The court’s interpretation would allow terrorists to dictate our laws.”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today criticized a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirming a U.S. District Court decision allowing the Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to withhold 59 images from the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound and the terrorist mastermind’s burial at sea (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dept. of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency (No. 12-5137)).  Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton issued the following statement reacting to today’s ruling:

“The opinion is craven, absurd, and undermines the rule of law.  The court seems to acknowledge that the images were improperly classified but gives the Obama administration a pass. The court’s interpretation would allow terrorists to dictate our laws. Americans’ fundamental right to access government information and, frankly, the First Amendment are implicated in this ruling.  As one of the judges on this panel suggested that the Benghazi attack was caused by an Internet video, this decision is perhaps unsurprising.  The courts need to stop rubberstamping this administration’s improper secrecy.  There is no provision of the Freedom of Information Act that allows documents to be kept secret because their release might offend our terrorist enemies.  Our lawyers are considering our next legal steps.”

The Appeals Court decision upheld an April 26, 2012, ruling by the District Court denying a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Judicial Watch seeking “all photographs and/or video recordings of Osama (Usama) bin Laden taken during and/or after the U.S. Military operation in Pakistan on or about May 1, 2011.”

While ruling against Judicial Watch, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg had conceded, “Indeed, it makes sense that the more significant an event is to our nation – and the end of bin Laden’s reign of terror certainly ranks high – the more need the public has for full disclosure.”

On January 2, 2013, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request about taxpayer funds used to pay for President Obama and his entourage to travel to Hawaii.  The Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit seeks access to:

 All records concerning use of U.S. Government funds to provide security and/or other services to President Obama and any companions on their January 1 and 2, 2013 trip to Honolulu, Hawaii.

By a letter dated January 31, 2013, the Secret Service acknowledged that they received the request.  By law the agency was required to determine whether to comply with the FOIA request within 20 days and provide Judicial Watch with the requisite notifications by February 11, 2013 at the latest.  But as of May 6, the Secret Service had yet to produce any record.

Veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler wrote on January 4, 2013 that the “total cost to taxpayers of Obama’s vacations to Hawaii since becoming president is likely in excess of $20 million, and possibly much, much more.”  This is based on estimates for the trips taken by the Obama family during the Christmas holiday season in four consecutive years.  “According to a detailed breakdown by the Hawaii Reporter, the annual excursions in 2009, 2010, and 2011 cost about $4 million, much of it attributable to the expense of taking Air Force One, at an hour rate of about $180,000, on an eighteen-hour roundtrip journey to Honolulu and back.”

According to records obtained by Judicial Watch, First Family vacations since Obama took office have come at great costs to taxpayers.   Those costs have included:

• In August 2010, when Michelle Obama traveled to Spain with multiple friends and one of her daughters, the total cost to taxpayers was at least $467,555.

• From June 21 – 27, 2011, when Michelle Obama along with her daughters and staff traveled to South Africa and Botswana, charges to the taxpayers for the aircraft and crew alone were $424,142.

• During President’s Day weekend of February 2012, when Michelle Obama and her two daughters vacationed in Aspen, Colorado, charges to the taxpayers were $83,182.99.

“The Obamas’ opulent vacation lifestyle is particularly objectionable during a time when government  debt is out of control,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “President Obama is not king and his administration should stop ignoring the FOIA open records law and account to the American people the spending on his luxury vacations.”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on behalf of the politics and law blog Legal Insurrection, run by law professor William A. Jacobson.  The FOIA lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeking access to records concerning the decision by the District of Columbia not to prosecute David Gregory, the host of the NBC news show “Meet the Press,” after Gregory violated District of Columbia law by displaying a high-capacity ammunition magazine during a broadcast interview   (Jacobson v. District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General, et al. (No. 13-0003283)).

On Sunday December 23, 2012, Meet the Press host David Gregory interviewed the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre concerning firearms policy in the United States.  During the course of the interview, Gregory exhibited a high-capacity ammunition magazine.  The possession of such an ammunition magazine was a clear violation of the law of the District of Columbia.  D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b).

Gregory displayed the ammunition magazine on air despite the fact that, according to the D.C. OAG, “NBC was clearly and timely advised by an MPD employee that its plans to exhibit on the broadcast a high capacity magazine would violate D.C. law, and there was no contrary advice from any other federal official.”  In early January, the MPD announced that it had completed its investigation and presented the case to the OAG “for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case.”

On January 11, 2013, D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan sent a letter to NBC saying that his office would not prosecute Gregory, “despite the clarity of the violation of this important law.”  The Attorney General added, “There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter. . . .”

On January 14, 2013, Legal Insurrection submitted a District of Columbia FOIA request to MPD and OAG seeking access to the following records:

1. The January 9, 2013 letter from Lee Levine on behalf of David Gregory, referenced in the letter dated January 11, 2013 from Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan to Mr. Levine which was publicly disclosed on that date.
2. All communications between the District of Columbia Office of Attorney General and/or Metropolitan Police Department, on the one hand, and legal counsel for David Gregory and/or NBC News, on the other hand, with regard to the incident involving the display on television by Mr. Gregory of an alleged high-capacity ammunition clip (the “Gregory incident”).
3.  All documents in the possession of the MPD and OAG regarding the Gregory incident, to the extent not exempted from disclosure under applicable law, including but not limited to witness statements, evidence review and possession records, interview notes, and forensic testing.

On February 20, 2013, OAG informed Legal Insurrection that it was withholding certain requested records, including the January 9, 2013 letter from NBC attorney Lee Levine, as well as responsive emails between OAG and MPD.  The OAG also withheld in their entirety an affidavit and warrant responsive to the Legal Insurrection request.  On April 17, 2013, MPD informed Legal Insurrection that it was withholding responsive records as well.  The Legal Insurrection FOIA lawsuit asks the court to declare OAG and MDP in violation of the law and to order them to produce the records without further delay.

According to Professor Jacobson: “The documents being withheld will help shed light on the details of this highly publicized non-prosecution, which raised issues as to whether well-connected and famous D.C. insiders were treated as any other citizen in a similar situation.  I appreciate Judicial Watch assisting in this search for the truth.”

“Judicial Watch is pleased to be representing Legal Insurrection and Professor Jacobson in this important matter of equal justice under the law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The way Gregory’s prosecution decision was handled undermines confidence in the fair administration of justice.  If Gregory shouldn’t be prosecuted then no one should be – and the law should be rescinded.  In the meantime, we hope the courts end the cover-up of the circumstances of the Gregory investigation.”

On June 14, 2012, Judicial Watch had submitted a FOIA request to the DOJ requesting the following information:

All records of communications between the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) concerning, regarding, or relating to Mi Familia Vota Education Fund v. Detzner, 12-cv-1294, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Tampa)

By a letter dated June 18, 2012, the DOJ acknowledged receiving the Judicial Watch FOIA request and was required by law to respond by July 17, 2012. It failed to do so.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit asks that the District Court to order the Obama DOJ to “conduct a search for any and all responsive records” to the FOIA request and to “produce, by a certain date, any and all non-exempt records,” along with an index of any records the department continues to declare exempt. It also asks the court grant Judicial Watch attorney’s fees and additional litigation costs.

The Florida clean-up of ineligible voters came in response to a February 2012, letter of inquiry sent by Judicial Watch to Florida election officials. Judicial Watch alerted the State of Florida that failure to maintain clean voter registration lists violates Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

In response to Florida’s resulting efforts to comply with the NVRA, the Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, on June 8, 2012, filed its suit against the state. The DOJ then followed with its own lawsuit on June 12, 2012, asking a federal court to enjoin the state from taking steps to inquire about the presence of non-eligible aliens on voting rolls. Judicial Watch moved to intervene in the case to defend Florida’s voter list maintenance efforts; the Court subsequently sided with Florida and Judicial Watch and denied the DOJ’s attempt to stop Florida from removing non-citizens from the voter rolls. (A year earlier, on June 20, 2011, the ACLU, acting in conjunction with Project Vote, had sent a letter to the DOJ complaining about a new Florida election integrity law that sought to avoid the massive voter registration fraud caused by Project Vote and its partner ACORN in 2008.)

The FOIA lawsuit in the Florida Mi Familia Vota case is not the first time Judicial Watch has filed suit against the Obama DOJ to obtain information about its relationship with the ACLU. On June 1, 2012, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ to obtain records detailing the agency’s communications with the ACLU involving Pennsylvania House Bill 934, commonly referred to as Pennsylvania’s voter ID law. Judicial Watch previously obtained documents from the DOJ showing that the agency worked with the ACLU to mount their respective legal challenges to SB 1070, Arizona’s illegal immigration enforcement law.

