JW Calls on President Obama to Overrule Attorney General Holder's Decision on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial

gstasiewicz — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:54:00 -0500

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to grant a civilian criminal trial to 9/11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and other 9/11 terrorists in New York City:

The decision to bring Mohammed and other Al Qaeda terrorists to New York for a civilian criminal trial is not Eric Holder's to make. President Obama is the commander in chief and he is ultimately responsible for the safety and security of this county.

President Obama already reversed Holder on the release of prisoner abuse photos on national security grounds and he should reverse Holder now in the interest of national security. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should remain in military custody, be kept outside the United States and be brought to justice in the military tribunal system.

An unprecedented civilian trial for the 9/11 terrorists will harm our national security, place government officials and civilians at risk, and provide a propaganda platform to rally and recruit terrorists. And it is no small risk that civilian criminal proceeding may result in the release of these terrorists onto American soil. No one elected Eric Holder to make these types of national security decisions. Eric Holder is making a dangerous mistake, and the President needs to act to protect the country and overrule the Attorney General.

Judicial Watch is representing a 9/11 victim in various litigation. And with respect to the military tribunal process, in 2008, Judicial Watch was selected by the Pentagon to monitor the arraignments at Guantanamo Bay of the five terrorist prisoners who are now set to be brought to New York.

In August, Judicial Watch obtained a CIA report entitled, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad: Preeminent Source on Al Qa'ida, which documented the information gained by interrogations of Mohammed: "KSM's decade-long career as a terrorist, during which he met with a broad range of Islamic extremists from around the world, has made him a key source of information on numerous al Qa'ida operatives and other mujahidin. He has provided intelligence that has led directly to the capture of operatives or fleshed out our understanding of the activities of important detainees, which in turn assisted in the debriefings of these individuals." This document was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

JW Obtains Documents on Obama FCC "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd's Official Mission, Duties and Responsibilities

gstasiewicz — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:31:18 -0500

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding President Obama's "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd's official mission and responsibilities.

According to the documents, provided in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Lloyd's mission is "to open up opportunities for all Americans, in particular women, minorities, small business owners, to participate in and benefit from a robust communications marketplace." Among Lloyd's duties and responsibilities: "To work with the Consumer Bureau (and other bureaus as appropriate) to collect relevant data and assess the interaction between communications service providers and consumers in minority communities..." and "to consult with other federal agencies to determine best practices for advancing the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs."

Judicial Watch also requested information pertaining to Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd's office staffing and budget for operation and administration. However, according to FCC Associate General Counsel Joel Kaufman, "We could locate no records responsive to…parts of your request. While Mr. Lloyd shares support staff with others in OGC (Office of General Counsel), no one was hired or assigned specifically to support him in his work. His position is funded out of the agency's fiscal year budget…but he has no separate budget for operation and administration."

In May 2009, Judicial Watch uncovered documents that demonstrate the FCC plans to use the professed goal of "diversity" to regulate free speech in the media. For example, in December 2007, the FCC proposed new "localism" measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more "responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are licensed to serve." Some legal analysts have said such "localism" policies represent a back-door into the controversial Fairness Doctrine, which the Obama administration claims to oppose.

Lloyd, meanwhile, has been criticized heavily for making a number of controversial statements on race. For example, during a conference in 2005, Lloyd said, "There's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." During a 2008 National Conference for Media Reform, Lloyd also said Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's rise to power was "really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution."

Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Mark Lloyd is part of the organization's comprehensive investigation of all Obama administration czars. Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request with the Office of Management and Budget as well as requests with each separate "czar" office. Article II section 2 of the Constitution, states that, "...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."

Unlike the heads of other executive departments (such as the Secretaries of Energy, Transportation, etc.), most of Obama's "czars" have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate or have had their positions authorized by Congress. Some of these appointees might not have even been subjected to a basic FBI background check. Importantly, some of "czars" work for the president in the White House -- these individuals could claim "executive privilege" if ever subpoenaed to testify before Congress. And they may not be subject to transparency laws.

"Obama seems to have a 'czar' for everything and too many wield power with zero congressional and public accountability. And considering the radical views of 'czars' like Mark Lloyd, the more information the American people can get on them the better. Do we really want a race-baiting promoter of Hugo Chavez presiding over questionable diversity programs at the FCC?" said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

JW Files Two New FOIA Lawsuits against Treasury and Federal Reserve for Documents on Taxpayer Bailouts

gstasiewicz — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:02:55 -0500

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed two separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve in its continuing efforts to bring transparency to the federal government's massive taxpayer bailouts.

Judicial Watch's request filed with the Treasury Department on June 19, 2009, relates to a congressional briefing on the financial crisis held by former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on September 18, 2008, as they sought congressional approval for their financial bailout plan.

Judicial Watch specifically seeks access to the following documents: "Any and all records pertaining to the September 18, 2008 meeting about financially troubled banks. (Participants of this meeting included Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, and Richard Shelby. The meeting indicated that the economy may be in a meltdown and legislation needed to be drafted quickly.) Records should include, but are not limited to meeting notes, presentations, transcripts, agendas, correspondence, and supplemental material."

The Treasury Department acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch's FOIA request on June 22, 2009, granting itself an additional ten day extension to process the request. A response was due on July 31. However, to date, the Treasury Department has not produced any documents, nor has Treasury indicated when documents are forthcoming.

With its FOIA request filed with the Federal Reserve on September 2, 2009, Judicial Watch is seeking access to any and all visitor logs for meetings with Chairman Bernanke and any and all visitor logs for meetings with Kevin Warsh from August 2007 to the present. (Warsh, who is not an economist by training, currently serves on the prestigious and powerful seven-member Federal Reserve Board of Governors and has been described by Bloomberg as part of the government's "front-line crisis team" in dealing with the economic crisis.)

By letter dated September 3, 2009, the Federal Reserve acknowledged receipt of the request and granted itself an extension until October 16, 2009, to produce the records or demonstrate which records are exempt from production. To date, Judicial Watch has received no response.

"We are now more than a year and trillions of dollars into the government bailout and answers are in short supply. What was Congress told about the so-called financial crisis and who was lobbying the Fed for taxpayer cash? The taxpayers are paying for this bailout and they deserve to know the truth. Many Americans are growing tired of President Obama's broken promises of transparency," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch has filed at least 53 Freedom of Information requests related to government bailouts and filed at least five related Freedom of Information lawsuits against the Obama administration.

JW Filed FOIA Lawsuit against Chicago Mayor Daley's Office to Obtain Records Related to Olympics Bid

gstasiewicz — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:15:51 -0500

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's office to obtain records related to the Obama administration's failed bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago. President Obama tapped White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett to lead the Olympics effort, despite her personal and business ties to Chicago, which included a stint working for Mayor Daley. The Obama White House granted Jarrett a conflict of interest "ethics waiver" to allow her to serve as "Olympics Czar," despite her having personally led the Olympics bid for Chicago before entering the White House. (Other potentially conflicted White House officials with Chicago-ties include Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior Advisor David Axelrod.)

With its lawsuit, filed with the Cook County Circuit Court, Judicial Watch seeks access to the following records:

All correspondence between the Office of the Mayor and President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, the White House, and/or the Office of Olympic, Paralympic, and Youth Sport regarding the City of Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics.
All notes, memoranda, and/or reports related to the June 6, 2008 outdoor rally at the Daley Center Plaza in Chicago, hosted by Mayor Daley, then-Senator Barack Obama, and then-Congressman Rahm Emmanuel.
All correspondence between the Office of the Mayor and the Chicago 2016 Committee that references President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, the White House, and/or the Office of Olympic, Paralympic, and Youth Sport.
All memoranda and/or reports prepared by the Chicago 2016 Committee that reference President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, the White House, and/or the Office of Olympic, Paralympic, and Youth Sport.

Judicial Watch filed its FOIA request on September 5, 2009. The Mayor's office acknowledged receipt of the request on October 1 and granted itself an additional seven days for processing, but failed to abide by its self-imposed deadline. Following an administrative appeal by Judicial Watch, a response was due by November 3rd. However, to date, Mayor Daley's office has failed to produce any documents or demonstrate the records are exempt from disclosure.

"The Obama White House's failed Olympics bid is a scandal. Why else would Obama's 'Olympics Czar' Valerie Jarrett need an 'ethics waiver' to lead the campaign to bring the Olympics to Chicago? Mayor Daley's illegal refusal to release documents about the Olympics bid is a rather transparent effort to protect President Obama and other key White House officials," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

JW Appeals to Supreme Court to Consider Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton's Eligibility to Serve as Secretary of State

gstasiewicz — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:46:52 -0500

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that on November 3^rd it filed a "Notice of Appeal" as a first step in asking the United States Supreme Court to consider its lawsuit filed on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer David C. Rodearmel challenging Hillary Clinton's constitutional eligibility to serve as Secretary of State [Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (Civil Action No.09-171) (D.D.C.)]. Following oral argument on September 16, a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the challenge on October 29^th, ruling that Mr. Rodearmel lacked "standing" to bring the lawsuit. The panel did not rule on the constitutional merits of the lawsuit.

Judicial Watch's lawsuit, filed on January 29, 2009, maintains that the "Ineligibility Clause" of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States.

According to Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. However, as Judicial Watch notes in its complaint for Mr. Rodearmel, "the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate, including as many as three times during the second, six-year term to which she was elected."

Congress attempted to circumvent this constitutional provision by "rolling back" compensation for the position of Secretary of State to the level in effect on January 1, 2007. Judicial Watch's complaint maintains: "This [fix] does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate."

With respect to the issue of standing, Judicial Watch contends that Mr. Rodearmel "has demonstrated that he is being injured in his employment by being required to serve under, take direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior, Mrs. Clinton" and that he has "been placed in a position where he either must violate his oath of office or risk substantial, adverse consequences to his employment."

The "Ineligibility Clause" is seen by many as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption, limit the size of government, and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government. At least two other presidential appointees, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Army Secretary John McHugh are also ineligible to serve in their positions under the "Ineligibility Clause."

