(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking access to records related to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan’s role in Obamacare discussions while she served as President Obama’s Solicitor General (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12 –cv-00277)).

Previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch have raised concerns about whether Justice Kagan should recuse herself from considering the Obamacare litigation when it goes before the High Court in March 2012.

Pursuant to its original Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted to the DOJ’s Office of Information Policy and the Office of Solicitor General on December 7, 2011, Judicial Watch seeks access to the following information to help to determine if Justice Kagan and her top deputies participated in Obamacare meetings and phone calls:

All calendars, schedules, phone logs and agenda for each of the following individuals: (1) Elena Kagan; (2) Neal Katyal; (3) Edwin Kneedler; (4) Malcolm Stewart; and (5) Michael Dreeben.

Neal Katyal, Edwin Kneedler, Malcolm Stewart and Michael Dreeben all served as Deputy Solicitors General under Kagan. The time frame for this request is September 1, 2009, through August 31, 2010.

The Obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request by January 25, 2012.  However, to date, the Obama administration has neither released any records, nor provided an explanation as to why records should be withheld, nor given a date when a response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request will be forthcoming.

Justice Kagan has said that she was not “substantially” involved in the DOJ discussions regarding Obamacare’s constitutional or litigation issues. The White House, despite repeated inquiries, has refused to confirm to Judicial Watch that Justice Kagan was “walled off” from Obamacare defense discussions while at the DOJ.

Emails previously obtained by Judicial Watch suggest Kagan and staff from her Solicitor General’s office may have participated in discussions pertaining to the legal defense of Obamacare. Other records show then-Solicitor General Kagan commenting excitedly on the passage of Obamacare.  (Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to a FOIA lawsuit filed on February 24, 2011. This lawsuit had been consolidated with a similar FOIA lawsuit first filed against the DOJ by the Media Research Center.)

Responding to inquiries from Congress for records detailing Justice Kagan’s role in Obamacare discussions, Attorney General Eric Holder said in December 2011 that he has “separation of powers concerns” about releasing them, according to Politico.

“This is no time for the Obama administration to stonewall and obfuscate. We hope the court will force the Obama administration to respond to our request in a manner consistent with federal law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people deserve to know how deeply involved Elena Kagan and her top deputies were in shaping the Obama administration’s legal defense of Obamacare.  The integrity of the courts requires a full airing of those facts before she participates in ruling on a matter she may have helped prepare for litigation.  There is more information at the Justice Department but clearly Eric Holder intends to run out the clock.”

On February 13, 2012, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, specifically the “individual mandate.” The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the Obamacare case on March 26, 27, and 28, 2012.

“This is a tremendous victory for anyone concerned about using tax dollars to subsidize the education of illegal alien lawbreakers. We are thrilled that the voters of Maryland will have the final say on the Maryland DREAM Act.

Illegal alien activists failed in their attempt use the courts to push their unpopular and radical agenda. American citizens are fed up with taxpayer-funded policies to benefit illegal aliens.  We expect that the vote in November will put a stop to this effort to help illegal aliens at the expense of law-abiding Americans and residents.

The MDPetitions.com group is represented by Judicial Watch.  The chairman of MDPetitions.com is Maryland Assembly Delegate Neil Parrott of Washington County; Delegate Patrick McDonough of Baltimore and Harford Counties is its honorary chairman.

The Maryland DREAM Act was enacted by the Maryland General Assembly and signed by Governor Martin O’Malley on May 10, 2011.  The law creates a new taxpayer-subsidized tuition policy — the ability to pay reduced tuition rates at Maryland community colleges and public higher education institutions — for certain eligible illegal aliens.  The MDPetitions.com petition drive collected 132,071 signatures, nearly twice the amount required by law to put the new benefit to voters in a referendum. Illegal aliens and the activist group Casa de Maryland challenged the petition drive in court in order to protect taxpayer dollar subsidies for the college tuition for certain illegal aliens.

On February 14, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act the case will now proceed under Bivens, “an avenue for individuals to seek damages from federal officials for Constitutional violations of civil rights.” The U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe will now serve as the sole defendant in the lawsuit.

Mr. Fitton said:

This court ruling does not exonerate Congressman Hastings. This is simply a procedural decision as how our lawsuit will proceed. We’re confident when the court weights the considerable evidence against Hastings in this case, Winsome Packer will get the justice she deserves.

As the Office of Congressional Ethics recently ruled, there is good reason to believe that Congressman Hastings violated Ms. Packer’s civil rights.  Rep. Hastings’ attacks against Winsome Packer are disgraceful, unlawful and beneath the office he holds.