“There is an unholy alliance between the Obama Department of Justice and leftist organizations such as the ACLU that is a fundamental challenge to the integrity of our electoral system – one that could allow non-citizens to remain on the voting rolls and illegally vote in American elections,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That the DOJ couldn’t bother to answer simple questions as required by federal law about one piece of litigation again shows that Eric Holder’s agency has contempt for transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.”

At a Chicago, Illinois, conference Ward focused on foreign service opportunities for Muslim youth. Among other speakers was Kifah Mustapha, well known for advocating violent jihadand a fundraiser for the terrorist group Holy Land Foundation (HLF).  In November 2008, HLF was convicted on 108 counts of supporting international terrorism. The charges included:  funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas; conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; providing material support to a foreign terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Also at the podium with Ward was MAS co-founder and Muslim Brotherhood leader Jamal Badawi, who in 2009 was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against the HLF and who praised the jihad of Gaza terrorists during a speech titled “Understanding Jihad and Martyrdom.” With Ward and Badawi were Ayman Hammous and Oussama Jammal.  Hammous is the Executive Director of the New York chapter of MAS and Jammal is the president of the Mosque Foundation, an extremist Islamist mosque in Bridgeview, Illinois, that gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the HLF and other Islamic charities accused of financing terrorism.

Judicial Watch seeks the following records pursuant to its January 13, 2013, FOIA request:

Any and all records regarding the participation of Mr. Mark S. Ward, Deputy Special Coordinator in the Office of Middle East Transition, in the 11th Annual Convention of the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Council of North America in Chicago, IL in December 2012. This request includes, but is not limited to the following:

• Any and all prepared remarks, notes, handouts, and presentations created or relied upon in preparation for, utilized during, or created subsequent to the event.
• Any and all records of communication between any official or employee of the Department of State and any official, employee, or representative of the Muslim American Society and/or the Islamic Council of North America regarding, concerning, or related to Mr. Ward’s attendance at the conference and/or the December 22, 2012 event in which he participated.
• Any and all records related to Mr. Ward’s travel to Chicago for the purpose of attending the conference.

The State Department acknowledged receiving the Judicial Watch FOIA request on February 7, 2013, and was required by law to respond by March 7, 2013.  As of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the department has failed to produce any records responsive to the request, indicate when any responsive records will be produced, or demonstrated that responsive records are exempt from production.

As DSC of the department’s Middle East Transition office, Ward apparently heads a secretive campaign, discovered in the course of a Judicial Watch investigation, to add Muslims to its Foreign Service roster. It appears to be part of the administration’s Muslim outreach effort, which includes a variety of controversial moves.

Among the moves are Department of Homeland Security (DHS) meetings with extremist Islamic organizations; sending mosque leader Feisal Abdul Rauf, who blames U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks; was sent on a Middle Eastern “outreach mission;” and assisted in the revamping the terrorist training for federal agents by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on radical Islam. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even signed a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S.

“The Boston Marathon bombing shows why it is dangerous for a high-ranking State Department official to join with terrorist front groups to recruit for government employment,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “It is a scandal; which explains why we’ve had to sue in federal court to get past the cover-up of what exactly took place at the recruitment conference.”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released documents detailing how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program.

The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.  Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

The documents came in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made to USDA on July 20, 2012.  The FOIA request sought: “Any and all records of communication relating to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals, and migrant communities, including but not limited to, communications with the Mexican government.”

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that USDA officials are working closely with their counterparts at the Mexican Embassy to widely broaden the SNAP program in the Mexican immigrant community, with no effort to restrict aid to, identify, or apprehend illegal immigrants who may be on the food stamp rolls. In an email to Borjon Lopez-Coterilla and Jose Vincente of the Mexican Embassy, dated January 26, 2012, Yibo Wood of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) sympathized with the plight of illegal aliens applying for food stamps, saying, “FNS understands that mixed status households may be particularly vulnerable.  Many of these households contain a non-citizen parent and a citizen child.”

