Main Menu

Allen v. Soetoro

The newest lawsuit on the Obama Conspiracy front was filed July 6 in the Arizona Federal District Court by Kenneth Allen.

Allen v. Soetoro

Allen v. Soetoro

The suit, brought under the Freedom of Information Act, is an interesting approach. Allen is alleging that President Obama is an illegal alien and therefore not protected by provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that prevent disclosure of information about living persons.

Allen will attempt to prove that President Obama is an illegal alien and therefore federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State, must comply with his request for immigration information. I’d be interested to hear what the lawyers think about this approach.

It appears to me that the particular lawsuit in question here is fatally flawed in that FOIA lawsuits can only be brought after all administrative avenues have been exhausted, and I do not see that this has happened based on the complaint. Of course, Mr. Allen has no chance of proving President Obama is an illegal alien using the imaginary travel ban to Pakistan and the other birther nonsense.

, , ,

14 Responses to Allen v. Soetoro

  1. avatar
    richCares July 7, 2009 at 10:31 am #

    “OK, people, here is the lawsuit that is going to have Obama & Co. scrambling to a fallout shelter…. “

    Each case that comes along is the killer! Just ask jtx. Thinking that this case has a chance is their preferred delusion.

    Though Occidental won’t release data on Obama, they did state that Obama was registered and attended; they further stated they have no record of a “Barry Soetoro” ever attending. This was a Birther extension of the usage of the nickname “Barry”, that’s what ignorant Birthers do. So getting info on a person that did not attend, very brilliant move.

  2. avatar
    Black Lion July 7, 2009 at 11:02 am #

    It seems to be an interesting approach but fundamentally flawed like all of the other information. He is relying on the fact that a Barry Soetero exists, which as we know there was never any legal individual named Barry Soetero. Secondly he is relying on the usual discredited birther talking points (Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetero and was a citizen of Indonesia) as evidence. But most damning of all is that he wants to get supporting proof through discovery without supplying any real evidence. This is why this lawsuit will probably go the way of all the others. Nowhere.

  3. avatar
    NBC July 7, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    Fascinating denial… It’s all based on the presumption that President Obama somehow had his name or nationality changed, even though US law is clear that parents cannot denounce a child’s birth right citizenship, Indonesian law prohibited Obama from acquiring citizenship.
    Although the defendants include President Obama, it fails to state a claim and I predict he will be dropped quickly. What remains then is a FOIA request with no foundation.

  4. avatar
    Bob July 7, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    The government will respond like it did in Strunk.

    As Allen has no competent evidence that Obama is an illegal alien, I predict an adverse motion for summary judgment being granted in Allen’s future.

    Also, discovery is normally not allowed in FOIA suits, as there’s nothing to discover: Either the government has the information (and has given its legal reasons why the information can’t be disclosed) or the government doesn’t have it (so there’s nothing to disclose (or discover)).

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 7, 2009 at 1:40 pm #

    In Strunk, the government said: “In submitting these requests, Plaintiff has failed to comply with agency regulations promulgated to protect the personal privacy of U. S. citizens.”

    Now I get a little lost in Allen in that I cannot quite follow his “two person” distinction. But insofar as he alleges that President Obama (or Barry Soetoro) is not a U. S. citizen, then I assume it would be permissible for the DHS to reply that no non-citizen with the name of Barry Soetoro entered the country on such and such dates (or that one did–assuming the case is heard by a court in an alternate universe).

  6. avatar
    Bob July 7, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    “No such records exist” is a valid response to a FOIA. And “failure to comply with the promulgated regulations” is a valid defense to a FOIA suit.

    It would also behoove Allen to sue the correct entities (i.e., DoJ, DHS, and State Dept., and not the cabinet-level heads, and certainly not Obama personally).

  7. avatar
    BlackLion July 7, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    It seems like the latest fantasy grand jury presentment went the way of the legal cases…As we all suspected that these grand juries have no standing or power…I wonder what Carl Swensson will have to say about this….

    “Furthermore, grand juries are convened by the court for the distirct in which they sit. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(a)(1). