. Although I will admit I did not like being lied to.
As you can clearly see, Libby did not want me to clear his name by stating facts. This was due to the fact that he was already working closely with Judith Miller to concoct a story that was in complete contradiction of those same facts.
Here's another underreported fact that Libby, Miller and many others in Washington would rather the public not know: The judge in the Libby case - Reggie B Walton - was the same judge who imposed a gag order on Edmonds under the State Secrets Act.
What are the odds of that?
Here's a news flash for Scooter: I was already aware of the fact that Libby's attorneys had arranged for Edmonds to meet them late one night at the Willard Hotel, where she offered to testify on his behalf.
However, Libby's attorneys never did call Edmonds to testify at his trial.
Why in the world would they refuse to call a witness who could blow the government's whole case out of the water?
After all, Judge Walton considered Edmonds so credible that he gagged her, supposedly for the sake of national security.
So unless Libby himself insisted that Edmonds not be called as a defense witness his attorneys are guilty of legal malpractice.
And if he did, you have to ask yourself why Libby would insist that the one person whose testimony would result in his case being dismissed not be called as a witness for the defense?
Even more ridiculous, Judge Walton allowed the Libby trial to proceed when he knew that Grossman exposed Plame's identity two years prior to the start of the Libby investigation.
As for Miller's decision to exclude Edmonds' testimony from her so-called "correct the record" book, she should at the very least explain why she chose to ignore evidence that would have averted her well-publicized 85 day incarceration .
One thing is for certain "The Story" deserve far more scrutiny from the media than it has been subjected to so far.
Deja vu - Judith Miller is once again spreading false narratives and the complicit media is letting her get away with it.
Up next: My communications with Libby and the PR team he assembled behind the scenes to sell us Miller's latest literary work of fiction.
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
While on a tour hawking her new book "The Story" Judith Miller admitted to James O'Keefe that she takes a "trial and error" approach to journalism.
Miller's exact quote: "That's what journalism is, trial and error."
Wow! That's the most incredible thing I have ever heard a person who purports to be a journalist say. For Miller, journalism is a - crapshoot!
Add that to the fact that she claims to have written her new book to correct the record, and you have unadulterated stupidity.
But wait, it gets even better.
Miller, while being interviewed by Ed Morrissey, gave the following explanation for why she now believes that she gave false testimony in the U.S. v Libby trial:
"My memory failed me, in part because the prosecutor withheld information I needed to decipher my own notes."
Really Judy, reporting is trial and error, and you need someone else to decipher your own notes? Truly remarkable!
More remarkable is that Miller now credits Scooter Libby with deciphering her notes correctly for her in 2010. Libby's interpretation of her notes was that he's innocent. Imagine that!
Miller has yet to offer an explanation for her waiting five years to profess Scooter's innocence after her epiphany that she gave false testimony.
I'll come back to Miller's notes and the importance of her relying on others to decipher them in a more in-depth follow up article that will detail Libby's behind-the-scenes involvement in her book.
Unlike Miller, I do not believe journalism is done by trial and error, I believe you just report the facts and let the chips fall where they may.
With that in mind, here are some of the facts that Miller and friends do not want you to know.
Fact: Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage did not expose Valerie Plame as an employee of the CIA in 2003.
It was Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman who exposed Brewster Jennings & Associates and Plame in 2001. (Remember, Miller confessed to me in 2013 that she knew it was not Armitage.)
Grossman not only outed Plame, at the same time he was also caught on an FBI wiretap bragging that he would fax articles to the New York Times and they would just print them under someone's byline.
Judith's byline? Perhaps.
Fact: On October 1, 2003 when Armitage came forward to claim he was the leaker of Plame's identity, it was not Patrick Fitzgerald that asked him to keep it to himself. It was the FBI - under the direction of Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller who instructed Armitage, Colin Powell and then State Department Counsel William H Taft who was present in the room - not to tell anyone.