The lawsuit was reviewed on an expedited basis by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Under applicable law, any appeal goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Our client's goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State until 2013. We hope the Supreme Court assumes jurisdiction over this matter and puts a stop to this attempt to do end-run around the Constitution."

Judicial Watch Obtains New CIA Documents on Terrorist Interrogations

gstasiewicz — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:53:53 -0500

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained new documents from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) regarding the results of the detainee interrogation program. The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed on July 14, 2009, include two new versions of a report previously released to Judicial Watch in August, entitled, "Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al-Qa'ida."

These new reports, dated June 1, 2005 and July 12, 2005, contain some different information than the previously released report, dated June 3, 2005. Notably, the June 1, 2005 report concludes that "Detainee reporting accounts for more than half of all HUMINT reporting on al-Qa'ida since the program began..." This fact is missing from the other two later reports.

The June 1, 2005 report also has additional pages of redacted material. All three reports conclude: "One of the gains to detaining the additional terrorists has been the thwarting of a number of al-Qa'ida operations in the United States and overseas."

(The previously released June 3, 2005 report notes "...detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of approximately 70 individuals – many of whom we had never heard of before – that al-Qa'ida deemed suitable for Western operations.")

On March 31, 2009, Vice President Cheney personally issued a request to the National Archives Presidential Libraries section for declassification review of the June 1, 2005 and another detainee program report. The Archives then passed on the request to the CIA for review on April 8, 2009. Judicial Watch sought these reports after it became apparent that they would not be released by the Obama administration in a timely fashion. Only last week was the specific June 1, 2005 report that Vice President sought evidently released to Judicial Watch. Vice President Cheney said these documents show the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques that were used on some detained terrorists, such as Khalid Shaykh Muhammad and Abu Zubaydah.

In March, President Obama overruled objections from national security officials and released documents detailing the government's enhanced interrogation program of terrorists (the so-called "torture" memos). However, President Obama initially withheld information detailing the results of this program, including alleged terrorist plots that the program prevented.

"All of these CIA documents come to the same conclusion: Detainee interrogations are effective and have helped save lives in the United States and overseas," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Obama administration initially attempted to conceal the effectiveness of detainee interrogations by cherry picking documents to support its view on the interrogation program. We're pleased we have been able to provide the American people with more of the truth about the effectiveness of terrorist detainee interrogations."

JW Obtains More Documents Regarding NEA's Conference Call Encouraging Artists to Promote Obama Political Agenda

gstasiewicz — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:44:03 -0500

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it obtained more documents from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related to the NEA's controversial August 10 conference call encouraging artists to create work that promotes the Obama agenda. The documents consist of internal NEA emails indicating the idea for the NEA propaganda effort grew out the Obama campaign while also providing new details regarding White House involvement. The Corporation for National and Community Service, which runs the AmeriCorps program, was represented during the call. The agencies and the White House were supposedly promoting the administration's United We Serve political initiative. The emails include the actual conference call invitation, which details the controversial policy agenda that was being promoted. (The controversial call was first uncovered by www.BigGovernment.com. Other documents about the call were first released last week by Judicial Watch.)

The following are email excerpts:

July 28, 2009, 4:47 pm, Email from unknown Obama campaign activist to Yosi Sergant, former NEA Communications Director: "It was good to see you a few weeks ago in Washington. After our conversation, I thought it would be a really good idea to convene via a conference call some significant tastemakers/producers who can support United We Serve. As many of us contributed our services to the campaign, I would love to gather some of those folks to use their enthusiasm to get behind the President's very important service initiative. Here are some people who I think should be part of the call. [Names redacted.]"
August 6, 2009, Conference Call Invitation sent via email by Yosi Sergant: "A call has come in to our generation. A call from the top. A call from a house that is White. A call that we must answer. And to answer it, we need you...United We Serve is President Obama's call to service challenging all Americans to engage in sustained, meaningful community service. With the knowledge that ordinary people can achieve extraordinary things when given the proper tools, President Obama is asking us to come together to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal."
August 6, 2009, 9:46 pm, Email from Unknown to Yosi Sergeant: "How can I get down Yosi? I'm working with [redacted] doing brand consulting and event production for [redacted]. Love to see how we could collaborate our corporate funds with what you're working on."
August 12, 2009, 3:30 pm, Follow-up Email from Unknown participant to Yosi Sergant: "As per a suggestion on the call, below is a list of action items that might be helpful to inspire an idea on how you can participate in the campaign...Ex) If you are a graphic designer tap into your professional network and organize other designers to create a series of United We Serve posters that can be featured in print, through social media and on serv.gov. Ex) If you are a DJ, tap into your professional network and organize other DJs to promote Serve.gov or a specific local opportunity on the radio or at a club."

The documents also detail the use of the 9/11 anniversary as a vehicle for this political effort.

"These new documents leave little doubt that the NEA conference call and the ongoing United We Serve effort are direct extensions of the Obama presidential campaign. Taxpayers should be outraged that their tax dollars were used to promote political 'art' for the Obama big government agenda," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Obama Administration Tells Federal Court Privacy Act Does Not Apply to White House

gstasiewicz — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:20:47 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the Obama administration argued in a recent court filing that the Privacy Act does not apply to the Executive Office of the President (EOP). This court filing came in a Judicial Watch lawsuit filed in 1996 against the Clinton White House related to a scandal known as "Filegate," where the Clinton White House obtained and maintained the private FBI files of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush officials [Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Civil Action No. 96-2123/97-1288 (RCL)].

In the Obama administration's "Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 17, the Obama Justice Department stated the following: "The White House is not an agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and it necessarily follows that it is not an agency subject to the Privacy Act." However, the Privacy Act specifically lists the "Executive Office of the President" as an agency subject to the Act's provisions.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth had repeatedly rejected this same legal argument, most recently in 2008 when the court ruled against a government motion that would have dismissed the lawsuit: "...this court holds that under the Privacy Act, the word 'agency' includes the Executive Office of the President, just as the Privacy Act says."

While the Obama administration continues to advance the legal and political argument that the White House and the FBI should not be held accountable for the Filegate scandal, former President Bill Clinton apparently disagrees. Clinton told historian Taylor Branch in preparation for a recently published book, "those files did not belong at The White House," and that they "should have been isolated and returned immediately." According to Branch, Clinton also said "[h]is administration should and would be held accountable."

"What the Obama administration is effectively saying here is that if the White House decides to illegally compile FBI files and violate your privacy rights, tough luck," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "It is disturbing that the Obama administration has taken the legal position that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House and the Clinton FBI files scandal was not a scandal. It is worrying to those of us concerned about the Obama White House's collecting "fishy" emails and compiling an enemies list of new organizations, radio hosts, businesses, and industry associations to attack and smear. Is the Obama defense of the FBI files scandal less about that Clinton scandal and more about what his White House is up to now?"

JW Obtains Documents Regarding NEA's Controversial 8/10 Conference Call Encouraging Artists to Promote Obama Agenda

gstasiewicz — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:37:19 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request related to the NEA's controversial August 10 conference call encouraging artists to create work that promotes the Obama agenda. The documents consist of internal NEA correspondence, including emails involving disgraced former NEA Communications Director Yosi Sergant, who resigned over the scandal, and former actor and current Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, Kalpen Modi. The emails newly document detailed White House involvement in the controversial conference call. (The Corporation for National and Community Service, which runs the AmeriCorps program, also was represented during the call.)

The following are excerpts from the email correspondence:

August 10, 2009, 10:23 am: Email from Yosi Sergant to Kalpen Modi: "[The call is] organized by me...I'd ask you to come on and give the exact spiel you gave on Saturday. Walk them through the WH Arts Policy. They won't know it. Then I will take them into United We Serve and the NEA."
August 10, 2009, 10:29 am: Email from Kalpen Modi to Yosi Sergant: "Oy. This would be awesome to be a part of. Let me know if you think it's going long, or maybe I can get someone from here to do it if I can't because of the Social Security mtg."
August 10, 2009, 11:04 am: Email from Kalpen Modi to Yosi Sergant: "Let me see if we can move Social Sec by a few mins. Agreed, it would be great to be on the call and helpful for us also."
August 10, 2009, 1:37 pm: Email from Yosi Sergant to Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement: "We have an important call at 2pm for UWS (United We Serve) and the Arts with my peeps. Indie producers around the country. Kal can't join the call. Any chance you can hop on for 5 minutes and intro with Nellie and I?"

While the names of the individuals on the conference call were redacted due to "privacy concerns," some of their titles were disclosed, including: Green Blogger, Publisher, Musician, Music Writer, Film/Marketing, Actress/Director, Marketing, Magazine, Marketing/Magazine, Event Producer, and Actress. These individuals were described by Sergant in an email as a "rad group, who can really get stuff done."

"These emails shed new light on a very serious Obama administration scandal. The NEA is supposed to foster the arts, not serve as a propaganda machine for the Obama White House. We will continue our investigation so we can provide the truth to the American people about this scandal."

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on September 28, 2009, seeking the following information:

"Any and all correspondence between the White House and NEA Communications Director Yosi Sergant."
"Guidelines regarding the National Service Initiative."
"Guidelines regarding engaging in political activities."
"Guidelines and memos regarding the United We Serve campaign."

Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit for Taxpayers to Stop Phoenix Police Chief from Receiving Illegal Pension Benefits

gstasiewicz — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:23:48 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a taxpayer lawsuit against the Phoenix Police Pension Board, its five members, and City of Phoenix Chief of Police Jack F. Harris to stop the illegal payment of pension benefits to Chief Harris valued at approximately $90,000 per year. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit on October 28 with the Superior Court for the State of Arizona on behalf of taxpayers and residents of the City of Phoenix, including a number of active and retired members of the Phoenix Police Department.

According to Judicial Watch's lawsuit, Chief Harris retired from the City of Phoenix Police Department "on or about January 19, 2007," and was subsequently rehired as "Public Safety Manager." However, Chief Harris continues to head the Phoenix Police Department. He not only uses the title of "Chief of Police," but he also wears the same uniform and has the same office at Police Headquarters as he did before his "retirement." Chief Harris is listed as "Public Safety Manager/Police Chief Jack Harris" on the Phoenix Police Department's organizational chart. Nonetheless, Chief Harris continues to take pension payments, contrary to the requirements of the law.

Judicial Watch previously requested in a letter dated August 27, 2009, that Arizona Attorney General Goddard take action to enjoin the payment of the illegal pension benefits to Chief Harris. However, Attorney General Goddard refused to take action, according to a September 26th letter from the Attorney General's Division Chief Counsel Donald Conrad. Arizona law empowers a taxpayer to institute an action if the taxpayer makes a written request to the Attorney General to institute such an action and the Attorney General fails to do so within sixty (60) days. As the sixty day period has passed without any action by the Attorney General, Judicial Watch is filing this Arizona taxpayer lawsuit to end "illegal payment of pension benefits to Chief Harris."

"Police Chief Harris' alleged double dipping is of deep concern to Arizona taxpayers who are outraged by this apparent waste of taxpayer funds. And certainly our tax-paying Phoenix law enforcement clients want to protect their pension fund. In the absence of leadership from Attorney General Goddard, Judicial Watch is happy to represent Phoenix taxpayers as they seek to enforce the rule of law against Chief Harris and the Phoenix Police Pension Board," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch Statement on Allegations President Obama Rewarded Party Donors with White House Perks

gstasiewicz — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:45:52 -0400

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to allegations reported by The Washington Times that during the first nine months of his administration "President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings."

"This new Obama scandal is disappointingly reminiscent of the Clintons' scheme to rent out the Lincoln Bedroom to top Democratic donors in the 1990s. In this case, however, it appears the entire White House complex is for sale in the Obama administration. A number of federal laws could have been broken by this White House fundraising program. Attorney General Holder can demonstrate his independence by appointing a special counsel to conduct an independent investigation of these serious allegations. In the meantime, the Obama White House needs to respond to our and others' requests for information about White House visitors."

Iran, China Lead the World in Stealing U.S. Military Technology According to Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch

gstasiewicz — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:24:56 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Iran and China lead the world in stealing sensitive U.S. military equipment and technology according to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the Justice Department's National Security Division. The documents include a report entitled, "Significant Export Control Cases Since September 2001," which was prepared by the Counter Espionage Section (CES), and includes the charges, investigative agency, defendants and disposition of each case.

According to the Justice Department report, which was labeled "For Official Use Only," Iran and China were cited for 31 and 20 violations respectively between September 29, 2001 and May 16, 2008. Among the "significant" cases listed by the CES:

U.S. v. Eugene Hsu, et al. (9/21/01): Eugene Hsu, David Chang and Wing Chang were charged with "Conspiracy and an attempt to export military encryption units to China through Singapore." All received guilty verdicts however Wing Chang is still listed as a fugitive.
U.S. v. Avassapian (12/03): Sherzhik Avassapian was a Tehran-based broker working for the Iranian Ministry of Defense when he attempted to "solicit and inspect F-14 fighter components, military helicopters and C-130 aircraft which he intended to ship to Iran via Italy." Avassapian pleaded guilty to issuing false statements.
U.S. v. Kwonhwan Park (11/04): Kwonhwan Park was charged with "Exporting Black Hawk engine parts and other military items to China." Pleaded guilty and sentenced to 32 months in prison.
U.S. v. Ghassemi, et al. (10/06): Iranian national Jamshid Ghassemi and Aurel Fratila were charged with "Conspiracy to export munition list items &emdash; including accelerometers and gyroscopes for missiles and spacecraft &emdash; to Iran without a license." Ghassemi and Fratila are at large in Thailand and Romania respectively. Justice is currently seeking their deportation.

In October 2008, the Department of Justice announced that criminal charges had been issued against more than 145 defendants in the previous fiscal year. Approximately 43% of these cases involved munitions or other restricted technology bound for Iran or China.

According to a Justice Department news release included in the documents released to Judicial Watch: "The illegal exports bound for Iran have involved such items as missile guidance systems, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) components, military aircraft parts, night vision systems and other materials. The illegal exports to China have involved rocket launch data, Space Shuttle technology, missile technology, naval warship data, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or 'drone' technology, thermal imaging systems, military night vision systems and other materials."

"These documents show that Iran and China have concerted efforts to obtain U.S. military technology in violation of our laws," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Obama administration needs to maintain vigilance against the illegal efforts of enemies such as Iran to obtain our sensitive technologies."

Obama Administration Denies Judicial Watch FOIA Request for White House Visitor Logs

gstasiewicz — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:37:30 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the U.S. Secret Service (under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security) has denied Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for access to Obama White House visitor logs from January 20, 2009 to present. In refusing to abide by FOIA law, the Secret Service advanced the erroneous claim that the records belong to the Obama White House, not the agency, and are therefore may be kept secret under the Presidential Records Act. A federal district court has ruled twice that all visitor records belong to the Secret Service and therefore should be available under the Freedom of Information Act.

According to an October 8 letter from the Department of Homeland Security related to Judicial Watch's request: "It is the government's position that the categories of records that you requested are not agency records subject to the FOIA. Rather, these records are governed by the Presidential Records Act…and remain under the exclusive legal custody and control of the White House Office and the Office of the Vice President." The letter goes on to state that the White House might release these records at its discretion.

Judicial Watch successfully forced the release of White House visitor logs related to visits by former lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff's to the Bush White House. As Judicial Watch has argued previously in court filings, the U.S. Secret Service is an agency within the meaning of FOIA and its records are therefore subject to FOIA. The law provides no exceptions for certain types of Secret Service records and does not excuse the Secret Service from complying with FOIA. Moreover, the Presidential Records Act specifically states that presidential records do "not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency…"

The Obama administration announced in September that it would post some White House visitor log information on the White House website beginning on December 31, 2009. However, records from January 20, 2009 through September 15, 2009 will be kept secret, except in narrow specific circumstances. The Obama White House has yet to explain why visitor logs from its first eight months will be afforded special protection.

"Just because the Obama White House says FOIA law doesn't cover White House visitor logs doesn't make it so. The Obama administration is not above the law," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "These visitor logs are subject to release under FOIA and the courts have affirmed this. Judicial Watch has no intention of abandoning its pursuit of these records. We will go to court, if necessary."

Appeals Court Rules JW Can Bring Lawsuit against Commerce Department over Security and Prosperity Partnership

gstasiewicz — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:54:02 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has overturned the district court and ruled that Judicial Watch has standing to bring a lawsuit against the Department of Commerce related to the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), which was set up under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America. Judicial Watch argues the NACC is subject to the open meetings law known as Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and must make its meetings open to the public and must release records relating to those meetings.

The following is excerpted from the appellate ruling:

To satisfy the constitutional standing requirement, familiar doctrine requires a plaintiff to allege an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and that will likely be redressed by a favorable decision on the merits. Here the injury requirement is obviously met. In the context of a FACA claim, an agency's refusal to disclose information that the act requires be revealed constitutes a sufficient injury...As Judicial Watch has standing to pursue its FACA claim, and the merits remain an open question, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is Remanded.

On March 23, 2005, heads of government Vicente Fox, George W. Bush, and Paul Martin launched the North American partnership at a meeting in Waco, Texas, with the expressed goal of "a safer, more prosperous North America." Proponents of the partnership claim its purpose is to increase security and prosperity for all three nations through enhanced cooperation. Critics maintain the partnership will sacrifice U.S. sovereignty.

The American component of the NACC is made up of key corporations and was set up by the government through the U.S. Chamber of Congress. The NACC has provided over 50 recommendations for action on a wide range of issues impacting all American citizens. Judicial Watch wishes to gain membership to the group and gain access to documents about its meetings and activities. The NACC most recently provided recommendations to the North American Leaders Summit, which is now what the SPP is called by the Obama administration.

"We are very pleased with this decision and we look forward to the opportunity to finally make our case in court," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Our objective with this lawsuit is simple: to bring as much transparency as possible to the proceedings of this government-private program. In the spirit of President Obama's promise to provide 'unprecedented' levels of transparency to the inner-workings of government, the Commerce Department should stop stonewalling and open these meetings and documents up to the American people as soon as possible."

In litigation that wound its way to the United State Supreme Court, Judicial Watch had previously challenged the Cheney Energy Task Force under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. And Hillary Clinton's Health Care Task Force also faced a challenge under this open meetings law.

JW Statement on Arizona AG's Refusal to Take Action against Phoenix Police Chief for Receiving Illegal Pension Benefits

gstasiewicz — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:00:02 -0400

The Office of Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard recently notified Judicial Watch that due to budget cuts and "staff reductions" it will take no action against Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris for allegedly receiving illegal pension benefits.

According to a September 26^th letter from Division Chief Counsel Donald Conrad: "We make no judgment about the legitimacy of your claims about violations of Arizona law, but given our limited resources and your organization's stated intent to pursue these claims in court, we believe our resources can be better used to address other matters of concern to our citizens. Accordingly, this letter will serve as notice that we will decline action on this matter."

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton offered the following statement in response to this decision:

"How can the Arizona Attorney General's office lack enough resources to investigate alleged illegal behavior by the Chief of Police of the state's largest city? Attorney General Goddard needs to reevaluate his priorities. Phoenix Police Chief Harris' alleged double dipping is of deep concern to Arizona citizens who are outraged by this apparent waste of taxpayer funds. Judicial Watch will work with the citizens of Arizona to litigate this matter directly on behalf of Arizona taxpayers."

Judicial Watch Files Two New FOIA Lawsuits to Obtain Information on ACORN Scandals

gstasiewicz — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:26:49 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed two new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits on September 28^th to obtain government records related to the activities of the controversial "community organization" Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). These lawsuits were filed against the Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) and the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).

Judicial Watch's EBSA lawsuit involves monies embezzled by Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke. The New York Times has reported that, overall, Dale Rathke allegedly embezzled $948,607.50 in 1999 and 2000. According to a report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, a portion of these funds, $215,000, allegedly came in the form of a "loan." The manner in which this "loan" was handled and concealed by ACORN internally may have violated the Employee Income Retirement Security Act (ERISA).