Rep. Hastings’ aggressive denials and persistent attacks against Ms. Packer, which continue to this day, bring to mind his corrupt behavior that resulted in his impeachment and removal from the federal bench.

We look forward to giving Winsome Packer her day in court and to prosecuting this case. Already, Hastings appears to be telling one version of events to the court and a different story to House ethics investigators.

Ms. Packer alleges that Rep. Hastings subjected her to unwelcome sexual advances and touching over a two-year period when she worked for the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (also known as the Helsinki Commission). Ms. Packer further alleges that Rep. Hastings, with the assistance of Helsinki Commission Staff Director Fred Turner, retaliated against her when she rebuffed the congressman’s advances.

On October 11, 2011, in response to a complaint filed by Judicial Watch, the Office of Congressional Ethics referred the matter to the House Ethics Committee and released a report concluding, “…there is probable cause to believe that Representative Hastings violated House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law as a result of his interactions with [Ms. Packer].” The House Ethics Committee announced in January 2012 that it would extend is probe of the matter.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has filed two separate amicus curiae briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of SB 1070, also known as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.  On April 11, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against enforcement of some of the law’s provisions per the request of the Obama administration, prompting the State of Arizona to petition the High Court (State of Arizona et al., v. The United States of America). The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the SB 1070 case for April 25, 2012, the Court’s last day of hearings for the current term.

Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of SB 1070, and a separate brief on behalf of State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI).  The amicus brief on behalf of SLLI was joined by 29 legislators from 20 states. In both briefs, Judicial Watch argues that SB 1070 utilizes the state of Arizona’s well-established police powers and is therefore not pre-empted by federal law as the Obama administration maintains. Judicial Watch asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling placing key provisions of SB 1070 on hold:

“S.B. 1070 does not regulate immigration or naturalization. It does not control who may enter the United States or the conditions under which lawfully present aliens may remain in the United States or become naturalized citizens. Nor does it purport to define any alien’s legal status or deport unlawfully present aliens from the United States. It merely authorizes and directs Arizona’s state and local law enforcement officers to communicate and cooperate with federal officials regarding the enforcement of federal immigration law and creates disincentives for unlawfully present aliens who do not comply with federal law to enter or remain in Arizona,” Judicial Watch argued in its brief filed on behalf of the State Legislators for Legal Immigration. “Therefore, this Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision and hold that S.B. 1070 is not preempted by federal law.”

With its brief filed on behalf of former Arizona State Senator Pearce, Judicial Watch maintains the four provisions put on hold by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, should be reinstated because they would “significantly assist Arizona’s effort to protect its citizens from the adverse effects of illegal immigration.”  Specifically, these provisions:

• Provide additional guidance to Arizona law enforcement officers as to how to interact with individuals who may not be lawfully present.
• Invoke ordinary state police powers to create state criminal penalties for the failure to comply with federal law.
• Utilize Arizona’s broad authority to regulate employment under its police powers to protect its economy and lawfully resident labor force from the harmful effects resulting from the employment of unlawfully present aliens.
• Re-emphasize Arizona law enforcement officers’ pre-existing warrantless arrest authority by authorizing a warrantless arrest of an individual who has already been determined to have committed a public offense that makes that person removable.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law on April 23, 2010. On July 6, 2010, the Obama Justice Department filed a lawsuit challenging the law and requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from being enforced (USA v. The State of Arizona, et al., No. 10-1413). On July 28, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton allowed key provisions of the law to be enacted, while granting the Obama administration an injunction on other provisions until the Court could determine whether these provisions are constitutional. On April 11, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s injunction, prompting the State of Arizona to petition the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The Obama administration’s hostility to enforcing federal immigration law is dangerous and unlawful,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration’s attacks on states that try to enforce illegal immigration laws undermine our nation’s constitutional order.  We hope the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the right of the state of Arizona, and other states across America, to protect citizens from the scourge of rampant illegal immigration. SB 1070 is lawful and should be upheld in its entirety.”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it filed an amicus curiae brief on February 13, 2012, with the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare (United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., State of Florida, et al. (No. 11-398)). The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the Obamacare case on March 26, 27 and 28, 2012.