Fact: Attorney General John Ashcroft did not recuse himself in the Plame case because of his close ties to the White House. Ashcroft recused himself because at that time he was in front of FISA court Judge Reggie B. Walton enforcing a gag order on the one person who could tell the world that Plamegate was all a sham! That person being FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds.
Walton was also the judge who presided over the Libby case. What a coincidence.
So you see Judith, there's no trial and error. It's simple. A real journalist just states the facts from the get-go.
And since you admit you can't do that, we're not interested in anymore of your false narratives!
By the way, how many times do you feel you're allowed to be wrong?
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Robert Blagojevich is on a book tour trying to sell the idea that former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was using him to secure a conviction of his brother, former Governor Rod Blagojevich.
What Robert fails to realize is that his book, "Fundraiser A", tells a completely different story.
In fact, Robert's book confirms for us that the prosecutors withheld damning evidence against him and his brother, Rod, from the jury and the American public.
Case in point: Robert states in his book that he was playing a "game of chicken" with prosecutors.
Here is an excerpt from Robert's book that proves that to be true:
"Day Nineteen: Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Noted in my journal this day:
'Mike [Ettinger] spoke with [Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid] Schar again this morning, Schar wanting to know if I was going to testify. Mike told him I was. Schar's response was that he had other tapes that haven't been played that he could play if he needed. Mike told him to bring it on. I told Mike I won't testify if they drop the charges against me. That was a nonstarter for Mike, he just looked at me. This means they are threatening to use more tapes to get me not to testify."
Normally prosecutors salivate over the prospect of a defendant taking the witness stand.
Ask yourself this: Why would a prosecutor threaten a defendant in hopes of preventing him from taking the stand?
Why would Robert think the prosecutors would drop the case against him rather than see him take the stand?
Well, Robert took the stand, and the prosecutor delivered on his threat, as illustrated by this excerpt from Sun Times reporter Natasha Korecki's book.
"Rob was convincing on direct examination. Next was cross-examination by Niewoehner, who tore into the pristine image Ettinger created. Rob stumbled as Niewoehner asked about a tape that hadn't been played - a November 5, 2008 discussion. 'If you can get Obama to get Fitzgerald to close the investigation on you, it completely provides you with total clarity,' Niewoeher qouted Rob telling his brother.
Rob testified that this exchange had nothing to do with [Valerie] Jarrett's appointment and that it was instead meant 'in context of what politicians do'. He seemed caught off guard, though, and the tension in the courtroom was palable. If the prosecution could do this to Rob in less than 15 minutes, what would they do to his brother?"
So Robert, the day after getting elected president, you and Rod thought Obama would get Fitzgerald to close the investigation just because that's "what politicians do"?
Really Robert? Don't you mean crooked politicians?
And Robert, do you really expect us to believe that asking Obama to get Fitzgerald to close the investigation on your brother had nothing to do with the offer to appoint Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate seat Obama vacated?
Like they say, let's go to the tape!
Here's a question that Fitzgerald was asked but he refused to answer.
Why did the prosecution not present such a damning recording in their case against Robert and Rod?
They obviously did not want that tape on record because it would implicate other well known politicians who were being protected by Fitzgerald.
If Robert did not take the stand, we would have never known that he and Rod had reason to believe Obama would call off Fitzgerald and close the investigation if Rod appointed Jarrett to the U.S Senate.
But Robert did take the stand and Fitzgerald's office met him head on by using a single quote from the wiretap tape that they are still withholding to this day. The quote the prosecutors used can only be found in trial transcripts due to the fact that they never entered the tape or transcripts of it into evidence.
Clearly both the prosecutors and the defendants in this case do not want the full contents of that wiretap tape to be made public. Thus the "game of chicken" Robert referred to in his book.
By the way Robert, you spent a good part of your book calling Patrick Fitzgerald a liar. While I do not disagree with you on that assertion, I would like to point out that when you say "you beat him at his own game" and you were playing a "game of chicken" with him, that you are in fact boasting that you're a better liar!
Since you like to play games Robert, how about we play a game of truth or dare?
If you won't tell the truth, I dare you to release the full transcript of that November 5, 2008 conversation between you and your brother.