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on August 4^th, but the EBSA failed to respond within the statutory allotted 20 day period. The request seeks the following records: "All records concerning the following entities' misconduct and/or violations of laws and/or policies, including but not limited to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ('ERISA'): Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ('ACORN'), ACORN Housing, Citizen's Consulting, Inc., Citizen's Services, Inc., Communities Voting Together, Project Vote, Services Employees International Union (SEIU), SEIU Local 100, SEIU Local 880."

The CNCS, meanwhile, handles the programs and paperwork for national government grants, including funds distributed under the AmeriCorps umbrella. Judicial Watch had previously uncovered documents indicating that ACORN's sister organization (ACORN Housing) was no longer eligible for federal funds due to previous abuses involving an AmeriCorps grant. Judicial Watch filed its FOIA request on July 28^th to find out more about these abuses. However the CNCS has failed to respond within the statutory allotted 20 day period. Judicial Watch seeks the following records:

All documents concerning the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and/or ACORN Housing
All documents concerning ACORN Housing and misconduct/violation of grant stipulations.
All documents concerning [the Corporation for National & Community Service]'s investigation of ACORN Housing.
All audit reports of ACORN Housing Corporation, including but not limited to Audit Report 95-17 and Audit Report 96-21.

Over the last several weeks, the U.S. Senate has voted to deny ACORN access to housing funds, while the House of Representatives voted to deny ACORN all federal funds. The U.S. Census Bureau, meanwhile, has severed its partnership with the organization related to the 2010 U.S. Census. The IRS also just severed a program relationship with ACORN. These actions were taken after videos surfaced depicting ACORN workers attempting to advise undercover journalists on how to evade tax, immigration and child prostitution laws.

"What we have learned about ACORN in just the last few weeks has been shocking, but I suspect it is only the tip of the iceberg," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "These new FOIA lawsuits show that the Obama administration has taken a 'stonewall' approach when it comes releasing ACORN documents."

JW Files Lawsuit against DHS for Documents on Reforms to 287(g) Illegal Immigration Enforcement Program

gstasiewicz — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:25:20 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to obtain documents regarding the government's decision to "reform" 287(g), a federal program that trains local law enforcement officers in illegal immigration enforcement techniques. In July, the DHS announced changes to 287(g), which many believe undermine the program, after DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano ordered a complete review of all border and illegal immigration policies.

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on July 20. DHS acknowledged receipt of the request on July 30 and granted itself extra time to process the request. However, DHS has not abided by its own extended deadline and has not provided Judicial Watch with a date certain when it will provide responsive documents or demonstrate that responsive records are exempt from production. By law, DHS had 20 days to respond to the request. Among the documents sought by Judicial Watch:

The new standardized Memorandum of Agreement used to enter into 287(g) partnerships, as announced by Secretary Napolitano on July 10, 2009, as well as any documents containing information on the development of the agreement;
All new 287(g) agreements entered into with law enforcement agencies;
All documents concerning the decision to standardize the Memorandum of Agreement and/or create new 287(g) agreements;
Media and congressional notification plans concerning 287(g);
And all email correspondence concerning the new 287(g) agreement between Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Border Security "Czar" Alan Bersin, and White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz, among other government officials.

The 287(g) program has been credited by local law enforcement officers for helping to reduce crime rates. At least 67 local law enforcement agencies currently take advantage of the program, up from 27 in 2006. Nonetheless, government officials seem intent on weakening the program.

"At a time when local law enforcement agencies are reducing crime with 287(g), why has the Obama administration decided to undermine this program? The vast majority of Americans want federal immigration laws enforced. Local law enforcement officers can contribute to this process and they have every legal right to do so. I suspect that 287 (g) is under attack because Obama appointees have an 'amnesty' agenda at odds with enforcing the law. No wonder Judicial Watch can't get any documents," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch Represents Police Officer in Lawsuit against Houston, Houston Police Department over Illegal Immigration Policy

JudicialWatchWeb — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:02:10 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against the City of Houston, the Houston Police Department and Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt on behalf of Houston Police Sergeant Joslyn M. Johnson related to the department's illegal alien sanctuary policies. Sergeant Johnson is the widow of former Houston Police officer Rodney J. Johnson, killed in the line of duty by an illegal alien three years ago, on September 21, 2006.

According to the lawsuit, filed in the Harris County, Texas District Court in conjunction with Houston attorney Ben Dominguez II:

Sergeant Johnson challenges current policies, practices, and procedures of the Houston Police Department that substantially restrict, if not prohibit, Plaintiff from communicating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") about illegal aliens who are criminally present in the United States.

Plaintiff does not seek to detain or arrest persons in order to inquire about their immigration status. Rather, Plaintiffs seeks to use her professional judgment to determine when it is appropriate to contact ICE to inquire or provide information about a person's immigration status if, in the course of carrying out her duties and responsibilities as a law enforcement officer, she has reason to believe a crime may have been committed.

The complaint maintains that Houston's illegal alien sanctuary policies harm Sergeant Johnson's ability "to fulfill her oath and otherwise carry out her duties and responsibilities as a law enforcement officer," while also restricting Sergeant Johnson's freedom of expression.

On September 21, 2006, Officer Rodney Johnson was making a routine traffic stop when he was shot and killed by Juan Leonardo Quintero-Perez, a previously deported Mexican national who had reentered and was living in the U.S. illegally. After reentering the U.S. illegally, Quintero-Perez had multiple interactions with the Houston Police Department before shooting and killing Officer Johnson, including at least one arrest for driving under the influence and citations for failing to stop and give information following an accident and driving with a suspended license.

As Judicial Watch notes in the lawsuit, "But for the Houston Police Department's policies, practices, and procedures that substantially restrict, if not prohibit its officers from sharing information with ICE, Officer Rodney Johnson may be alive today."

"Houston's illegal alien sanctuary policy is not only illegal, but it has also placed the public safety at risk. Sergeant Johnson simply wants the Houston Police Department to obey federal law and help avert more senseless killings and other crimes," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Houston Police Department needs to end policies that restrict communication between its officers and federal immigration officials."

Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit against HUD to Obtain ACORN Documents

gstasiewicz — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:36:36 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to obtain records related to federal grants provided to the controversial "community organization" Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN).

Judicial Watch filed its original Freedom of Information Act request on July 17. HUD acknowledged receipt of the request by letter on August 4th and granted itself additional time to process the request. However, HUD has not abided by its own extended deadline and has failed to provide Judicial Watch with a specific date by which it would respond, even after Judicial Watch agreed to limit the scope of the request to just seven states. (These states are California, Texas, Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and Louisiana.) By law, HUD had 20 days to respond to Judicial Watch's request. Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit on September 23, 2009.

Judicial Watch seeks the following records:

Any and all documents concerning money given to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and/or any of its affiliates (since January, 2000).
Any and all documents concerning any actions and/or disbarments against ACORN, for reasons including but not limited to abuse of grant money, misconduct, etc. (since January, 2000).

Over the last two weeks, the U.S. Senate has voted to deny ACORN access to housing funds, while the House of Representatives voted to deny ACORN all federal funds. The U.S. Census Bureau, meanwhile, has severed its partnership with the organization for the 2010 U.S. Census. The IRS also just severed a program relationship with ACORN. These actions were taken after videos surfaced depicting ACORN workers attempting to advise undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration and child prostitution laws. Most relevant to the lawsuit against HUD, are the videos depicting ACORN workers providing advice on purchasing a house to run as a brothel for underage, illegal alien girls.

"The Obama administration needs to come clean to the American people about its relationship with this disgraced organization, especially in light of President Obama's personal connections to ACORN," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Given ACORN's scandalous record, the federal government has no business supporting the organization with taxpayer dollars. It is troubling, given President Obama's promises of transparency, we have had to sue to try to gain access to the ACORN documents."

JW Uncovers Documents from Treasury Related to Government-Brokered Acquisition of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan

gstasiewicz — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:25:30 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Treasury Department related to the March 2008 government-brokered acquisition of Wall Street firm Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase and Co. The documents include "confidential" term sheets describing the deal, released to the public for the first time, along with behind-the-scenes email correspondence between Treasury officials indicating that JP Morgan officials believed Bear Stearns to be "nearly worthless" just hours before the acquisition deal was announced. The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch in response to a December 8, 2008, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

On Sunday, March 16, 2008, JP Morgan announced that it had acquired troubled Wall Street firm Bear Stearns for a price of $2 per share, a fraction of the firm's $30 market price on Friday, March 14. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (NY FRB) supported the deal with $30 billion in funding at the direction of then-Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson.

In addition to the "confidential" term sheets uncovered by Judicial Watch, the documents also include email correspondence indicating that the acquisition of Bear Stearns was very much in doubt just hours before the deal was announced to the press on Sunday night, March 16. According to an email sent Sunday morning by NY FRB official Michael Holscher to then-head of the NY FRB and current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, entitled "JPM Findings":

JPM [JP Morgan] has discovered a large (50bn) structured mortgage position funded by BSC [Bear Stearns Capital], as well as other risk positions that are making them balk on the deal. I have asked for a report on their findings to assess the exposures. They also indicated that BSC's risk positions are exactly what JPM has avoided in recent years. They estimate the book value of the firm to be nearly worthless...and that risks on other unknowns are to the downside. They inquired about options that the federal government may have to bail out/purchase BSC, we indicated that options are extremely limited.

Ultimately JP Morgan received the guarantees it needed from the Treasury Department to consummate the deal to obtain the "worthless" Bear Stearns later that evening. These FOIA documents were initially withheld from Judicial Watch in March and were only released after an administrative appeal to the Treasury Department. Nonetheless, Treasury has redacted information from many of these new documents and withheld many documents in their entirety. Separately, Judicial Watch is pursuing a FOIA lawsuit for Vern McKinley, who is seeking documents on the government's contention that a Bear Sterns' collapse would have caused a "contagion" in the financial system. This lawsuit was highlighted in a September 13 editorial in The Wall Street Journal.

