Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a new motion in its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) that would force the Obama administration to release 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 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 they are subject to FOIA law.

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on May 29, 2009. The FHFA acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s FOIA request July 1, 2009. The agency claimed that while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might possess the requested documents, the FHFA was not obligated to release them under FOIA because the agency does not “control” them. As noted in a recent Obama administration court filing: “…Any records created by or held in the custody of the Enterprises [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] reflecting their political campaign contributions or policies, stipulations and requirements concerning campaign contributions necessarily are private corporate documents. They are not ‘agency records’ subject to disclosure under FOIA.”

According to Judicial Watch’s motion filed on March 5, 2009, Fannie and Freddie are no longer private enterprises, and therefore their records are subject to FOIA law:

“At issue in this Freedom of Information Act (‘FOIA’) lawsuit is whether FHFA, the federal agency that has custody and control of the records of Federal National Mortgage Association (‘Fannie Mae’) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company (‘Freddie Mac’), must comply with a FOIA request for records relating to those previously independent entities. Until they were seized by FHFA in September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were private corporations with independent directors, officers, and shareholders. Since that time, FHFA, a federal agency subject to FOIA, has assumed full legal custody and control of the records of these previously independent entities. Hence, these records are subject to FOIA like any other agency records.”

“Apparently, American taxpayers are paying the tab for the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, but are not allowed to ask any questions about why it happened. When it comes to Fannie and Freddie, the Obama administration is saying, in effect, ‘None of your business,’” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Obama administration officials and their lawyers can argue until they are blue in the face that Fannie and Freddie are not federal agencies, but their reasoning is straight out of Alice in Wonderland. There is nothing ambiguous about the government’s absolute control of Fannie and Freddie. Which raises the question: What does the Obama administration have to hide?”

According to a review of the top recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1989 through 2008, President Obama is second on the list, sandwiched between Democratic Senators Chris Dodd (first) and Senator John Kerry (third). The president achieved this ranking during his relatively brief three-year stint in the U.S. Senate.

“Judicial Watch’s effort to open up Fannie and Freddie to public scrutiny as the law requires is not just about political corruption — it also about accountability. Largely through Freddie and Fannie, the Obama administration essentially has taken government control of the United States mortgage market and its attendant liabilities. This unprecedented takeover of the private sector is being executed by government entities that the Obama administration says are not subject to any open records request. Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit is the only litigation that stands against this massive government abuse and secrecy,” continued Fitton.

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 Homeland Security (DHS) to obtain information regarding the Obama administration's distribution of S Visas. S Visas are granted to alien informants who help U.S. law enforcement officers to investigate and prosecute criminal and terrorist activities.

Judicial Watch's original FOIA request, filed on January 8, 2010, seeks the following information:

A. All CIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) records concerning the distribution or allocation of S Visas.

B. All records establishing the legal and/or policy basis of eligibility for S Visas.

C. All statistical records concerning the issuance of S Visas.

The time frame for the request is from January 2008 to the present.

DHS acknowledged receiving Judicial Watch's request on January 11, 2010, but has failed entirely to respond to the request within the statutory allotted 20 business days.

The S Visa provision was added to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994 in response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and allows aliens who possess "critical information on criminal or terrorist organizations to come into the United States in order to provide information to law enforcement officials." Since 1995, the government has issued 900 S Visas.

According to the law, 200 S Visas can be distributed annually for information related to criminal activity (known as S-5 status), while 50 S Visas can be distributed annually for information related to terrorist activity (known as S-6 status). However, there is no cap on the number of family members of informants eligible for S Visa status. S Visas are intended to be temporary with a maximum stay of three years. However, S Visa holders can achieve permanent visa status at the discretion of the Attorney General.

"There seems to be very little oversight of this program and even less information available to the public regarding the criteria used to determine who receives an S Visa and under what circumstances. I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that alien informants with inside information on criminal or terrorist activity might themselves be dangerous individuals. We're hoping our FOIA request and lawsuit will shed some light on this little understood program," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

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 Treasury Department to obtain documents regarding meetings involving Kenneth Feinberg, special master for executive compensation under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); AIG Chairman Robert Benmosche; and New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley. Feinberg, also known as the Obama administration's "pay czar," is the federal official responsible for setting compensation guidelines for the seven largest firms, including AIG, using funds from TARP.

Through its November 23, 2009, FOIA request, Judicial Watch seeks the following documents:

A. Any and all records, including agendas, briefing papers, memoranda, minutes, notes, presentations, and/or summaries of the meeting on November 4, 2009 between Kenneth Feinberg, the special master for TARP executive compensation of the U.S. Treasury, Robert Benmosche, the CEO of the American International Group, and AIG's Board of Directors.

B. Any and all records, including agendas, briefing papers, memoranda, minutes, notes, presentations, and/or summaries of the meeting on November 12, 2009 between Kenneth Feinberg…and William Dudley, president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

C. Any and all records, including agendas, briefing papers, memoranda, minutes, notes, presentations, and/or summaries of the meeting on November 17, 2009 between Kenneth Feinberg…and Robert Benmosche, the CEO of the American International Group.

The Treasury Department acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch's FOIA request on December 3, 2009, and granted itself a ten-day extension for processing. However, to date, Treasury has failed to respond to the request in any manner. As Judicial Watch notes in its FOIA lawsuit, "This is not the first time in which [Treasury] has acknowledged [Judicial Watch's] FOIA request, granted itself a ten day extension, and failed to take any other action within the statutory time period. [Judicial Watch] currently has eight additional FOIA requests pending with [Treasury] in which [Treasury] has acted in the same or a similar manner."