Or would that take away the leverage that you are using to get Rod out of prison?
More to come...
Marriage ceremony Clothes
The images have been taken, the dances danced, the memories emblazoned - now what? It often has cap sleeves or is sleeveless and has a hemline that hits at the knee or a couple of inches above it. These attire usually come in darkish colours. David's Bridal has been promoting wedding clothes since 1950, and are also the most important bridal retailer in the U.S. Additionally they have a dedicated page for his or her prom attire that can go away you bedazzled with the most popular developments and hues in prom attire. There are a lot of styles of lengthy, elegant attire that are made for magnificence and walking, however nothing else. Expertise like Sofia Vergara, Amy Adams and Charlize Theron love their strapless black clothes.
Prom ballgowns are often simply as formal and as well-made as many wedding ceremony dresses, and the only thing that makes a wedding gown a marriage costume is that you just wear it to a wedding. I recommend the entire shops above for both in-store and on-line buying, whichever you prefer. Many high school aged ladies as of late are carrying prom clothes Little Black Dresses which are far too revealing.
When you've got been invited for that marriage ceremony being held on very dazzling grounds and you are misplaced on what to put on and you know it is going to be a trend runway of competitors on that particular occasion of your neighbors, friends and former classmates and you really wish to depart that everlasting statement of a fashionista then the Quinceanera dress is there to save lots of the day.
Try to be aware of the fitting size for you in choosing the perfect one among many prom quick attire. If the vendor agrees to allow you to return your promenade gown then do not forget that you're going to be the one who has to pay out for international postage to ship it back to them. The promenade is a very important event to most individuals who plan on attending but more than anybody, you will need to the ladies who need to look their greatest http://www.ohhmylove.com in their promenade gown.
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn recently was caught doing something that has his employer and the U.S. Attorney's Office very upset.
He told the truth!
In an unguarded moment of honesty, Zorn let fly that the Chicago Tribune did in fact warn Rod Blagojevich that the feds were recording him.
You might say Zorn had a "Gruber" moment, and like Jonathan Gruber, he hoped it would go un-noticed.
Here's what Zorn had to say about IP2P's reporting of what he said:
"Not that it matters, really, but I didn't know I was speaking on the record for 'Ernie Souchak,' the brave blogger who has adopted the pseudonym of a John Belushi character. Next time you might want to say you're seeking a quote for publication. Though scrolling through the last year's worth of entries there is not a single reader comment on any of the posts on this blog, so I'm not sure anyone is going to see what I said anyway."
So Zorn claims he thought he was speaking off the record when he said that the Tribune warned Blago.
And now that he's clearly on the record, he's hoping no one will see what he had to say.
God forbid Zorn print the truth in his own column at the Tribune.
No, instead Eric "Gruber" Zorn is praying for a "Change of Subject."
Hey Eric, here's an idea: let's talk about the sealed Blago wiretap tapes the Tribune won't share with the public.
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn has come out in defense of his "hilarious" position that the phone call Tribune reporter John Chase made to the Blagojevich camp on December 4, 2008 did not serve as a warning.
Zorn's reasoning: Blagojevich would have read that he was being recorded by the feds in a Tribune article the very next morning.
Zorn was asked:
"Do you understand that Robert and Rod canceled a meeting with Jesse Jackson Jr.'s money man, Raghuveer Nayak, due to Chase's phone call?"
"And do you understand they would've canceled that meeting anyway because of what was in the paper that morning?"
So let me get this straight, Eric. Your contention is that John Chase's late night phone call did not warn Blago that the feds were recording him - but that the article the Tribune published the following morning did.
Ok, Eric, have it your way.
However, now that you have reluctantly conceded that the Chicago Tribune did in fact warn Robert and Rod Blagojevich, perhaps you can explain why former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was OK with the Trib's decision.
More to come...
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Robert Blagojevich recently acknowledged that Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase warned his brother, Rod Blagojevich, that the feds were recording him.