The email from Wood to Lopez-Coterilla and Vincente came in response to a request from the Mexican Embassy that the USDA FNS step in to prevent the state of Kansas from changing its food stamp policy to restrict the amount of financial assistance provided to illegal aliens.  In a January 22, 2012, article, the Kansas City Star had revealed that the state would no longer include illegal aliens in its calculations of the amount of assistance to be provided low-income Hispanic families in order to prevent discrimination against legal recipients.

The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch in August 2012, include the following:

• March 30, 2012 – The USDA seeks approval of the Mexican Embassy in drafting a letter addressed to consulates throughout the United States designed to encourage Mexican embassy staffers to enroll in a webinar learn how to promote increased enrollment among “the needy families that the consulates serve.”

• August 1, 2011 – The USDA FNS initiates contact with the Mexican Embassy in New York to implement programs already underway in DC and Philadelphia for maximizing participation among Mexican citizens. The Mexican Embassy responds that the Consul General is eager to strengthen his ties to the USDA, with specific interest in promoting the food stamp program.

• February 25, 2011 – The USDA and the Mexican Consulate exchange ideas about getting the First Ladies of Mexico and United States to visit a school for purposes of creating a photo opportunity that would promote free school lunches for low-income students in a predominantly Hispanic school. Though a notation in the margin of the email claims that the photo op never took place, UPI reported that it actually did.

• March 3, 2010 – A flyer advertises a webinar to teach Hispanic-focused nonprofits how to get reimbursed by the USDA for serving free lunch over the summer. The course, funded by American taxpayers, is advertised as being “free for all participants.”

• February 9 , 2010 – USDA informs the Mexican Embassy that, based on an agreement reached between the State Department and the Immigration & Naturalization Service (now ICE), the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) food voucher program does not violate immigration laws prohibiting immigrants from becoming a “public charge.”

As far back as 2006, in its Corruption Chronicles blog, Judicial Watch revealed that the USDA was spending taxpayer money to run Spanish-language television ads encouraging illegal immigrants to apply for government-financed food stamps. The Mexican Consul in Santa Ana, CA, at the time even starred in some of the U.S. Government-financed television commercials, which explained the program and provided a phone number to apply. In the widely viewed commercial the Consul assured that receiving food stamps “won’t affect your immigration status.”

In 2012, Judicial Watch reported that in a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions questioned the Obama administration’s partnership with Mexican consulates to encourage foreign nationals, migrant workers and non-citizen immigrants to apply for food stamps and other USDA administered welfare benefits. Sessions wrote, “It defies rational thinking, for the United States – now dangerously $16 trillion in debt – to partner with foreign governments to help us place more foreign nationals on American welfare and it is contrary to good immigration policy in the United States.”

“The revelation that the USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible.”

To view all the documents, click here.

(Chicago, IL) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a lawsuit in Cook County, Ill. Circuit Court challenging Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart’s refusal to honor ICE immigration detainers or cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in identifying deportable criminal aliens.  Cook County jails have released as many as 1,000 criminal aliens sought by ICE in the past 18 months.

The lawsuit, Brian McCann v. Thomas J. Dart, is brought on behalf of lifetime Cook County resident Brian McCann, whose brother William “Denny” McCann, was run over and killed in June 2011 by an unlawfully present criminal alien who had just completed a two-year term of probation for a 2009 DUI conviction.  The alien, Saul Chavez, was charged with felony aggravated driving under the influence, but was released by Dart from a Cook County jail in November 2011 despite an ICE immigration detainer.  ICE issues detainers when it learns that criminal aliens are being held by state or local law enforcement officials.  The detainers require the criminal aliens be held for an additional 48 hours to enable ICE to take custody of them before they are released.  Chavez is now believed to have fled to Mexico.

Although federal and state law require Dart to honor immigration detainers and cooperate with ICE investigators, he has chosen to follow a September 2011, Cook County Ordinance directing him to refuse ICE detainers and deny federal agents access to Cook County facilities for investigative interviews.  In a January 2012 letter to Cook County Board of Commissioners President Toni Preckwinkle, ICE Director John Morton wrote, “Of great concern is the serious impediment the Ordinance poses to ICE’s ability to promote public safety through the identification of criminal aliens.”

The Judicial Watch lawsuit argues that Dart’s “failure to carry out his legal duties under both federal and state law is not authorized, excused, or justified by the Ordinance because that Ordinance is preempted by federal law.”