In March 2009, AIG disbursed $165 million in taxpayer-funded TARP funds to its top executives, prompting a massive public backlash. Obama officials reportedly lobbied Congress to insert legislative language allowing the AIG bonus payments and then apparently lied about their knowledge of the payment scheme. (As then-head of the New York Federal Reserve, current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner helped craft the original AIG deal.) The meetings at issue in Judicial Watch's FOIA request took place in November 2009, just weeks after Feinberg publicly announced pay cuts and salary caps for AIG's top paid executives. According to press reports, despite the Obama administration's tough rhetoric on AIG, the insurance giant is set to pay out a fresh round of bonus payments to its executives in the amount of $100 million in 2010.

"The Obama administration apparently believes that when it comes to doling out TARP funds, it's none of the American people's business," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The TARP disbursement process is apparently rife with corruption, cronyism and mismanagement. With trillions of taxpayer dollars on the line, it's time for the Obama administration to open the books to public scrutiny. Treasury's secrecy about the bailouts is an absolute scandal that is undermining our country."

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" in its lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service asking the court to order the release of Secret Service logs of White House visitors from January 20, 2009, to August, 10, 2009. The Obama administration continues to advance the extraordinary and erroneous claim that the visitor logs "are not agency records subject to the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act]." As Judicial Watch noted in its complaint filed on December 7, 2009, this claim "has been litigated and rejected repeatedly."

According to Judicial Watch's "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on February 22, 2010: "At issue here is whether Secret Service visitor logs are agency records subject to the Freedom of Information Act ('FOIA'), 5 U.S.C. § 552. To date, every court that has reached this issue has concluded that the requested documents are agency records and must be processed in response to a properly submitted FOIA request. As no disputes of material fact exist as to the nature of the records, summary judgment as to this straightforward legal issue should be entered now."

Noting court precedent, Judicial Watch argued in its motion that the visitor logs were "created by" the U.S. Secret Service and that they remain "under agency control." Judicial Watch also noted that the U.S. Secret Service had released the visitor logs in response to previous FOIA requests from Judicial Watch and other parties, further demonstrating that these records are under the control of the U.S. Secret Service and subject to FOIA.

In 2009, the Obama White House began to release, in order to settle related litigation, a select number of Secret Service visitor logs to the public. However, tens of thousands of other records continue to be withheld in defiance of FOIA law. Only if visitor logs are released under the law (FOIA), can the American people be assured that the Obama White House is being forthright about who is visiting the White House.

On October 27, at the request of the White House, Judicial Watch staff visited with senior White House officials led by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government, to discuss Judicial Watch's pursuit of the visitor logs. During the meeting, White House officials offered to make some accommodations to Judicial Watch on the visitor logs and encouraged Judicial Watch to publicly praise the Obama administration's commitment to transparency. However, the White House refused to abandon its legally indefensible contention that the visitor logs are not subject to FOIA law. In a November 30 letter, Norm Eisen reiterated the Obama administration's position and requested that Judicial Watch "focus and narrow your request," prompting Judicial Watch's lawsuit.

"The Obama administration is trying to evade the Freedom of Information Act in order to protect its hidden Secret Service visitor logs," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Instead of wasting taxpayer resources stonewalling the release of these documents, the Obama administration should respect the rule of law, as well as court precedent, and release all logs of White House visitors immediately. These hidden visitor logs again show the 'Big Lie' of Obama's supposed commitment to transparency."

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 the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain documents related to President Obama's Special Assistant on Energy and Climate Carol Browner and her role in crafting official U.S. climate policy. Ms. Browner, who was never subjected to Senate confirmation, reportedly served as the Obama administration's point person in secret negotiations to establish automobile emission standards and also participated in negotiations involving cap and trade legislation.

Through its FOIA requests, filed on December 28, 2009, Judicial Watch specifically seeks all records of communications, contacts, or correspondence between Browner and the EPA or Energy Department concerning:

A. Negotiations and/or discussions among the auto industry, the State of California, and agencies of the United States with respect to fuel-standards/auto emissions for the time period between January 20, 2009 and June 1, 2009; and

B. Negotiations/discussions with respect to cap and trade legislation for the time period between June 1, 2009 and October 1, 2009.

EPA had failed to respond to these requests in any matter. Subsequent to filing its lawsuit on February 18, Judicial Watch received a letter from the Energy Department (dated February 17) in which the agency denied that it had any documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests.

According to press reports, Ms. Browner instructed individuals involved in auto emissions negotiations to "put nothing in writing, ever." The New York Times reported that Browner made every effort to "keep their discussions as quiet as possible."

Judicial Watch's FOIA requests involving Ms. Browner are part of a large-scale investigation of President Obama's so-called "czars" — especially those who have not been subject to the Senate confirmation process but who nonetheless seem to exercise authority in a way that raises constitutional questions. Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request with the Office of Management and Budget as well as requests with each separate "czar" office as part of its investigation.

"Here we have an Obama administration 'czar' conducting secret meetings and instructing participants to avoid producing a written record. This is the perfect storm for corruption: concentrated executive power with no congressional oversight and no transparency," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This stonewall on the 'Climate Czar' documents seems yet another chapter in the Climategate scandal."