The disparate impact case arose from a lawsuit by a St. Paul minority contractor claiming that the city’s targeted enforcement of the city’s housing code against rental units reduced the availability of low-income rentals, with a disparate impact upon African-Americans. The Eighth Circuit found in the contractor’s favor, after which the city appealed to the Supreme Court. Generally speaking, under a disparate impact analysis, an entity can be found to have engaged in discriminatory activity for practices that merely have a “disparate impact” on protected minorities, irrespective of any intentional bias.

The Obama DOJ then intervened, apparently persuading St. Paul to take the extraordinary step of withdrawing its cert petition from the Supreme Court docket. On February 13, the Wall Street Journal reported that various federal officials had asked the City of St. Paul to withdraw its petition for certiorari in a controversy that had already been slated for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Obama administration’s concern, explained the article, was that a legal theory known as “disparate impact” might either: 1) harden into law as used by the landlords who had won at the state level or 2) be eviscerated entirely.  Apparently, several federal agencies that rely on that legal theory to secure out-of-court settlements in the consumer lending and family housing arena were reluctant to risk a change in the legal landscape.  The next day, the parties to Magner v. Gallagher withdrew their case by mutual consent.

Judicial Watch separately obtained documents under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, showing that St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing arranged a meeting between the chief of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez, and Mayor Chris Coleman a week before the city’s withdrawal from the case, captioned Magner v. Gallagher. Following Perez’s visit, the city withdrew its case and thanked DOJ and officials at HUD for their involvement.

On April 4, Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to the DOJ and HUD seeking access to the following:

1. All communications with or about St. Paul, Minnesota, its residents, landlords, low-income properties or employees, specifically those exchanges:

a. relating to the city’s recent petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, including the petition’s withdrawal in February 2012;

b. regarding “disparate impact” theory or analysis in the housing, landlord-tenant, or mortgage arena;

c. involving any member of the U.S. Senate’s Democratic Policy & Communications Committee, the House Democratic Caucus, or the White House, and their respective staffs; and,

d. involving third parties such as the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Thomas Goldstein, orWalter Mondale and their respective staffs;

2.  All invoices for travel, food, lodging, communications, or entertainment expenses incurred in connection with any “disparate impact” lawsuit against St. Paul, Minnesota.

In filing its FOIA request, JW requested a waiver of both search and duplication fees, citing its role as a member of the news media. On June 11, 2012, HUD denied JW’s waiver request, informing JW that it would be required to pay a $1,024.43 fee before HUD would release any records.

On June 21, 2012, JW appealed HUD’s denial of a waiver request. On July 23, HUD denied JW’s appeal, and on July 31, JW paid the waiver fee in full.

Despite payment in full, and despite repeated inquiries from JW about the status of its FOIA request, HUD has continued to refuse to release of the documents requested by JW.

“We have reason to believe that the Obama administration improperly and successfully pressured St. Paul city officials to take the extremely rare action of withdrawing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration and its liberal activist allies are desperate to protect their ability to use the discredited ‘disparate impact’ legal standard in lawsuits in order to shakedown businesses and reward allies.”

Judicial Watch seeks the following records pursuant to its original May 15, 2012, FOIA request: “Copies of any and all records of the Board located at the [Federal Reserve Bank of New York] concerning, regarding, or relating to the proposition that ‘the disorderly failure of AIG was likely to have a systemic effect on financial markets that were already experiencing a significant level of fragility.’ Such records include, but are not limited to…detailed meeting minutes, meeting notes, supporting memoranda, communications, and electronic messages and attachments.”

The Board acknowledged receiving Judicial Watch’s request on May 15, 2012, and requested a 10-day extension to respond. A response was due by June 27, 2012. However, as of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the Board failed to respond in accordance with FOIA law.

On September 16, 2008, the Board decided to extend an initial $85 billion loan to insurance giant AIG, which it claimed “faced the imminent prospect of declaring bankruptcy.” According to minutes from the September 16, 2008, meeting: “Board members agreed that the disorderly failure of AIG was likely to have a systemic effect on financial markets that were already experiencing a significant level of fragility and that the best alternative available was to lend to AIG to assist it in meeting its obligations in an orderly manner as they came due…” According to CNN, the total cost committed to AIG was $182 billion.

The Board’s contention – that the failure of major corporations would spread a contagion throughout the financial system – has been used repeatedly to justify the bailouts. However, to date, the government has no evidence to support this contention. Judicial Watch, meanwhile, has launched a comprehensive investigation to determine under what legal authorities and lawful rationales the federal government initiated the Wall Street bailouts and has filed a number of lawsuits on behalf of Mr. McKinley.