Blagojevich emerged in response to Tribune reporter Eric Zorn's ridiculous position that:
"Chase wasn't warning Blago he was being recorded, he was telling him a story was running the next day about him being recorded."
Wow, Eric. Are you joking?
Here's what Robert Blagojevich called Zorn's assertion that Chase did not warn Rod: "Hilarious!"
Keep in mind that Robert canceled his planned meeting the following morning with Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s money man, Raghuveer Nayak, as a result of Chase's late night phone call.
A meeting whose sole purpose was to hammer out the terms of Jackson's purchase of the U.S Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama!
Remember Robert was one of the biggest benefactors of Chase's infamous phone call to the Blago camp on December 4, 2008.
So if he considers it a warning, who is Eric Zorn - or anyone else to say it was not?
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
On September 23, 2014 U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon announced the arrest and indictment of Chicago immigration attorney Robert W. DeKelaita, 51, of Glenview, IL and contract interpreter Adam Benjamin, 61, of Skokie, IL.
Well, as it turns out, Benjamin is much more than just an interpreter who happens to speak Assyrian.
Adam Benjamin is in fact Dr. Adam Z. Benjamin, the former head of the Assyrian Democratic Movement (ADM) of North America.
But when the spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office, Randall Samborn, was asked to confirm the identity of the man Fardon had just indicted, Samborn's response was: "Why do you persist on asking me questions that you know I can't answer?"
To put this in perspective:
The U.S. Attorney's Office apparently now believes that asking them to properly identify individuals that they have arrested, indicted, and named in their own press release is something that the media should know not to ask them to do.
Wow! Take a moment to ponder that bit of brilliance.
Moving on, now the question is: Why did the feds not want the public to know the true identity of Adam Benjamin?
Could it be because Benjamin had access to the White House?
Also keep in mind that the ADM political party that Benjamin was in charge of in America was lead by Yonadam Kanna overseas in Iraq.
Maybe Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase can shed some light on this subject for us.
Does anyone know where Chase has disappeared to?
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "John Chase" <JChase@tribune.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:29:35 AM
Subject: RE: Assyrian Community-Robert Dekelaita
Thanks (name redacted). Yes, somebody else told me about Mr. Dekelaita. I will check into that.
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:29 AM
To: Chase, John
Subject: Assyrian Community-Robert Dekelaita
Robert Dekelaita is a immigration attorney that is a close associate of Dr. Michael and is very active in the Assyrian community.
Law office of Robert Dekelaita 6600 N. Lincoln Ave.
Suite 200 Lincolnwood, IL 60712
To: Jason Meisner
Sent: October 4, 2014 at 6:30 PM
Subject: Feds knew about crooked Chicago Immigration Attorney in 2003
You missed a great deal of important facts in your reporting of the DeKelaita scandal.
Don't you think the people of Chicago deserve a better effort from you?
Feds knew about crooked Chicago Immigration Attorney
Do you think Nadhmi Auchi figures into any of this?
Let's not forget that the Iraqi billionaire claims to be a Chaldean Christian.
Much more to come...
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Recently Chicago immigration attorney Robert W. DeKelaita was arrested for committing numerous felonies over the course of 11 years
Now, thanks to Barbara Hollingsworth of CNSNews.com we know that federal authorities have known for over a decade that DeKelaita was committing asylum fraud.
Hollingsworth uncovered documents that reveal that DeKelaita's acts of fraud were exposed in federal court in 2003.
Why wasn't he arrested then?
Immigration Lawyer Indicted 11 Years After Iraqi Client Admitted Asylum Fraud
By Barbara Hollingsworth
(CNSNews.com) – A prominent Chicago-area immigration lawyer was indicted last month for immigration fraud , 11 years after an illegal alien from Iraq who entered the U.S. via Mexico told federal authorities that he had advised his former client to lie on his asylum application.
Robert DeKelaita, of Glenview, Illinois, described in 2008 as one of a “handful of immigration lawyers who specialize in representing Iraqi Christians,” was accused of “submitting falsely created affidavits, baptismal certificates, [and] identity documents” on asylum forms he submitted to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) between 2000 and 2011.
