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 lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service for denying Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for access to Obama White House visitor logs from January 20 to August 10, 2009. The Obama administration continues to advance the erroneous claim that the visitor logs are not agency records and are therefore not subject to FOIA. As Judicial Watch noted in its complaint, this claim "has been litigated and rejected repeatedly" by federal courts.

The Obama White House did voluntarily release a select number of White House visitor logs to the public. However, other records continue to be withheld in defiance of FOIA law. According to Judicial Watch's complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on December 7:

Since [Judicial Watch] sent its...FOIA request to the Secret Service, the White House has released certain visitor records voluntarily, pursuant to its discretionary release policy. The White House's voluntary production of a portion of the requested records, however, does not satisfy the Secret Service's statutory obligation to produce any and all nonexempt records responsive to Judicial Watch's request. Nor does it remedy the Secret Service's claim, contrary to well established case law, that the requested records are not agency records subject to FOIA.

Judicial Watch criticized the Obama administration over this issue in a press release on October 16. The following week, a White House lawyer called Judicial Watch to set up a meeting with "senior White House officials." On October 27, Judicial Watch staff visited with White House officials led by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government, to discuss Judicial Watch's pursuit of the White House visitor logs, as well as other transparency and ethics issues. During the meeting, the Obama White House officials asked Judicial Watch to scale back its request and expressed hope that Judicial Watch would publicly praise the Obama administration's commitment to transparency. However, the White House refused to abandon its legally indefensible line of reasoning that White House visitor logs are not subject to FOIA law. In a November 30 follow up letter, Mr. Eisen reiterated the Obama administration's legal position and, citing national security concerns, requested that Judicial Watch "focus and narrow (its) request."

"The courts have affirmed that these White House visitor records are subject to release under FOIA law. If the Obama administration is serious about transparency, they will agree to the release of these records under the Freedom of Information Act," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The recent 'party crasher' scandal at the White House put the spotlight on the need for transparency under law when it comes to who visits the White House."

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

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.

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?"