"The public has a right to know the full truth about the federal government's unprecedented intervention into the financial markets, and that is what we are delivering through our open records requests. These Treasury documents, despite the improper redactions, provide a fascinating backdrop to the Bear Stearns deal, and what a scam it was. The federal government's $30 billion Bear Stearns bailout was designed to help stave off chaos in the financial markets. And this bailout did nothing to stave off the economic crisis. Since Bear Stearns, the federal government has committed trillions of taxpayer dollars to prop up other 'worthless' financial institutions with no end in sight," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Documents Uncovered

Hearing This Week in Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton's Constitutional Eligibility for Secretary of State

JudicialWatchWeb — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:07:37 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that a lawsuit challenging the constitutional eligibility of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)) will be heard by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

Date: Wednesday, September 16
Time: 9:30 AM ET
Location: Courtroom 22A
The E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

At issue is Hillary Clinton's constitutional ineligibility to serve as Secretary of State. Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

This provision, known as the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. The "Ineligibility Clause" is interpreted by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption, limit the size of government, and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government.

On January 29, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on the grounds that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State under the Ineligibility Clause. The "emoluments" or salary of the U.S. Secretary of State increased at least three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's resignation.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit is on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel. The lawsuit maintains that Mr. Rodearmel cannot serve under Secretary of State Clinton as it would force him to violate an oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States.

"Our goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State until 2013. We hope the court puts a stop to this attempt to do an end-run around the Constitution in the name of political expediency."

JW Obtains Docs from Secret Service Regarding Security Costs for Obamas' "Date Night" in New York City

gstasiewicz — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:13:23 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it obtained documents this week through the Freedom of Information Act from the United States Secret Service documenting $11,648.17 in security costs related to President Obama's "date night" with First Lady Michelle Obama on May 30, 2009 in New York City.

On May 30, President Obama took the First Lady to New York City for what he described as a "date night." In a statement to the press, the President said: "I am taking my wife to New York City because I promised her during the campaign that I would take her to a Broadway show after it was all finished." The Obamas dined for two hours at Blue Hill, a West Village restaurant before heading to the Belasco Theater for "Joe Turner's Come and Gone." The Obama White House had refused to detail costs for the trip.

Judicial Watch's FOIA requests seek "Any and all records concerning the cost of President and First Lady Obama's trip to New York on May 30, 2009. Records should include, but are not limited to, bills, approval(s) documents, correspondence, and other cost records for motorcades, aircraft (including aircraft for aides, press and security detail – and helicopters from JFK to Manhattan), as well as costs associated with closing any streets/sidewalks/businesses, etc., to the public." The request was filed with the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the United States Air Force on June 2, 2009. The Secret Service produced documents to Judicial Watch on September 9, 2009.

Judicial Watch still awaits responses from the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force. Press reports suggest the President and his entourage, which included White House staff and the press corps, used three military aircraft.

"Our government has saddled us with crushing debt in the worst economy since the Great Depression and yet President Obama stuck the American people with a massive bill for a 'date night' with the First Lady. We do not yet have a full accounting of the total costs of the Obamas' 'night on the town,' but this nearly $12,000 waste of taxpayer funds will concern many taxpayer," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "No wonder the Obama White House tried to keep secret the costs of this excursion. On his next "date night," President Obama might want to be more sensitive to the costs of his partying to taxpayers."

JW Calls on Arizona AG to File Lawsuit to Stop Phoenix Police Chief from Receiving Illegal Pension Benefits

gstasiewicz — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:51:19 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it sent a letter on August 27, 2009 requesting that Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard file a lawsuit against the Phoenix Police Pension Board, its five members, and City of Phoenix Chief of Police Jack F. Harris to enjoin the illegal payment of pension benefits to Chief Harris. Judicial Watch informed Attorney General Goddard that if he fails to act on this request Judicial Watch will file a lawsuit on behalf of Arizona taxpayers and former and current City of Phoenix police officers to seek justice in the matter.

As Judicial Watch notes in its letter, Chief Harris retired from the City of Phoenix Police Department "on or about January 19, 2007," but was subsequently rehired as "Public Safety Manager." However, Chief Harris continued to maintain his former title and position as Chief of Police. In fact, Chief Harris is listed as "Public Safety Manager/Police Chief Jack Harris" on an organizational chart maintained by the Phoenix Police Department.

According to Arizona law, if a retired member of the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System "subsequently becomes employed in the same position by the employer from which the member retired, the system shall not make pension payments to the retired member during the period of reemployment." As Chief Harris continues to take pension payments contrary to law, Judicial Watch is asking the Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard to intervene.

Judicial Watch believes that "there is clear legal authority to seek to enjoin the payment of pension benefits to Chief Harris."

"We expect public officials to follow the rules and we expect the Arizona Attorney General to enforce the law," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The illegal payment of pension funds to Chief Harris is a waste of taxpayer funds and Attorney General Goddard should put a stop to it. Judicial Watch stands ready to act if the Attorney General fails to remedy the situation."

Judicial Watch Obtains New CIA Documents Detailing Results of Detainee Interrogations

gstasiewicz — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:04:32 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) regarding the results of the detainee interrogation program. The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed on July 14, 2009, include two reports entitled, "Khalid Shaykh Muhammad: Preeminent Source On Al-Qa'ida" and "Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al Qa'ida."

The records, were previously held by the Office of former Vice President Cheney. On March 31, 2009, Vice President Cheney personally issued a request to the National Archives Presidential Libraries section for declassification review of these same documents. The Archives then passed on the request to the CIA for review on April 8, 2009. Vice President Cheney has said the reports show the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques that were used on some detained terrorists, such as Khalid Shaykh Muhammad and Abu Zubaydah.

CIA interrogations have been the subject of great controversy over the last few months. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi came under fire in April when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002 that suggests otherwise.

"These documents suggest that enhanced interrogation techniques prevented terrorist attacks and protected our country," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Now, the American people can have a more complete understanding of whether these enhanced interrogation programs are effective. We are very pleased to be able to bring these documents to light for the first time."

Judicial Watch filed its original Freedom of Information Act request with the CIA on May 18, 2009. On June 25, 2009, the CIA acknowledged receipt of the request but provided no documents and did not specify when Judicial Watch would receive a substantive response, prompting Judicial Watch's lawsuit. By law, the CIA had until June 30, 2009 to provide any non-exempt records.

JW Files Landmark Lawsuit to Obtain Documents Regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Political Contributions

gstasiewicz — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:48:01 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to obtain documents related to political contributions made by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to the FHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might well possess documents responsive to Judicial Watch's initial FOIA request. However the agency claims it is not obligated to release such documents to the public. Judicial Watch maintains that since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now wholly operated by the federal government through the FHFA they are subject to FOIA law.

Judicial Watch filed its FOIA request on May 29, 2009 seeking access to the following records from 2005 to the present:

a. Any and all Freddie Mac and/or Fannie Mae records concerning political campaign contributions.

b. Any and all Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac records concerning policies, stipulations, and/or requirements concerning campaign contributions.

The FHFA acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch's FOIA request in a July 1, 2009 letter, claiming that it had no documents responsive to Judicial Watch's request. However, the letter also stated that while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might possess the requested documents, the FHFA was not obligated to release them under FOIA allegedly because they do not "control" them. Judicial Watch appealed this decision on July 24. However this appeal was denied by FHFA on August 4, prompting Judicial Watch's lawsuit. The two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are in conservatorship under FHFA, which has full control over Fannie and Freddie, including their records. In addition to the $840 billion in taxpayer funds (from the Fed and Treasury) already spend on behalf the GSEs, taxpayers face a potential liability of $5.4 trillion from Fannie and Freddie.

Overall, members of Congress have received more than $4.8 million in political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last ten years. According to OpenSecrets.org, from 1998 through 2008, the top ten recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's political largess, are as follows: Senator Dodd (D-CT), then-Senator Obama (D-IL), Senator Kerry (D-MA), Senator Bennett (R-UT), Rep. Bachus (R-AL), Rep. Blunt (R-MO), Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA), Senator Bond (R-MO), Senator Shelby (R-AL), Senator Reed (D-RI). Senator Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee responsible for regulating the mortgage industry. Notably, President Obama was a top recipient of campaign monies despite being in the Senate for only three years.

"So much for the new era of transparency from the Obama administration…The decision to keep Fannie's and Freddie's political contribution records secret conveniently protects President Obama, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and his top party allies on the Hill. And more than a few Republicans stand to benefit from this improper secrecy," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Fannie and Freddie funneled 'profits' from backing risky mortgages to politicians like Barack Obama. In turn, these politicians protected Fannie and Freddie from proper oversight of the risks they were taking with taxpayer-funds. More than anything else, this fundamentally corrupt scheme led to the collapse of the housing market and the financial crisis. No wonder the Obama administration doesn't want us to see what is in Fannie's and Freddie's records."

JW Sues Treasury for Records on TARP Funds Distributed to Boston Bank after Intervention by Rep. Barney Frank

gstasiewicz — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:59:58 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury Department to obtain records related to evaluation procedures used by the government to determine which financial institutions received funds from TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). Of particular interest to Judicial Watch is a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank.

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on January 23, 2009, seeking access to the following records:

a. Any and all records concerning evaluation procedures for federal banking agencies and the Treasury Department to distribute/award TARP Funds.

b. Correspondence with Congressman Barney Frank or any representative of his office concerning TARP Funds and/or any bank in Massachusetts.

c. Any and all records concerning OneUnited Bank in Boston, Massachusetts, (including correspondence from any lobbyist, correspondence from any other government agency, correspondence with any elected government official, correspondence directly with the Bank, the Bank’s application for TARP funds, etc).

The Treasury Department has acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch's FOIA request, but has provided no documents and has failed to inform Judicial Watch when a response to its request will be forthcoming. By law, Treasury was required to respond to Judicial Watch's request by March 9, 2009, (following a 10-day extension Treasury granted to itself to conduct a review).

As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Congressman Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator" and Treasury granted the funds.

"TARP has created a whole new form of earmarking, where politicians lobby to receive mass cash infusions for special interests in their states. OneUnited Bank did not appear to be a suitable candidate for federal assistance until Barney Frank intervened and shook loose a $12 million TARP grant. The American people deserve to know if Congressman Frank's intervention improperly colored the decision to give precious tax dollars to his hometown bank," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch Uncovers Documents from Treasury Department Related to AIG Bailout

gstasiewicz — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:53:32 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Treasury Department related to the government's bailout of insurance giant American International Group (AIG). The documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Treasury Department emails and a series of outlines, presentation slides and articles outlining the details of the government's "investment" in AIG, which at the time totaled as much $152 billion.