The release of Chavez is one of more than 1,000 instances cited by Judicial Watch where Dart has “regularly and routinely refused to honor immigration detainers issued by ICE, citing the provisions of the Ordinance,” including:

• “At a public hearing on February 9, 2012 before the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, Defendant testified that, in the five month period between the enactment of the Ordinance on September 7, 2011 and February 9, 2012, Defendant released 346 prisoners in his custody who were the subjects of immigration detainers issued by ICE, and 11 of these persons subsequently committed new offenses.”

• “By April 24, 2012 ICE had issued 432 immigration detainers to Defendant since the enactment of the Ordinance, but Defendant failed to honor any of the detainers.  According to a letter from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to [then-]U.S. Senator John Kyl on that date, Defendant’s failure to honor ICE’s immigration detainers had “prevented ICE from considering removal proceedings against all but 38 of these individuals whom ICE had to locate independently and arrest following their release into the community.”

• “Between April 24, 2012 and March 1, 2013, Defendant received approximately 503 additional immigration detainers issued by ICE, and, on information and belief, has declined to honor any of them, resulting in the release into the community of hundreds of additional prisoners sought by ICE.”

The lawsuit also alleges that despite Dart’s refusal to honor ICE immigration detainers or cooperate with ICE investigators, Cook County applied for and received nearly $2.3 million in State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) funds from the federal government in 2011 and over $1.7 million in SCAAP funds in 2012.  Over the five-year period from 2008 to 2012, Cook County reportedly applied for and received nearly $15 million in SCAAP funds from the federal government.  SCAPP funds are designed to fund the costs that state and local governments incur for holding criminal illegal aliens.

In the lawsuit, McCann asks the Circuit Court to compel Dart to comply with his legal duties to honor ICE detainers and to cooperate with federal immigration officials.  It also asks the Circuit Court to declare the Cook County Ordinance to be preempted by federal law.

“The federal government has determined that certain criminal aliens should not be let loose into the community and that releasing them undermines public safety.  Dart is thumbing his nose at the federal government and replacing federal immigration priorities with Cook County’s own immigration policy.  Releasing these criminal aliens before they can be taken into custody by ICE endangers the public.  Dart is not above the law.  Because the Obama administration hasn’t sued Dart in the president’s backyard, concerned citizens like Brian are bravely stepping up to the plate to protect the public.” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president.

Judicial Watch’s Illinois lawyer is Christine Svenson of the Svenson Law Offices in Chicago, Ill.

 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on March 27, 2013, against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain records revealing “any and all” communications between the DOJ Civil Rights Division and New England United for Justice (NEU4J), NEU4J President Maude Hurd, the NAACP, Demos, and Project Vote regarding the enforcement and implementation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in Massachusetts. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. DOJ) (No. 1:13-cv-00398)).

The Judicial Watch lawsuit came in response to the failure of the DOJ to comply with two separate FOIA requests regarding voter registration activities in Massachusetts. In both cases, the DOJ not only failed to produce the records in the legally allotted time period, it also failed to indicate when the records would be produced, as required by law.

On May 24, 2012, Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the DOJ Civil Rights Division requesting the following information dating back to January 1, 2011:

• Any and all records of communications between any official or employee of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and any officer, employee or representative of New England United for Justice (NEU4J), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and/or Demos, regarding, concerning, or related to the implementation and enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

• And an all records of communications between any official of the Department of Justice and Ms. Maude Hurd, the President of New England United for Justice.

By a letter dated May 29, 2012, the DOJ Civil Rights Division acknowledged receiving the Judicial Watch FOIA on May 24, and was required by law to respond by June 21, 2012. It failed to do so.

On August10, 2012, Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to the Civil Rights Division requesting the following information also dating back to January 1, 2011:

• Andy and all records of communications between any official or employee of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and any officer, employee or representative of New England United for Justice (NEU4J), Demos, and/or Project Vote regarding, concerning, or related to voter registration in Massachusetts.

By a letter dated August 21, 2012, the Civil Rights Division acknowledged receiving the FOIA request on the same day, and was required by law to respond by September 19, 2012. Once again, it failed to do so.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit filed on March 27 asks that the District Court order the Obama DOJ to “conduct a search for any and all responsive records” to the FOIA and “produce, by a certain date, any and all non-exempt records,” along with an index of all records the department continues to declare exempt. It also asks the Court grant Judicial Watch attorney’s fees and additional litigation costs.