“We are now trillions of taxpayer dollars into these financial bailouts and the government refuses to answer basic questions about the government’s radically intrusive response to the financial crisis,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people are tired of the Obama administration’s stonewalling and they want answers. The Fed should obey Freedom of Information Act law and respond immediately.”

With respect to the AIG bailout, Judicial Watch previously uncovered documents showing that the government did not expect taxpayers to recover their “investment” in AIG. For example, Judicial Watch uncovered a series of presentation slides detailing the terms of the AIG bailout. Included among the items is a slide entitled “Investment Considerations.” On the slide the words, “The prospects of recovery of capital and a return on the equity investment to the taxpayer are highly speculative” are crossed out by hand.

On February 25, 2010, Judicial Watch also filed a  FOIA lawsuit against the Obama Treasury Department to obtain documents regarding meetings involving Kenneth Feinberg, special master for executive compensation under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); AIG Chairman Robert Benmosche; and New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley. Feinberg, also known as the Obama administration’s “pay czar,” is the federal official responsible for setting compensation guidelines for the seven largest firms, including AIG, using funds from TARP.

In March 2009, AIG disbursed $165 million in taxpayer-funded TARP funds to its top executives, prompting a massive public backlash. Obama officials reportedly lobbied Congress to insert legislative language allowing the AIG bonus payments and then apparently lied about their knowledge of the payment scheme. As then-head of the New York Federal Reserve, current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner helped craft the original AIG deal.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01183)) against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seeking access to records detailing a February 2012 meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and Muslim organizations. Judicial Watch is also investigating the FBI’s subsequent controversial decision to purge the agency’s training curricula of material deemed “offensive” to Muslims.

On March 7, 2012, Judicial Watch submitted FOIA requests to the FBI and the DOJ seeking access to records concerning or relating to a February 8, 2012, meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and various Islamic organizations.

Judicial Watch seeks “any and all records setting criteria or guidelines for FBI curricula on Islam or records identifying potentially offensive material within the FBI curricula on Islam,” as well as any directives to withdraw FBI presentations and curricula on Islam. Judicial Watch also seeks records of communications between the Office of the Attorney General and several entities, including the Obama White House, the Executive Office of the President, and Muslim organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Society of North America, and the Council for American-Islamic Relations regarding the FBI’s curricula on Islam.

The FBI acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request on March 20, 2012, and was required to respond by May 1, 2012.  The DOJ acknowledged receiving Judicial Watch’s FOIA request on March 14, 2012, and was required to respond by April 11, 2012. To date, neither agency has responded to Judicial Watch’s request in accordance with FOIA law.

FBI Director Robert Mueller reportedly met secretly on February 8, 2012, at FBI headquarters with a coalition of Islamist organizations, some with radical ties to terrorist organizations. For example, per The Washington Examiner, one group that reportedly met with Mueller – the Islamic Society of North America – “was tied to the terror groups Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in federal court documents.” The government named the Islamic Society of North America as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing lawsuit, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the North American Islamic Trust.

During the February 8 meeting, Mueller reportedly assured the Islamic groups in attendance that the agency had ordered the removal of presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that were deemed “offensive.” As reported by NPR, overall, “The FBI has completed a review of offensive training material and has purged 876 pages and 392 presentations, according to a briefing provided to lawmakers.”

The material purge was reportedly initiated in response to a letter of complaint sent by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). However, other members of Congress, including Rep. Allen West (R-FL), object to allowing radical Muslim organizations the opportunity to dictate U.S. counterterrorism policy and want the material to be reinserted into the documents: “Now you have an environment of political correctness which precludes these agents from doing their proper job and due diligence to go after the perceived threat,” Congressman West said.

“There is no question that the country is less safe when we allow radical Muslim organizations to tell the FBI how to train its agents and do its job,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI’s purge of so called offensive material is political correctness run amok and it puts the nation at risk. The Obama administration owes the American people a full accounting of how and why his terrible decision was made.”

Judicial Watch obtained the records pursuant to a May 31, 2012, lawsuit against both government agencies. Among the highlights from the records are:

• The total cost for the Aspen ski vacation was at least $83,182.99.

• The bill for the U.S. Secret Service, including accommodations at the Fasching Haus deluxe condominium and the Inn at Aspen, was $48,950.38.

• The cost for the flight, per official DOD published hourly rates, was $22,583.70.  Food and miscellaneous on-flight items cost $235.44.  The cost for rental cars totaled $6,442.23.

Key details, including flight records for the Secret Service detail and the names of individuals who accompanied Mrs. Obama on the vacation, were redacted from the documents with the exception of two staffers. One was Meredith Koop, her personal assistant and style advisor, the other was her scheduler Kristen Jarvis.

As reported by the Aspen Daily News on February 18, 2012:

First Lady Michelle Obama arrived in Aspen on Friday afternoon and is here with her daughters for a ski vacation.

Few details about her trip were available. Sources said she is staying at the home of Jim and Paula Crown, owners of the Aspen Skiing Co. She is reportedly skiing at Buttermilk today, where the Crowns, of Chicago, own a home on the Tiehack side.

Several people have known about the “low-key” vacation, with the Secret Service in town for the past few days scoping out places for the family to relax and enjoy what the resort has to offer.

FoxNews.com noted that the trip was the 16^th vacation in three years taken by the Obama family.  Judicial Watch first asked for the travel documents on February 21, 2012.

“No wonder we had to file a lawsuit in federal court and wait six months to get basic information on Michelle Obama’s luxury Aspen vacation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The costs of the Obama family ski weekend are staggering. These high-priced luxury vacations, and the lack of transparency about them, are beginning to seem like an abuse of office.”

Judicial Watch previously obtained documents from the United States Air Force and the United States Secret Service detailing costs associated with Michelle Obama’s controversial August 2010 vacation to Spain. According to a Judicial Watch analysis, the records indicate a total combined cost of at least $467,585.

Judicial Watch also obtained documents detailing costs a June 21-27, 2011, trip taken by Michelle Obama, her family and her staff to South Africa and Botswana. Judicial Watch received mission expense records and passenger manifests for the Africa trip that described costs of $424,142 for the flight and crew alone. Other expenses, such as off-flight food, transportation, security, etc. were not included.

 “If Obama is so concerned with how terrorists might react to these photos, then why has he made bin Laden’s death the cornerstone of his reelection campaign?” 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued a statement today in response to a Thursday, April 26 decision by federal Judge James Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia blocking access to photos and videos taken of the deceased Osama bin Laden (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Defense, et al (1:11-cv-00890)).

On May 4, 2011, President Obama told CBS News in an interview that he would not release the death photos of Osama bin Laden, who was captured and killed by U.S. Navy Seals, to the public, saying “we don’t need to spike the football” or “gloat.”  Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on May 13, 2011, to gain access to the photos or video. The Obama administration denied access to the records citing vague national security implications.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated:

The court got it terribly wrong.  There is no provision under the Freedom of Information Act that allows documents to be kept secret because their release might offend our terrorist enemies.  We will appeal.

The Obama campaign seems perfectly happy to “spike the football” on the bin Laden raid to collect votes for his reelection.  If Obama is so concerned with how terrorists might react to these photos, then why has he made bin Laden’s death a cornerstone of his reelection campaign?

Barack Obama has taken a schizophrenic approach to the bin Laden raid. On the one hand he doesn’t want to spike the football for fear of offending terrorists abroad while on the other he gloats about it here at home. He can’t have it both ways.  And the president’s secrecy on this issue flies in the face of his promises of transparency.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeks “all photographs and/or video recordings of Osama (Usama) bin Laden taken during and/or after the U.S. military operation in Pakistan on or about May 1, 2011.” As Judicial Watch noted in its court filings, Judicial Watch “does not seek the production of any photographs or video recordings that have been properly classified or would actually cause harm to the national security by revealing intelligence methods or the identity of U.S. personnel or classified technology.  [Judicial Watch] solely seeks those records that have not been properly classified as well as those records for which no military or intelligence secrets would be revealed.”

The unprecedented move would give the Department of Justice (DOJ), an extension of the executive branch, scary authority to determine if and how public records are disseminated throughout government. It would also strip those duties from the agency— Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)—that was created by Congress as a neutral party to mediate FOIA disputes and assure compliance among all federal agencies.

This is not the sort of story you’ll see in the mainstream media since, not surprisingly, the Obama Administration is keeping it under the radar. However, Judicial Watch has obtained an inside congressional document outlining the DOJ’s unscrupulous plot to become FOIA ombudsman. It comes from one of the most influential and powerful chambers in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In a letter addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder, the California congressman who chairs the Oversight and Government Reform Committee (Darrell Issa) says the proposed modification will have a negative impact on government transparency. The letter also requests documents involving efforts to modify OGIS’s statutorily established FOIA dispute resolution authority by shifting the duties to the DOJ. Holder has until this week to comply with the committee’s request.

The House investigative committee also reminds Holder that the DOJ’s proposal to become the referee for public records disputes clearly contradicts Congress’s intent and is an apparent contravention of FOIA law. “DOJ has important but limited statutory responsibilities concerning the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),” the letter says. “These responsibilities include making information about agency FOIA programs publicly available; issuing recommendations and guidelines to agency FOIA offices, and encouraging agency FOIA compliance. DOJ’s responsibilities under FOIA, however, do not include offering dispute resolution services between agencies and FOIA requesters.”

Congress created the OGIS more than four years ago as a crucial neutral party that offers a range of mediation services to resolve public records disputes and to assure government-wide compliance. The agency, which is headquartered at the U.S. National Archives, has had tremendous success, directly helping resolve more than 1,200 FOIA disputes from virtually every state. No wonder Issa asks Holder to “reconsider the proposed modification and comply with current law.”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on February 29, 2012, against the Obama Department of Transportation (DOT) to obtain records concerning the construction of the proposed California High-Speed Rail (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Transportation (No. 12-324)). The Obama administration has pledged $3.3 billion in federal funds to construct the first leg of the project, which is planned for California’s sparsely populated Central Valley. An independent audit recently concluded that the project is an “immense financial risk.”

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on January 4, 2012, with the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”), a component of DOT, seeking access to the following public records:

All documents, communications and correspondence (including electronic email) transmitted between the Federal Railroad Administration and the California High Speed Rail Authority addressing or relating to the route alternatives under consideration for the proposed California High Speed Rail within Madera County and Merced County, California.

The FRA acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff’s request by letter dated January 5, 2012, and was required by law to respond by February 3, 2012. However, as of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the FRA has neither provided documents nor any indication why the documents sought by Judicial Watch should be withheld. The agency has also failed to indicate when a response is forthcoming.

Construction of the California High-Speed Rail is estimated to cost anywhere from $45 billion to $117 billion. In 2008, California voters passed a referendum authorizing nearly $10 billion in bonds to seed the project. At that time, construction costs were estimated to be much lower. The Obama administration also announced that it would allocate $3.3 billion in federal stimulus and transportation funds to aid in the construction of the first 130-mile stretch of the rail with two conditions. First, construction must begin by September 2012. And second, the first segment of the rail must be constructed in California’s sparsely populated Central Valley, an area hit hard by the failing economy.

However, from the start, the project has been beset with delays and controversy due to the ballooning projected costs of constructing and operating the rail. On January 3, 2012, a Peer Review Group, established by the 2008 California referendum authorizing the initial seed funding, issued a report criticizing the fiscal solvency of the project and refused to recommend authorizing the legislature to approve the appropriation of the bond proceeds: “[M]oving ahead . . . without credible sources of adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the State, and without the appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk on the part of the State of California.”

Officials now say construction on the project will not start until 2013. However, as reported by the Fresno Bee, this delay “isn’t expected to endanger the [federal] funds.” California taxpayers are now concerned that if the project commences with the assistance of the Obama administration’s funding, but without assurances of future funding, the end result would be an incomplete “train to nowhere.”

Affected communities and residents in California have challenged the controversial project in court, including whether the U.S. and California laws related to the project’s funding are being violated.

“The California ‘train to nowhere’ is a multi-billion stimulus boondoggle. The residents of the Central Valley could pay an especially high price for this wasteful project, as the first segment will go right through their backyards and farmland. Instead of stonewalling the release of records, the Obama administration should obey FOIA law so that taxpayers can assess this massive expenditure of taxpayer money for themselves. The California High-Speed Rail project makes the Solyndra scandal seem like small potatoes,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained records detailing costs associated with a trip made by President and Mrs. Obama and key members of the administration to Copenhagen, Denmark, for the expressed purpose of securing the 2016 Olympics for the city of Chicago.  Expenses for the two-week trip appear to have far exceeded $467,175, in light of the fact that costs associated with the aircrafts ‒ two Boeing 747s and several Air Force cargo planes – have not been made available.

According to the records obtained from the Obama Department of Defense (DOD), President and Mrs. Obama; Secretary Ray LaHood; Secretary Arne Duncan; Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President Valarie Jarrett; and representatives of the White House Office of Olympic, Paralympic, and Youth Sport visited Copenhagen from September 21 through October 3 in an effort to convince members of the International Olympics Committee (IOC) to select Chicago as the location for the 2016 Olympics.  The Obama administration ferried dozens of other participants, including supporting staff members, to Copenhagen.  However , the DOD has redacted many of their names.

Among the itemized costs associated with the Olympics trip (totaling $467,175):

• $235,659         Hotel rental for seven “offices” plus transportation and communications (through October 2, 2009)
• $33,044           Cost of extra day in hotel (October 3, 2009)
• $129,276         Travel vouchers for hotel, mileage, reimbursed expenses, and flight costs for persons attending
• $69,196            Flight costs for press

President Obama tapped Valarie Jarrett to serve as his “Olympics Czar” and lead the effort to secure the Olympics for Chicago despite her personal and business ties to Chicago, which included a stint working for Mayor Daley.  Jarrett’s work on the Olympics bid would have violated Obama’s own Executive Order against engaging in lobbying activities prior to his administration.  However, then-“Ethics Czar” Norm Eisen granted Jarrett an “ethics waver” from the president’s highly-touted ethics pledge so Jarrett could run the push for the Chicago Olympics bid.  The waiver exempted Jarrett from the restrictions of President Obama’s own ethics pledge, even though she had personally led the bid before entering the White House.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted to the DOD on October 5, 2009.  FOIA law required the DOD to respond within 20 days.  However, the DOD took 26 months to release the records.  In September 2009, Judicial Watch submitted an open records request with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s to obtain records related to the Olympics bid, and the mayor’s office has failed to respond.  Therefore, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the mayor’s office on November 10, 2009, seeking those records.

“Barack and Michelle Obama wasted taxpayer dollars on a junket that seemed designed for one purpose – to take care of their Chicago cronies who stood to gain financially from the Olympics racket,” says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The fact that Valerie Jarrett needed an ‘ethics waiver’ to lead this failed bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago tells you almost all you need to know about the scandalous nature of this trip.”

Here is how it all went down; in the fall of 2009 President Obama announced that, for the first time in history, White House visitor records would be made available to the public on an ongoing basis. What the administration didn’t reveal is that it would release visitor information at its own discretion and that tens of thousands of visitor logs were being withheld from disclosure.

JW sued, asking the court to order the release of Secret Service logs of White House visitors. The administration argued that the logs were not “agency” records subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It further asserted that JW’s request could not be processed because it was too massive and broad, that it would raise Constitutional “separation of power” issues and national security concerns.

The federal judge who heard the case didn’t buy it. In a historic victory for government transparency and an embarrassing defeat for the Obama Administration, Judge Beryl Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in August that Secret Service White House visitor logs are agency records that are subject to disclosure under FOIA. In fact, Judge Howell noted precedent on this issue, writing in his opinion that “this Court agrees with the conclusions of the other judges in this District that have considered this question and finds that the records are subject to FOIA.”

The legal precedent didn’t stop Obama from mounting a fierce—and desperate—battle to withhold the records. It certainly contradicts his promise of a new era of transparency. Of course, none of this is mentioned in the new White House announcement boasting about releasing more than 1.9 million visitor records. The logs include visits generated in September 2011 as well as several from 2009 that were requested by members of the public “pursuant to the White House voluntary disclosure policy.”  

The White House has ordered agencies to submit recommendations by May 2012 to help create a new directive that will ultimately transform the government’s notoriously inept record-keeping operation. In the end, there will be an efficient and uniform records management system never before seen in the bloated federal government.

The agencies will report their ideas for improving the way they store and manage electronic files, including emails, blog posts and social media activity, according a news report that cites a White House memo issued this week. The goal is to make better use of electronic document storage technology and to create a government-wide records management framework.

This 360-degree turnaround is laughable considering the current system, which lacks any sort of uniform rules. At most government agencies employees decide which emails they think they may be required to keep, which is comical to say the least. And, as the political magazine that reported the story points out, this significantly raises the risk that emails will be lost or misplaced or that employees won’t accurately determine which messages must be archived.

Additionally, 95% of agencies fail to meet statutory requirements for maintaining files, according to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). How did the NARA come up with this figure? Based on agency self-assessments that indicate most aren’t saving the proper records or storing them electronically to ensure that they can be retrieved in the future. In other words, they openly admit that they’re blowing off record laws.

This development comes on the heels of a separate but equally disappointing move by the Obama Administration, which promised unprecedented transparency, involving public records. For nearly a year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a cabinet-level agency within the Executive Office of the President of the United States, has failed to approve recommendations for improving public records requests under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The recommendations were created by a branch, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), created two years ago to mediate disputes between those who request public records and the agencies that process the requests. The OGIS is also tasked with recommending policy changes to the president and Congress that will bring transparency and efficiency to the FOIA process.