Following are highlights from the documents:

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.
An outline that describes the strict measures of control "imposed" on AIG as a condition of the cash infusion, including those related to private executive compensation and corporate expenses. One document notes with respect to corporate expenses: The government's corporate expense policy "…shall remain in effect at least until such time as any of the shares of the Senior Preferred are owend by the UST (United States Treasury). Any material amendments to such policy shall require the prior written consent of the UST until such time as the UST no longer owns any shares of Senior Preferred."
A December 15, 2008 Treasury Department internal email from Jonathan Fletcher, Chief Interim Risk Officer for TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), revealing the existence of an internal government program to track the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the AIG bailout. Fletcher writes: "As you know, we are obligated by EESA (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act) to determine the effectiveness of TARP investments…We would propose to follow up on the TARP investment by preparing a risk assessment note that spells out the objectives…and then create both a benchmark for AIG today and then establish metrics to track AIG's progress (or lack thereof) in coming months." No documents related to this government tracking program have been released to the public.

"Clearly Treasury Department officials felt strongly that the $152 billion 'investment' in AIG would not be recovered by the taxpayers. And it appears someone at Treasury did not want the risky nature of the deal to be relayed to the American people," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "These documents show that some government officials recognize their responsibility to measure the effectiveness of their TARP investments. Yet the American people are misinformed and remain in the dark about how their money is being spent."

Documents Uncovered

Complete Treasury Department Documents

JW Files Lawsuit against FCC for Documents Related to Decision to Delay Transition to Digital Television

gstasiewicz — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:56:49 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to obtain documents related to the government's decision to delay the transition to digital television. The lawsuit was filed August 6. Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request following press reports alleging that a donor and advisor to President Obama stands to benefit from the delay. Meanwhile, in a highly unusual departure from policy, the FCC claims it cannot respond to parts of Judicial Watch's FOIA request "until we receive instructions from the White House."

On February 13, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with the FCC seeking access to the following records: "Any records concerning the decision to delay the transition to digital television until June 12, 2009...Any and all records of communication between the Federal Communications [Commission] and the White House concerning the delays in the transition to digital television."

On May 8, 2009, the FCC reported to Judicial Watch that it had uncovered documents related to the first part of Judicial Watch's request and that the FCC would soon release some documents while withholding others. With respect to the second part of Judicial Watch's request, involving communications with the Obama administration, Joel Kaufman, Associate General Counsel for the FCC, indicated that the agency was required to "consult with the White House." The FCC "is unable to respond to this part of your FOIA request until we receive instructions from the White House," Kaufman wrote in his response letter.

On June 16, Judicial Watch received a number of documents related to the first part of its request. However, a large portion of these documents were heavily redacted without explanation. No documents have been received to date related to the FCC's communications with the White House.

Press reports have noted that a donor and advisor to President Obama on digital television issues, Gerard Salemme, is an executive with Clearwire, a telecommunications company that stood to benefit from the delay. The digital transition delay allegedly allowed Clearwire (and its partner, Sprint) to maintain an edge over competitor Verizon. The delay in the digital transition also would have had the effect of delaying Verizon's launch of a new broadband wireless network that would compete with a network currently operated by Clearwire/Sprint.

"Why is the Obama White House interfering in a routine FOIA request? There is no provision of FOIA law that allows the White House to screen requests for potentially damaging information. The FCC has an obligation to abide by the law and either release the documents or provide a justification for withholding them. If the Obama White House cared a whit about transparency, White House operatives would stop impeding the open records process," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch Uncovers Documents Detailing U.S. Senate Requests for Military Travel

gstasiewicz — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:04:39 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Department of Defense (DOD) and the United States Air Force (USAF) related to repeated requests for military aircraft made by members of the U.S. Senate. Judicial Watch recently obtained the documents through the Freedom of Information Act as part of its continuing investigation of waste and abuse related to congressional military travel.

Among the highlights from the documents:

A January 2, 2009 internal DOD email related to a military travel request from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Office. A DOD official responding to the request wrote: "...I was under the impression that they really only had small a/c [aircraft]. Regardless, with Sen Reid being the lead, they would definitely want a vip configured bird. Right now approval is only for one a/c. It's amazing how fast these things grow."
A March 12, 2009 internal DOD email related to a military travel request involving a seven-country tour from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The DOD official responding to the request wrote: "As I expected, the McConnell group wants their C-40 not a C-9...This is the only group that would not shift their dates to be in one half of the month and thus are taking up an asset that could have been used twice but now is being used once. That drove the aircraft decision...it was better to have a C-9 used once than a C-40 (greater range and passenger capability)...The group is also the only group with a large aircraft who only has four members (McConnell, Chambliss, Barasso, Risch + spouses) all others have 5, 6, 7, or 10 members..."
A date-redacted internal DOD email related to the McConnell request. The DOD official responding to the request wrote: "Tell OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) that Sen McConnell and Secretary Gates have already discussed this trip at some length. What I need to have ready for the McConnell office is 'why' the Republican leader of the Senate has been assigned this type of aircraft. They will view this type of aircraft assignment as not appropriate for such a high-level delegation. I understand the requirements for safe and efficient DOD provided transportation, but they will not. I at least want to be able to tell the McConnell office, 'we asked.'"
Request on behalf of at least one congressional spouse ("for protocol purposes"), including to war zones such as Afghanistan. The emails suggest that this issue raised security concerns.
Military assets were used to transport dozens of Senators, their spouses, and others to the funerals of retired Senators Claiborne Pell and Jesse Helms.

In March 2009, Judicial Watch uncovered documents detailing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's multiple requests for military air travel. The documents included internal DOD email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's last minute cancellations and changes.

This latest document release to Judicial Watch comes on the heels of a report in Roll Call noting the fact that in July, "...the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress." The Air Force had only requested one Gulfstream jet as part of its "ongoing upgrade of its passenger service."

"The military has more important things to do than having to cater to the travel whims of Congress. These new documents show that Congressional military travel wastes taxpayer dollars," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Members of Congress should stop treating the United States Air Force as their own personal airline."

Documents Uncovered

Air Force Documents 1
Air Force Documents 2
Air Force Documents 3
Air Force Documents 4
Air Force Documents 5
Air Force Documents 6
Air Force Documents 7 - not provided (as unresponsive)
Air Force Documents 8 - not provided (as unresponsive)
Air Force Documents 9
Department of Defense Documents on Senator Frist
Department of Defense Documents on Senator McConnell
Department of Defense Documents on Senator Reid

Judicial Watch Statement on Sonia Sotomayor's Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court

gstasiewicz — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:38:21 -0400

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to the U.S. Senate's vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"Judge Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court is a pyrrhic victory for President Obama. The president's nomination of Judge Sotomayor has helped erode his popular support. Obamas nominee proved an unpopular choice among the American people, including Hispanics, given her race-conscious and activist judicial philosophy. Even Judge Sotomayor was forced to disavow Obama's lawless 'empathy' standard in her quest for a seat on the High Court.

"Republicans may finally understand that conservatives expect them to oppose activist judges who don't respect the U.S. Constitution. And Democrats are surely hoping President Obama does not have any more Supreme Court nominations – especially any which would upset the Court's current ideological make-up. All in all, this confirmation fight is a 'job well done' by the conservative voters and activists who made their voices heard.

JW Sues Treasury Department to Obtain Documents on Bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

gstasiewicz — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:37:20 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Treasury to obtain documents concerning the taxpayer bailouts of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Through its lawsuit, filed on July 29, 2009, Judicial Watch seeks the following records:

a. Documents concerning the U.S. Government's intervention (bailout, capital injection, conservatory formation, etc.) for Freddie Mac (records include but are not limited to legal framework, consideration and documentation of foreign investors' concerns, correspondence, etc.).

b. Documents concerning the U.S. Government's intervention (bailout, capital injection, conservatory formation, etc.) for Fannie Mae (records include but are not limited to legal framework, consideration and documentation of foreign investors' concerns, correspondence, etc.).

The bailouts of Fannie and Freddie have already cost taxpayers $86 billion – and are expected to cost up to $200 billion by the end of next year. Judicial Watch filed its initial FOIA request on February 5, 2009, as part of a large-scale investigation into the government's response to the financial crisis. By law, Treasury had until March 6, 2009, to respond. Treasury Department officials requested a 10-day extension to conduct a document review. However, since that time, Treasury has provided no documents and no indication when documents will be forthcoming.

On his first day in office, President Obama promised that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." The president further declared that "the Freedom of Information Act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent, and of holding it accountable."

Earlier this year, Judicial Watch had to sue the Obama Treasury Department in order to obtain documents regarding an historic meeting held by former Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson with top bank executives. The documents show that Paulson and other officials, including then-NY Fed Reserve head and current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner forced the executives to take the government's $250 billion "investment" (and resulting control).

"Judicial Watch should not have to fight tooth and nail to obtain important information from the Obama administration related to the federal government's response to the economic crisis. The public has every right to know the details regarding the federal government's $200 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "When is the Obama administration going to start keeping its promises of transparency?"

JW Fights for Free Speech in Amicus Curiae Brief Filed with Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC

gstasiewicz — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:02:52 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of free speech in the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In its brief, filed on July 30, Judicial Watch argues that the Federal Election Commission's decision to ban (under McCain-Feingold) the broadcast of a Citizens United documentary about Hillary Clinton during the presidential election season violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, which took the unusual step of ordering special oral arguments in the lawsuit on September 9, will now decide whether to overturn two High Court precedents (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission) that restrict corporate speech.

Judicial Watch's brief, advanced four principle arguments:

Political Speech Is at the Heart of the First Amendment and Is Entitled to the Broadest Protection:

The [Supreme] Court...was solicitous to protect political speech not only as a matter of individual liberty, and not only because it was the intention of the Framers, but because political speech is crucial to the survival of our representative government and its system of ordered liberty. This principle, in turn, presupposes that First Amendment protection of political speech is the precondition of all other freedoms protected by the Constitution.
Unlike Contributions to Candidates, Independent Expenditures, Which Are Not Coordinated with a Candidate or Campaign, Do Not Pose a Danger of Corruption or its Appearance:

In essence, because as a nation we value free speech so highly, our government is permitted to regulate it only where the government's interest is compelling and only to the extent absolutely necessary to achieve that interest... Independent expenditures...are not coordinated with a candidate or campaign [and] do not pose a danger of corruption or its appearance. This is because a candidate does not necessarily benefit from (and may well even be harmed by) an expenditure that is made independently of his campaign.
This Court Has Consistently Invalidated Legislative Attempts at Limiting or Restricting Corporate Expenditures as Violative of First Amendment Free Speech:

Clearly, this Court has consistently held that independent expenditures are protected speech which require the broadest protection by the First Amendment. This Court has also consistently invalidated legislative attempts at limiting or restricting corporate expenditures as violative of First Amendment free speech because the government's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance thereof is inapplicable to independent expenditures, as there is no threat of a political quid pro quo with this type of core independent political expression.
Austin and McConnell Deviated from Established Precedent, and, as a Result, Should Be Overruled by this Court:

In Austin, the Court addressed a state statute that prohibited corporations from using "corporate treasury funds for independent expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, any candidate in elections for state office".... The Court did not find that the state had proven the existence of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, "the only legitimate and compelling government interes[t] thus far identified for restricting campaign finances," NCPAC, 470 U.S. at 496, 497, but invented a new species of corruption: "the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas." Austin, 494 U.S. at 654.

In McConnell, the Court upheld against a First Amendment challenge Congress' amendment of the FECA provision prohibiting corporate independent expenditures...In short, McConnell suppresses speech that this Court has unambiguously held cannot be suppressed. It "compounds the error made in Austin...and silences political speech central to the civic discourse that sustains and informs our democratic processes." McConnell, 540 U.S. at 323 (Kennedy, J., Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., dissenting).

"McCain-Feingold violates the First Amendment by preventing watchdog groups organized as corporations from using their own money independently to talk about politicians and public policy issues. As it relates to Judicial Watch, this law could prevent us from telling the truth about corrupt politicians close to an election," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch Asks U.S. Senators to Oppose Sotomayor Nomination

gstasiewicz — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:37:46 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced that it sent a July 30 letter to all United States Senators asking them to oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. The opposition letter, signed by Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, reads in part:

"This letter is to state (Judicial Watch's) opposition to the elevation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Judge Sotomayor's record is troubling in many respects, to include the following:

Judge Sotomayor repeatedly made prejudiced and biased comments with regard to race and sex.

Judge Sotomayor has expressly rejected the notion that courts should be impartial.

Judge Sotomayor expressed support for the use of international law in deciding questions arising under the United States Constitution.

Judge Sotomayor's activity at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund suggests she personally supports a radical, judicial activist agenda that includes opposition to any restrictions on abortion rights and support of taxpayer funding for abortion.

Judge Sotomayor wrongly dismissed significant constitutional questions concerning the Second Amendment, racial discrimination, and property rights with summary or cursory opinions.

Her confirmation hearing testimony on the all the above points was, at best, disingenuous. Indeed, a July 19 Washington Post editorial supportive of Judge Sotomayor acknowledged that some of her testimony was 'unconvincing and at times uncomfortably close to disingenuous.'

"Judge Sotomayor's advocacy as a judge for a race-based ideological agenda is problematic enough, but elevating an individual with such a record to the Supreme Court will tend to undermine the American people's confidence in the fair administration of justice by the High Court.

"Accordingly, on behalf of the membership of Judicial Watch, I urge you to oppose Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

"On a related matter, we urge you to consider ways to reform the Senate's handling of presidential judicial nominations. The current confirmation process is unnecessarily political and serves to undermine Americans' faith in a fair and independent judiciary. Judicial Watch stands ready to work with you on ways to ensure a more rational approach to the Senate's constitutional 'advice and consent' role in judicial nominations."

JW Petitions California Supreme Court to Review Challenge to LA Sanctuary Policy

gstasiewicz — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:56:52 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a "Petition for Review" with the California Supreme Court in its taxpayer lawsuit against Special Order 40, a Los Angeles Police Department illegal alien sanctuary policy (Sturgeon v. Bratton, et al., Case No. BC351646). Judicial Watch's taxpayer lawsuit argues that Special Order 40 violates federal immigration law as well as California State law. The California Court of Appeal ruled on June 17, 2009 that the lawsuit could not proceed to trial.

Judicial Watch asked the California Supreme Court to review two specific questions in its petition, filed on July 27.

First, Judicial Watch asked the California Supreme Court to settle the important question of whether federal law preempts California Penal Code 834b, which states, in part, that "Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (now Immigration and Customs Enforcement) regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration law." The statute also prohibits local government entities from limiting the cooperation between local law enforcement officers and federal immigration officials.

The Court of Appeal failed to apply Penal Code 834b, finding that the provision, approved by voters in 1994 as part of Proposition 187, was preempted by federal law as "an impermissible regulation of immigration."

"It is ironic, to say the least, that a statute enacted by California voters to promote cooperation and information sharing between state, local, and federal law officials on immigration matters would be dismissed so easily as an impermissible regulation of immigration when federal law so obviously seeks to promote these very same goals," Judicial Watch states in its petition. (The federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 promotes the free flow of information between state and local officials and federal immigration authorities.)

In fact, earlier this year, the California Supreme Court found that a California statute allowing juveniles to be declared wards of the court based on violations of federal immigration laws was not preempted by the Supremacy Clause or any other federal law. The Court had recognized that "a regime of cooperative federalism, in which local, state, and federal governments may work together to ensure the achievement of federal criminal immigration policy."

Second, Judicial Watch is challenging the appellate court's decision to force a taxpayer challenging an administrative policy to satisfy the same heavy burden as a person bringing a "facial" challenge to a statute or ordinance. A "facial" challenge requires a litigant to prove that an ordinance or statute is always and under all circumstances unconstitutional. As Judicial Watch notes in its complaint, there is no statute or ordinance at issue in this lawsuit.

"Special Order 40 and the even more restrictive, unwritten practices and procedures by which the LAPD has implemented Special Order 40 most definitely are not statutes, ordinances or legislative enactments," Judicial Watch noted in its complaint. Considering Judicial Watch's taxpayer lawsuit as a "facial challenge" is inappropriate, therefore, "because, by definition, a practice does not have a 'face.' This is especially the case in legal challenges to unwritten practices such as Plaintiff has asserted here. There simply is no text to be analyzed."

"Special Order 40 is a dangerous and unlawful 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that puts law-abiding citizens at risk. There is no question Special Order 40 frustrates the free flow of communication between law enforcement officers and federal immigration officials. This is a clear violation of federal immigration law," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "We hope the California Supreme Court considers the serious legal issues at the center of this taxpayer lawsuit."

Judicial Watch Files Open Records Request with Cambridge, MA Police Department Regarding Arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates

gstasiewicz — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:53:36 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Massachusetts Public Records Request with the Cambridge, MA, Police Department regarding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following records:

Any audiotapes or videotapes recorded prior to, during, or after the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates on July 16, 2009.

On July 16, Sergeant James Crowley responded to a 911 phone call from a passerby reporting two men attempting to force open the door at Professor Gates' Harvard Square home. Professor Gates claims that he had just returned from a trip to China and his front door was jammed. He asked his driver to help him force it open.

According to Sergeant Crowley, after approaching the house, Professor Gates was belligerent and refused to provide identification when requested. Sergeant Crowley told the press he arrested Gates for disorderly conduct after the professor followed him outside the home "continuing [his] tirade even after being warned multiple times, probably a few more times than the average person would have gotten."

The Fraternal Order of the Police has expressed its support of Sergeant Crowley, who was previously selected to teach a course on racial profiling for a police training academy.

According to Professor Gates, Sergeant Crowley was disrespectful from the beginning, refusing to identify himself or his provide his badge number. Supporters of Professor Gates, including President Obama, suggested his arrest was racially motivated. The President, noting that he did not have all the facts, also said at a press conference that he thought the police acted "stupidly."

The disorderly conduct charges against Gates were dropped the day after the arrest.

"President Obama threw the race card on the table after the Gates arrest without having all of the facts. Uninformed, inflammatory comments on this matter by President Obama have widened racial division and undermined the rule of law. Judicial Watch seeks to help the public come to an informed opinion on the controversy," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

JW Files Lawsuit Against CIA for Documents On Terrorist Interrogation Briefings of Speaker Pelosi and Congress

gstasiewicz — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:07:22 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced that it filed yesterday a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to obtain documents related to congressional briefings on "enhanced interrogation techniques" (Judicial Watch v. Central Intelligence Agency, Case: 1:09-cv-01352). Judicial Watch seeks documents detailing CIA briefings involving House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and/or her staff. Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request with the Central Intelligence Agency on May 15 seeking the following information:

Records detailing dates when the CIA briefed congressional leaders (to include, but not limited to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and/or her aide, Michael Sheehy) on matters relating to "enhanced interrogation techniques" and/or "harsh interrogation techniques" and suspected and/or known terrorists.
Briefing materials presented to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and/or her aide, Michael Sheehy, relating to "enhanced interrogation techniques" and/or "harsh interrogation techniques" and suspected and/or known terrorists.
Records detailing the names of all Members of Congress (and/or Congressional Aides) briefed on "enhanced interrogation techniques" and/or "harsh interrogation techniques" and suspected and/or known terrorists.
Records and briefing materials from a reported September 4, 2002 briefing of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (and/or her aide Michael Sheehy) concerning waterboarding detainees.
Records detailing all instances when the CIA has provided briefings to Members of Congress under the provisions of the National Security Act from September 11, 2001 to present.

On June 23, the CIA notified Judicial Watch that it would not be able to respond to the FOIA request within the mandated 20 working days but failed to indicate when a response would be forthcoming. The CIA suggested it would respond "as soon as we can."

In April 2009 Speaker Pelosi admitted she was briefed on the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," including waterboarding, but said that the CIA did not tell her that the techniques had already been used. The CIA contradicted Pelosi's claim, pointing to a briefing they held with the speaker on September 4, 2002 and a subsequent briefing to her top staffer. In response to the controversy, Speaker Pelosi stated the CIA was lying about the briefings and "mislead(s) Congress all the time." Judicial Watch filed its FOIA request to get to the truth in the matter.