He also allegedly coached his clients to lie about their past when they were interviewed by federal immigration officials.
The phony identity information included “false names, false religions, false dates of travel, false dates of entry into the United States, false dates of birth, and false family history,” according to the Sept. 23 indictment.
DeKelaita also allegedly “wrote and created false asylum statements detailing non-existent accounts of purported religious persecution, including fictitious accounts of rape and murder, and attached these statements to the [CIS] Form I-589 he submitted on behalf of his clients,” the indictment further charged.
U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon of the Northern District of Illinois charged DeKelaita with one count of conspiracy to commit immigration and naturalization fraud, three counts of immigration fraud, and three counts of suborning perjury.
His translator, Adam Benjamin, was also indicted for allegedly “mistranslat[ing] answers given by the clients and add[ing] testimony not actually stated by the clients during the course of the asylum interviews.”
CNSNews.com asked Assistant U.S. Attorney for Public Information Randall Samborn whether any of DeKelaita’s clients who submitted falsified asylum applications have also been arrested or indicted for immigration fraud.
“Not to my knowledge, no,” he replied, adding that there were currently no plans to do so.
CNSNews.com asked Samborn if one of the individuals identified in the indictment only as “Y.L.” was Yousif Lazar, a native of Iraq and resident of Farmington Hills, Michigan, who entered the U.S. illegally via Mexico “on May 20, 1999 without being admitted or paroled by an immigration officer,” according to an August 14, 2007 ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“No comment,” he replied.
CNSNews.com asked why it took 11 years to arrest DeKelaita when, according to court documents, Lazar testified at his 2003 asylum hearing that “he lied upon the advice of his former counsel, DeKelaita.”
“You’re asking questions beyond the four corners of the indictment and I’m not going to comment on anything that’s not in the public record,” Samborn replied.
CNSNews.com asked if DeKelaita had been creating false identities for his clients.
“He used various false information, but did not specifically create false identities,” Samborn replied. “The indictment itself refers to individuals by initials on whose behalf he submitted false information, but not necessarily to create a fictitious person, as opposed to giving false information on actual individuals,” he explained.
Under federal law, foreigners seeking asylum in the United States must provide proof that they suffered persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, or had a well-founded fear of persecution” if they returned to their home country. After asylum is granted, they are eligible to seek lawful permanent residency or naturalized U.S. citizenship.
In 2007, the appellate court denied Lazar’s petition to reverse a Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision that he was ineligible for asylum because he had falsely claimed he was detained and beaten by officials loyal to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
“What he did not know is the Government had evidence that would demonstrate that his application was fake, phony and fraudulent,” the appellate court noted.
Confronted by evidence that he had lied on his asylum application, Lazar admitted that “he was in Greece for at least a part of the period in which he claimed to have been in Baghdad,” where he applied for refugee status in 1992. He also admitted that upon advice of his former counsel, DeKelaita, he lied that he had been arrested and detained in Baghdad in 1997 to “improve his chances for obtaining asylum.”
Another client, identified only as “M.J.”, was also allegedly coached by DeKelaita to commit perjury during an asylum interview. She falsely told federal immigration officers that Islamic extremists had threatened to kidnap and kill her husband and daughter, according to the indictment.
“Client H.A.” also falsely claimed that his father had been executed, his house in Iraq had been burned down by Muslim extremists, and his brother’s name had been “put on an elimination list,” the government charged.
Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The indictment also seeks an additional $60,000 forfeiture of attorney’s fees from DeKelaita if he is convicted.
Now that we know the feds were fully aware of DeKelaita's criminal activity way back in 2003, we have to ask:
Why did the feds allow DeKelaita to continue to break U.S. immigration laws?
Why arrest him now after turning a blind eye for 11 years?
And why are there "no plans" to arrest any of DeKelaita’s clients who submitted falsified asylum applications?
We hope to bring you the answers to those and many other related questions very soon.
Did I mention that Robert DeKelaita is a close associate of Tony Rezko's pal, Dr. Ronald Michael?
More to come...