Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) detailing federal investigations into the alleged corrupt activities of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The documents reference serious allegations of corruption and voter registration fraud by ACORN as well as the Obama administration’s decision to shut down a criminal investigation without filing criminal charges.

The documents include background information on two specific complaints filed in October 2008 by Lucy Corelli and Joseph Borges, Republican Registrars of Voters in Stamford and Bridgeport, Connecticut, respectively, during the 2008 election season.

According to Corelli, on August 1, 2008, her office received 1,200 ACORN voter registration cards from the Secretary of State’s office. Over 300 of these cards were rejected because of “duplicates, underage, illegible and invalid addresses,” which “put a tremendous strain on our office staff and caused endless work hours at taxpayers’ expense.” Corelli claimed the total cost of the extra work caused by ACORN corruption was $20,000. Likewise, Borges contended that: “The organization ACORN during the summer of 2008 conducted a registration drive which has produced over 100 rejections due to incomplete forms and individuals who are not citizens…” Among the examples cited by Borges was a seven-year old child who was registered to vote by ACORN through the use of a forged signature and a fake birth certificate claiming she was 27-years old.

The FBI and Department of Justice opened an investigation. However, the Obama Justice Department, while noting that ACORN had engaged in “questionable hiring and training practices,” closed down the investigation in March 2009, claiming ACORN broke no laws.

By contrast, the documents also include records related to a federal investigation of ACORN corruption in St. Louis, Missouri, involving 1,492 allegedly fraudulent voter registration cards submitted by Project Vote, a liberal non-profit organization affiliated with ACORN on voter registration drives, during the 2006 election season. Assistant United States Attorney Hal Goldsmith initiated the investigation with “concurrence” from the Department of Justice and the participation of the FBI. According to a Justice Department memo, Goldsmith “advised he would prosecute any individual responsible for submitting fraudulent voter registration cards.” Goldsmith identified the statute for prosecution: Title 42, USC 1973 (gg), which provides for criminal penalties for fraudulent voter registrations. In April 2008, eight former ACORN employees from the St. Louis office pled guilty to voter registration fraud.

Other documents show that the Bush Justice Department failed to prosecute ACORN voter registration fraud of non-citizens in Phoenix, Arizona in 2007 because the allegations that led to the opening of the investigation were “unverifiable.” Notably, the FBI document detailing this questionable decision reveals that a “draft Intelligence Bulletin…concludes that ACORN’s employment practices perpetuate fraudulent voter registration.”

The ACORN documents uncovered by Judicial Watch include internal FBI memoranda, signed affidavits, subpoenas, fraudulent voter registration cards, and publications describing ACORN’s policies and practices. The documents also include details regarding numerous allegations of corruption extending beyond voter registration fraud, to include attempts by ACORN employees to coerce workers to participate in campaign activities on behalf of Democratic candidates.

“These documents reflect systematic voter registration fraud by ACORN,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is a scandal that there has been no comprehensive criminal investigation and prosecution by the Justice Department into this evident criminal conduct. Given President Obama’s close connections to ACORN, including his campaign’s hiring of an ACORN affiliate, it seems rather obvious why Attorney General Holder has failed to seriously investigate these and other alleged ACORN criminal activities.”

Documents Uncovered

• FBI ACORN documents
• FBI ACORN documents, part 2

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit against the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to obtain documents related to President Obama’s closed-door health care meetings with Vice President Biden, HHS Secretary Sebelius, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and union officials in violation of a campaign promise to broadcast all health care discussions on C-SPAN.

According to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, filed on March 17, 2010:

At an August 21, 2008 town hall meeting in Chester Virginia, presidential candidate Barack Obama promised the nation that, to achieve health care reform, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies – they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-Span, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”

In a startling breach of his campaign promise, between January 1, 2010, and January 15, 2010, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius, and White House Office of Health Reform Director DeParle met behind closed doors with various groups to reach accord on health care reform before a final vote occurred in the U.S. House of Representatives. One group of individuals was senior officials of major unions. A second group consisted of Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress.

Because President Obama and Secretary Sebelius held closed door negotiations at the White House, the public was denied the transparency President Obama had promised as a candidate.

In order to try to restore some minimal degree of transparency to the negotiations, Judicial Watch filed its original Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on January 15, 2010. HHS acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s request on January 19, 2010. On January 21, 2010, and March 12, 2010, HHS indicated that two offices within the agency found no responsive requests. However, the Immediate Office of the Secretary and the Office of the Secretary Scheduling Office have thus far failed to respond. As Judicial Watch noted in its FOIA lawsuit, these are the two offices within HHS most likely to have custody of the requested records.

“First President Obama breaks his promise on making health care negotiations public and now his administration is stonewalling the release of records from his secret health care meetings. The President and liberals in Congress are on the verge of staging a government takeover of our health care system, and the American people, at this key moment, are completely in the dark. This lawsuit is designed to hold President Obama to his promises of transparency. It is shameful that the Obama administration would violate FOIA law to help ensure passage of Obamacare,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives will hold a hearing entitled “Administration of the Freedom of Information Act: Current Trends.” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton has accepted the committee’s invitation to testify.

Where: 2154 Rayburn House Office Building

Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010

Time: 2:00 PM

Mr. Fitton will be available directly after testimony has closed, or you can contact the office of Judicial Watch to schedule an interview.

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.