"I suspect the Obama administration is stonewalling the release of these documents to protect Speaker Pelosi from further embarrassment," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This FOIA lawsuit shows, yet again, that Obama's promises of transparency were nothing more than empty rhetoric."

On July 14, Judicial Watch filed a separate FOIA lawsuit against the CIA to obtain records from the Office of former Vice President Cheney related to the results of the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

Judicial Watch Files FOIA Lawsuit against CIA to Obtain Records on Results of Enhanced Interrogations

gstasiewicz — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:03:09 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to obtain records from the Office of former Vice President Cheney related to CIA interrogation techniques.

According to the complaint, which was filed on July 14, 2009, Judicial Watch is seeking the following records:

a. CIA Report dated July 13, 2004, from Collection title "OVP Cheney, Immediate Office Files," Folder Title "Detainees."
b. CIA Report dated June 1, 2005, from Collection title "OVP Cheney, Immediate Office Files," Folder Title "Detainees."

On March 31, 2009, Vice President Cheney personally issued a request with the National Archives Presidential Libraries section for declassification review of these two specific documents. The Archives then passed on the request to the CIA for review on April 8, 2009. These documents reportedly discuss the effectiveness of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs).

In March, President Obama overruled objections from national security officials and released documents detailing the government's enhanced interrogation program of terrorists (the so-called "torture" memos). However, President Obama withheld information detailing the results of this program, including alleged terrorist plots that the program prevented. It is these documents that Judicial Watch, through this new FOIA lawsuit, seeks to obtain.

"President Obama cherry-picked documents to release on the enhanced interrogation program," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Our Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the CIA shows how President Obama continues to stonewall and has yet to tell the full truth to the American people about whether the terrorist interrogation program saved American lives by preventing terrorist attacks."

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request with the CIA on May 18, 2009. On June 25, 2009, the CIA acknowledged receipt of the request but provided no documents, and did not specify when Judicial Watch would receive a substantive response. By law, the CIA had until June 30, 2009, to provide any non-exempt records.

Judicial Watch Raises Ethics Concerns about Judge Sotomayor

gstasiewicz — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:05:10 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it sent a letter of complaint on July 7 to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) expressing concern that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly violated the Judicial Code of Conduct through her statements and behavior and is therefore unfit to serve on the High Court.

According to the letter signed by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

"I write to you out of concern that out-of-court statements and activity by Judge Sonia Sotomayor violate various provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges ("Code of Conduct"). In fact, Judge Sotomayor may be in violation of the Code of Conduct as a result of the following:

Repeated prejudicial and racist comments.

Recent membership in an organization that practices "invidious discrimination" based on sex.

Improper political activity.

The Judicial Code of Conduct notes that the duty to "act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge's activities, including the discharge of the judge's adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias."

Judge Sotomayor's statements and activities, Judicial Watch contends, have repeatedly violated this and other canons of the Code of Conduct. Among the evidence presented by Judicial Watch to support its contention:

Sotomayor's Prejudiced and Racist Comments: During an October 2001 speech at the University of California Berkeley, Sotomayor said the following: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Judge Sotomayor has also promoted the idea that "gender and national origins" of judges "may and will make a difference in our judging."

Sotomayor's Membership in an Organization That Practices "Invidious Discrimination" Based on Sex: According to Canon 2 (c) of the Judicial Code of Conduct: "A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor recently resigned her membership from the Belizean Grove, a private organization consisting entirely of professional women that claims to represent the counterweight to the "elite old boys' network." In her recent Senate questionnaire Judge Sotomayor wrote the following with respect to her organizational affiliations: "None of the above organizations, other than the Belizean Grove, discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor stated that the group does not "invidiously" discriminate but the evidence seems otherwise.

Sotomayor's Improper Political Activity: On April 17, 2009, Judge Sotomayor made a political speech to the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association. Among the statements made by Judge Sotomayor during that speech: "The wide coalition of groups that joined forces to elect America's first Afro-American President was awe inspiring in both the passion the members of the coalition exhibited in their efforts and the discipline they showed in the execution of their goals… Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence."

Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct plainly states that "A judge should refrain from political activity," and that a judge should not "publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."

"Judge Sotomayor seems to be in violation of the ethical guidelines that governs the conduct of judges. Frankly, this apparent misconduct ought to give the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate further reason to reject her nomination for the High Court," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch Asks Court to Declare Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State

gstasiewicz — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:08:21 -0400

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that on July 2 it filed a motion with a special panel of three federal judges in the District of Columbia asking the court to declare Hillary Clinton ineligible to serve as Secretary of State. The Judicial Watch lawsuit, filed on behalf of a U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, maintains that the "emoluments clause" of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Mrs. Clinton from serving as Secretary of State until January 2013, and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)).

Government lawyers had previously filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Judicial Watch filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, as well as a "cross motion for summary judgment."

According to Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. However, as noted in the motion, "the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate, including as many as three times during the second, six-year term to which she was elected."

Congress attempted to circumvent this constitutional provision by "rolling back" compensation for the position of Secretary of State to the level in effect on January 1, 2007, when Mrs. Clinton's second term in the Senate began. The motion maintains: "This [fix] does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate." Judicial Watch also notes that throughout the nation's history, "the Ineligibility Clause was readily understood and applied consistent with its plain language." Only relatively recently have government officials attempted to get around this constitutional provision through legislative quick fixes.

"Congress must not be allowed to do an end run around the U.S. Constitution," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Hillary Clinton is ineligible to serve as Secretary of State until 2013. The Constitution is crystal clear on this point. We hope the court puts a stop to this naked attempt to circumvent the Constitution in the name of political expediency."

Judicial Watch Statement on the Ricci Reversal

gstasiewicz — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:45:25 -0400

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to the reversal of a decision that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge:

The Ricci decision today is further confirmation that Judge Sotomayor should not be confirmed for the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Judge Sotomayor helped uphold an action that was in violation of our nation's anti-discrimination laws. The question for the United States Senate is whether to confirm someone who thinks it is appropriate to discriminate based on race simply to protect oneself from a lawsuit. Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, noted that New Haven firefighters have "a right to demand...evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them." Judge Sotomayor did not apply our nation's anti-discrimination laws in an evenhanded way and her confirmation should be rejected.

(To learn more about Judge Sotomayor click here.)

JW Calls on President Obama to Overrule Attorney General Holder's Decision on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial

JW Obtains Documents on Obama FCC "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd's Official Mission, Duties and Responsibilities

JW Files Two New FOIA Lawsuits against Treasury and Federal Reserve for Documents on Taxpayer Bailouts

JW Filed FOIA Lawsuit against Chicago Mayor Daley's Office to Obtain Records Related to Olympics Bid

JW Appeals to Supreme Court to Consider Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton's Eligibility to Serve as Secretary of State

Judicial Watch Obtains New CIA Documents on Terrorist Interrogations

JW Obtains More Documents Regarding NEA's Conference Call Encouraging Artists to Promote Obama Political Agenda

Obama Administration Tells Federal Court Privacy Act Does Not Apply to White House

JW Obtains Documents Regarding NEA's Controversial 8/10 Conference Call Encouraging Artists to Promote Obama Agenda

Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit for Taxpayers to Stop Phoenix Police Chief from Receiving Illegal Pension Benefits

Judicial Watch Statement on Allegations President Obama Rewarded Party Donors with White House Perks

Iran, China Lead the World in Stealing U.S. Military Technology According to Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch

Obama Administration Denies Judicial Watch FOIA Request for White House Visitor Logs

Appeals Court Rules JW Can Bring Lawsuit against Commerce Department over Security and Prosperity Partnership

JW Statement on Arizona AG's Refusal to Take Action against Phoenix Police Chief for Receiving Illegal Pension Benefits

Judicial Watch Files Two New FOIA Lawsuits to Obtain Information on ACORN Scandals

JW Files Lawsuit against DHS for Documents on Reforms to 287(g) Illegal Immigration Enforcement Program

Judicial Watch Represents Police Officer in Lawsuit against Houston, Houston Police Department over Illegal Immigration Policy

Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit against HUD to Obtain ACORN Documents

JW Uncovers Documents from Treasury Related to Government-Brokered Acquisition of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan

Documents Uncovered

Hearing This Week in Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton's Constitutional Eligibility for Secretary of State

Related Documents

JW Obtains Docs from Secret Service Regarding Security Costs for Obamas' "Date Night" in New York City

JW Calls on Arizona AG to File Lawsuit to Stop Phoenix Police Chief from Receiving Illegal Pension Benefits

Judicial Watch Obtains New CIA Documents Detailing Results of Detainee Interrogations

JW Files Landmark Lawsuit to Obtain Documents Regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Political Contributions

JW Sues Treasury for Records on TARP Funds Distributed to Boston Bank after Intervention by Rep. Barney Frank

Judicial Watch Uncovers Documents from Treasury Department Related to AIG Bailout

Documents Uncovered

JW Files Lawsuit against FCC for Documents Related to Decision to Delay Transition to Digital Television

Judicial Watch Uncovers Documents Detailing U.S. Senate Requests for Military Travel

Documents Uncovered

Judicial Watch Statement on Sonia Sotomayor's Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court

JW Sues Treasury Department to Obtain Documents on Bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

JW Fights for Free Speech in Amicus Curiae Brief Filed with Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC

Judicial Watch Asks U.S. Senators to Oppose Sotomayor Nomination

JW Petitions California Supreme Court to Review Challenge to LA Sanctuary Policy

Judicial Watch Files Open Records Request with Cambridge, MA Police Department Regarding Arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates

JW Files Lawsuit Against CIA for Documents On Terrorist Interrogation Briefings of Speaker Pelosi and Congress

Judicial Watch Files FOIA Lawsuit against CIA to Obtain Records on Results of Enhanced Interrogations

Judicial Watch Raises Ethics Concerns about Judge Sotomayor

Judicial Watch Asks Court to Declare Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State

Judicial Watch Statement on the Ricci Reversal