With its amicus curiae brief Judicial Watch maintains that the “individual mandate” provision of Obamacare, which requires every American citizen to purchase health care insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional, whether considered under Congress’ commerce power or taxing power:

Petitioners are trying to defend a provision in an act passed by Congress that exceeds its enumerated powers. Though Congress enacted this provision under the Commerce Clause, Congress’ power under the clause is not broad enough to compel Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing a particular product. Though Petitioners try to rescue the provision by arguing that it is valid under Congress’ taxing power even if it is invalid under Congress’ commerce power, a provision of an act that is not a tax may not be construed as a tax merely to save it from being declared unconstitutional.

Judicial Watch further argues that if the Supreme Court affirms the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate, “it must be willing to hold that Congress’ powers under the Commerce clause are plenary and unlimited, for there remains no principled way to limit Congress’ power if it is stretched as far as Petitioners (the Obama administration) ask.”

The Judicial Watch amicus was filed in support of a challenge to Obamacare by Florida and 25 other states.

Demonstrating the importance of the legal battle over Obamacare, the Supreme Court will hear five-and-a-half hours of oral argument, a rare allotment of time in the court’s modern era. The Supreme Court’s scrutiny will focus on the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate. The court will also consider whether other components of Obamacare could take effect even if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, among other issues.

In a December 14, 2010, editorial published in The Washington Post Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued that the individual mandate is essential to Obamacare: “Without an individual responsibility provision (or mandate), controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.”

“The President’s socialist healthcare overhaul is an affront to the U.S. Constitution’s provisions for limited government,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The time has come for the U.S. Supreme Court to put an end to Obamacare once and for all.”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced the launch of its 2012 Election Integrity Project to pressure states and localities, through Judicial Watch lawsuits if necessary, to clean up voter registration rolls pursuant to Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). A Judicial Watch investigation based upon publicly available data indicates voter rolls in the following states appear to contain the names of individuals who are ineligible to vote: Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, California, and Colorado. The Election Integrity Project will be conducted in partnership with True the Vote and the Election Law Center.

Judicial Watch sent its initial warning letters on February 7, 2012, to election officials in Indiana and Ohio, as well as letters of inquiry to Florida and California officials, investigating problematic voting lists in those states. Additional letters are forthcoming.

According to Judicial Watch’s investigation, there appear to be more individuals on voter registration lists in these states than there are individuals eligible to vote, including individuals who are deceased. Judicial Watch’s initial warning letters notified election officials in Ohio and Indiana that they are required by law to “maintain accurate lists of eligible voters for use in conducting elections,” and that Judicial Watch is prepared to take legal action if election officials fail to clean up their voter rolls:

Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections… As the top election officials… it is your responsibility under federal law to conduct a program that reasonably ensures that the lists of eligible voters are accurate…

We hope our concerns can be resolved amicably. However, with the November 2012 election on the horizon and in light of the importance of Section 8 of the NVRA to ensuring the integrity and legitimacy of the electoral process, we must emphasize the importance of timeliness. Accordingly, if we believe you do not intend to correct the above-identified problems, a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief may be necessary.

As Judicial Watch makes clear in its letters, under Section 8 of the NVRA, states must make a “reasonable effort” to clean up registration rolls. Section 8 also requires states to make available for public inspection “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”

Election fraud was a significant concern during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons, with ACORN/Project Vote being linked to massive voter registration fraud. A total of 70 ACORN employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. As documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid.

Judicial Watch has uncovered documents showing that, rather than taking action to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA, the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) is now working with ACORN-front Project Vote, Barack Obama’s former employer, to push for strict enforcement of Section 7 of the NVRA relating to welfare office voter registration obligations.  The purpose of this campaign is evidently to use voter registration laws to register greater numbers of low-income voters, widely considered to be an important voting demographic for the Obama presidential campaign.

Policy changes prompted by stricter enforcement of Section 7 have resulted in increased incidents of voter registration errors.  For example, a separate Judicial Watch investigation found that the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average after Project Vote successfully forced the state to implement new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons.

Judicial Watch notes in its letters that while Attorney General Eric Holder appears intent on enforcing Section 7 of the NVRA, which will yield an increased risk of voter fraud, he apparently has no interest in enforcing Section 8 to ensure clean elections:  “While you may be aware that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has prioritized enforcement of Section 7 of the NVRA, which seeks to expand opportunities to register to vote, the Attorney General has not demonstrated any similar interest in prioritizing enforcement of the list maintenance provisions of Section 8 of the NVRA. Nonetheless, Section 8 is an important counterpart to Section 7. The two provisions represent a carefully crafted compromise by the U.S. Congress to increase both voter registration and the integrity of voter rolls.”