According to a Judicial Watch analysis of records, NEU4J is the reincarnation of ACORN in New England, the nationwide Obama-tied community organization famous for operating fraudulent voter registration drives during the 2008 presidential campaign. Judicial Watch research found that ACORN’s Boston office rebranded into New England United for Justice, headed by Maude Hurd, the former president of ACORN and ACORN Housing.

In the final days of the senatorial election campaign between then-Sen. Scott Brown current Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Hurd orchestrated a move by the state of Massachusetts to send out voter registration letters to some 500,000 welfare recipients. The mailing was forced through by the Department of Transitional Assistance after a lawsuit pushed by Hurd’s New England United for Justice. The mailings, which were seen to directly aid the Warren campaign, cost taxpayers nearly $275,000. The state also has to advertise on TV and radio stations, again targeting welfare recipients.

In March, the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General issued a report raising questions about inappropriate coordination and conduct on this election integrity issue by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and outside left-wing groups.  Thomas Perez, President Obama’s nominee for Labor Secretary, had headed the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

“Tom Perez and the Obama Justice Department have a terrible record on transparency,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “They have stonewalled the American people for nearly a year now on these key election integrity and ethics issues. It seems clear from our investigations that leftist special interest groups are running the Justice Department and we need to know the full extent of this corrupt partnership – especially on this matter of election integrity.”

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit is part of the organization’s comprehensive Election Integrity Project, which seeks to force states to maintain accurate voter registration lists, while upholding voter integrity measures, such as Voter ID laws. Judicial Watch has been highly critical of the Obama Justice Department’s efforts to enforce section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which seeks to expand the number of registered voters on public assistance, while failing to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA, which requires states to maintain clean voter registration lists. Judicial Watch also has an ongoing investigation into other illicit collusion between the Justice Department and leftist special interest groups.

In December 2012, Judicial Watch filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of Bill, Hanania, and Malpass. The lawsuit alleged that Phoenix Police Department (PPD) officers forced the plaintiffs to surrender their DNA in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (Bill, et al. v. Brewer, et al. (No. 2:12-cv-02613)).  In her opinion dismissing the lawsuit, the Honorable Susan R. Bolton wrote, “… the Court is not convinced that under either the Arizona statute or the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Plaintiffs had to be suspected of committing the crime in order to be searched without a warrant.”

In response, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said he was “taken aback” by the court ruling.  “When one considers that the ‘search’ required the officers to open their mouths and have them swabbed for a DNA sample, the District Court’s decision seems rather extraordinary – especially in light of the Supreme Court decision recently requiring search warrants for most alcohol blood tests in DUI investigations,” Fitton said.

“Not only were officers Bill, Hanania, and Malpass not ‘suspected of committing a crime,’ they were in the very process of actually trying to solve one,” Fitton added.

Each of the officers had responded to an “officer down” call the night of October 18, 2010, but none of them came into direct contact with the slain officer, Sergeant Sean Drenth, his vehicle, or weapons. Unknown male DNA was later found on the vehicle and on one of the weapons. The PPD repeatedly stated that none of the plaintiffs were suspects in Sergeant Drenth’s death.

Subsequent to searches of the area adjacent to the body of the slain sergeant, the teams in which Bill, Hanania, and Malpass were included provided detailed reports as to their actions and whereabouts throughout the evening of October 18. According the complaint filed by Judicial Watch, “These reports were readily available to PPD management.”

Beginning on December 3, 2010, the PPD begin requesting DNA samples “for exclusionary purposes” from all PPD officers at the crime scene, including officers Bill, Hanania, and Malpass. In April 2011, PPD employees, including the plaintiffs, who had declined to provide DNA, were delivered a memo requesting immediate compliance. That memo was presented to Officers Bill, Hanania, and Malpass on April 18, 2011, at which time each of the officers again informed the investigating detectives of their specific locations and activities on the night of Sgt. Drenth’s death.