“President Obama and the Holder Justice Department evidently have no interest in clean elections this year, so this responsibility has now fallen to Judicial Watch. And given the rampant election fraud that occurred during the last two election cycles, this is a matter of the highest priority as we head into the 2012 election season.  It is simply impossible to have any faith in the integrity of an election where dead people remain on the voting rolls. This is a recipe for voter fraud and stolen elections,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Leads Obamacare Panel Discussion, Major Election IntegrityCampaign Announcement and FOIA Seminar

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announces its participation as a major sponsor of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), February 9-11, 2012, at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road, NW, Washington, DC. Judicial Watch is sponsoring the conference’s main event, the Ronald Reagan Banquet, which will feature a presentation by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and a speech by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  Other major Judicial Watch activities include a major press conference on a new election integrity campaign, a panel on theconstitutional issues of Obamacare and an educational seminar on the use of the Freedom of Information Act.

The following are details of Judicial Watch’s CPAC 2012 activities:

“Americans are fed up with the unprecedented expansion of government power and secrecy we have seen over the last three years. With our participation in CPAC, Judicial Watch is proud to stand with thousands of other conservatives seeking to combat Washington corruption. We must fight for ethics, accountability and transparency in the White House and in Congress — that is our message for CPAC.  Judicial Watch is the largest and most activegovernment watchdog in the nation.  Through our major sponsorship of CPAC, we look forward to educating more membersof the grassroots about the bipartisan corruption enveloping our nation’s capital,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

About CPAC: Taking place in Washington, DC, each year, CPAC brings together nearly 10,000 attendees and all of the leading conservative organizations and speakers impacting conservative thought in the nation. Regularly seen on C-SPAN and other national news networks, CPAC has been the premiere event for any major elected official or public personality seeking to discuss issues of the day with conservatives. From presidents of the United States to college student leaders, CPAC has become the place to find our nation’s current and future leaders.

About Judicial Watch, Inc.: Judicial Watch is a conservative,nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law!” To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.  Judicial Watch does not endorse or oppose candidates for public office.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on February 1, 2012, against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to obtain records regarding a $529 million loan granted by the DOE to Fisker Automotive for the manufacture of Karma and Nina electric vehicles (Judicial Watch v. Department of Energy (No. 12-171)). While the Obama White House and DOE promoted the loan as a means to generate American jobs, Fisker, which has facilities in California and Delaware, came under fire in 2011 for manufacturing cars in Finland and was recently beset with massive layoffs at their domestic operations.

Pursuant to the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed with the Department of Energy on November 15, 2011, Judicial Watch seeks the following:

Any and all records of communications between the Department of Energy and the following entities concerning and/or relating to the Department of Energy’s $529 million dollar loan to Fisker Automotive:

a.   Fisker Automotive

b.   Valmet Automotive

c.   Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

d.   General Investment Management

e.   The Alliance for Climate Protection

f.    The United Auto Workers (UAW), The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), and/or any other labor unions

g.   The government of Finland

h.   The White House

i.    The Executive Office of the President

j.    The U.S. Congress

The time period covered by the request was October 1, 2009 through November 15, 2011.

The DOE acknowledged receiving the FOIA request on November 25, 2011, but did not state when the requested documents would be provided. By law, a response was required by December 23, 2011. As of February 1, 2012, the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the DOE has failed to release any documents or indicate when documents are forthcoming. The Obama DOE has not claimed that such records are exempt from Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

On October 27, 2009, former Delaware Senator and current Vice President Joe Biden announced during a press event that $359 million from the DOE loan would be used to reopen a closed General Motors (GM) manufacturing facility in Wilmington, Delaware, which would serve as Fisker’s “primary global manufacturing facility.” Biden told the crowd of mostly UAW workers, who had previously worked at the plant when it was owned by GM, “imagine when this factory, when the floor we’re standing on right now is making 100,000 plug-in hybrid sedans, coupes and crossovers every single year.” (Given Joe Biden’s advanced knowledge of Fisker’s production plans, Judicial Watch has been separately investigating whether there was any quid pro quo between Fisker and the Vice President related to the plant purchase in his home state. As reported in The Detroit News, Judicial Watch already has uncovered email showing that Delaware politicians sought help from the Obama White House to obtain the DOE money.)

At the time of the announcement, Energy Secretary Steven Chu indicated the Fisker loan was “proof positive” that the Obama administration was “putting Americans back to work.” However, as reported by ABC News, Fisker came under fire  in 2011 for assembling its first line of cars in Finland and for lengthy delays in producing the volume of cars bankrolled, in part, with the DOE loan.

Moreover, as reported by Politico, the company is now beset with massive layoffs in its Delaware and California operations as it seeks additional government funding.

“It looks like the Obama administration has another Solyndra mess on its hands, which is why they’re stonewalling the release of records regarding this shady Fisker deal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Once again the Obama administration shelled out over half-a-billion dollars to a failing and incompetent green energy company. To soften the blow to taxpayers, Vice President Biden promised new jobs in his home state of Delaware that were ultimately shipped overseas to Finland as Fisker’s U.S. operations deteriorated. This loan was another flagrant waste of taxpayer dollars and just the kind of corrupt business deal one might expect when the federal government meddles in the private sector. The Obama administration needs to come clean on this deal and turn off the government spigot to Fisker. Our new lawsuit shows that the Obama administration is in full-blown cover-up mode in order to prevent the American people from accessing records about this latest debacle.”

Speakers will include:  Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton; the Election Law Center’s J. Christian Adams; True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht.

Date: Thursday, February 9

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Location:  Virginia Ballroom

Marriott Wardman Park

2660 Woodley Road NW

Washington, DC 20024

A mult box will be available.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on February 1, 2012, against the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of the Treasury for records regarding a controversial $1.2 billion government loan guarantee from the Obama Department of Energy to SunPower, a California solar company reportedly $820 million in debt (Judicial Watch v. Department of the Interior and Department of the Treasury (No. 12-170). A similar lawsuit was filed on the same date by Judicial Watch against the U.S. Department of Navy for related documents.

Pursuant to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed with the Departments of Interior and Treasury on October 21, 2011, Judicial Watch seeks the following:

• Any and all records regarding, concerning or related to the issuance of a Department of Energy loan guarantee to SunPower, Inc. and/or NRG Energy, Inc. on or about September 30, 2011.

• Any and all records of communication between any official, officer, or employee of the Departments of the Interior and/or Treasury and any official, officer or employee of any other government agency, department of office regarding, concerning or related to any loan guarantees applied for, by, and/or awarded to SunPower, Inc. and/or NRG Energy.

• Any and all records of communication between any official, officer, or employee of the Department of the Interior and/or Treasury and any officer, employee or representative of Lang, Hansen, O’Malley and Miller, a government relations firm headquartered in Sacramento, California.

The FOIA request also asked for records regarding a visit to SunPower’s Richmond, California production facility on October 14, 2010, by Interior Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar, U.S. Congressman George Miller III (D-CA), and others. The FOIA request submitted to the Department of the Navy sought access as well to “any and all records regarding, concerning or related to the $100,268,000 firm-fixed-price task order awarded to SunPower, Inc. on September 30, 2011.” Miller’s involvement in the SunPower has been the subject of several investigative pieces in Human Events magazine.

All three agencies have acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests but have failed to respond within the statutory allotted time frame. As of February 1, 2012, the date of the filing of the lawsuits, the Departments of the Interior, Treasury, and Navy have neither provided the documents nor demonstrated that the documents are exempt from the FOIA request. Nor has there been any indication of when the documents would be produced.

In light of the controversial Obama administration loan to the now bankrupt energy company Solyndra, the SunPower loan, which amounts to more than double the amount of funds dedicated to Solyndra, has come under intense scrutiny. SunPower, which is reportedly $820 million in debt and besieged by shareholder lawsuits, plans to manufacture its solar panels at a new facility of some 320,000 square feet located in Mexicali, Mexico.

Moreover, George Miller IV, a “founding partner and principal” of the lobbying firm that helped secure the loan (Lang, Hansen, O’Malley and Miller), is the son of California Democratic Congressman George Miller III. The lobbying firm reportedly charged SunPower $176,000 in fees since 2009.

As reported by Human Events, Congressman Miller has been a champion for SunPower, which has operated a solar panel manufacturing facility in his district, and pushed for the loan guarantees: “In support of the loan request, Rep. George Miller III, the co-chairman of the policy and steering committee for House Democrats, wrote a letter to the Department of Energy and led Secretary of the Interior Kenneth L. Salazar on an Oct. 14, 2010, tour of the company’s facility in Richmond, Calif.”

“SunPower may make the Solyndra scandal seem like small potatoes,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “And just like Solyndra, the SunPower loan is tainted by corruption, influence peddling and terrible judgment. In the wake of the public outrage over Solyndra, the Obama administration clearly intends to cover up the details of yet another risky and corrupt government bailout. We expect our lawsuits will break through the Obama administration stone wall.”