On August 8, 2011, the PPD requested and received orders from the Maricopa County Superior Court to detain officers Bill, Hanania, and Malpass in order to take samples of their DNA. One week later, the PPD detained Bill, Hanania, and Malpass and obtained the DNA samples against their will.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on March 27, 2013, against the Obama Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Education (DOE) on behalf of the Family Research Council (FRC) to obtain records revealing the full extent of any DOJ or DOE cooperation and coordination with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) in their lawsuit again the Anoka-Hennepin School District of Minnesota (Family Research Council v. Department of Justice and Department of Education (No. 1:13-cv-00405)). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Minnesota controversy involved an extraordinary intervention by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, run by Thomas E. Perez, President’s Obama’s current nominee for Secretary of Labor.

On April 24, 2012, FRC submitted a FOIA request to the DOJ and DOE requesting the following information dating back to June 1, 2011:

A. Any and all records concerning, regarding, or relating to the anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies of the Anoka-Hennepin School District which culminated in the Anoka-Hennepin Consent Decree;

B. Any and all communications between and/or among the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Education, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and/or the National Center for Lesbian Rights concerning, regarding, or relating to the anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies of the Anoka-Hennepin School District which culminated in the Anoka-Hennepin Consent Decree;

C. Any and all communications between the Department of Education and/or U.S. Department of Justice and any third parties not named in #2 (above), concerning, regarding, or relating to the anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies of the Anoka-Hennepin School District which culminated in the Anoka-Hennepin Consent Decree.

In a letter dated August 31, 2012, the Civil Rights Division, a component of DOJ, informed FRC that it was denying access to all responsive records involving its role in the Anoka-Hennepin affair. On September 28, 2012, FRC appealed the DOJ decision. Though DOJ acknowledged receiving the appeal on October 25, it has failed to provide a response to the appeal, which was due by November 1, 2012.

In a letter datedMay 30, 2012, the Office for Civil Rights, a component of DOE, informed FRC that it had located 7,453 pages responsive to FRC’s FOIA request, but was withholding 7,159 pages in their entirety. On June 29, 2012, FRC appealed the DOE decision. According to the U.S. Postal Department, DOE received the appeal on July 5, 2012, but has failed to provide a response to the appeal, which was due by August 3, 2012.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit filed on behalf of FRC asks that the District Court order the Obama DOJ and DOE to conduct searches for all records responsive to the FRC FOIA request and to “produce, by a certain date, any and all non-exempt records,” along with indices of all records the departments continue to declare exempt.

“It is not the proper role of the United States Departments of Justice and Education to collude with radical leftwing organizations like the SPLC in order to impose their political agenda on parents and the American people,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The fact that both departments are intent to cover up their collusion makes this court fight more important.”

In July, 2011, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) joined with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) to sue the Anoka-Hennepin School District to overturn the district’s policy requiring its teachers to remain neutral on the subject of homosexuality.  In apparent coordination with the SPLC and the NCLR, the Obama DOJ, after what it termed “an extensive investigation into sex-based harassment,” compelled the school district to sign a 61-page Consent Agreement on March 5, 2012.

In July 2012, a group of DOJ employees, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, joined with the Southern Poverty Law Center to honor the Anoka-Hennepin School District students involved in the lawsuit to force the district to endorse homosexual conduct.  Five of the students received an award at DOJ Pride’s annual LGBT Pride Month program in the Great Hall of the Main Justice Building.

Judicial Watch has spearheaded an investigation into the behind-the-scenes collusion allegedly taking place between the Obama DOJ and leftist special interest groups.  For example, Judicial Watch obtained nearly two dozen pages of emails from the DOJ Civil Rights and Tax divisions revealing questionable behavior by agency personnel while negotiating for SPLC co-founder Morris Dees to appear as the featured speaker at a July 31, 2012, “Diversity Training Event.” The Judicial Watch FOIA request was prompted by the terrorist shooting at the Family Research Council (FRC) headquarters in August, 2012. On its website, which the shooter used to get a list of targets, the SPLC lists FRC’s headquarters on a “hate map.”  The SPLC refuses to take FRC off the “hate map” even after the organization was connected in court to the shooting.

Judicial Watch also uncovered records indicating that the DOJ worked hand-in-hand with the American Civil Liberties Union to attack Arizona over the state’s tough illegal immigration enforcement law, SB 1070.  Judicial Watch released records detailing the cooperation between the ACORN-connected Project Vote to attack states, such as Florida, for implementing voter integrity measures, such as Voter ID laws. Judicial Watch also probed the role that the NAACP played in the controversial DOJ dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation lawsuit.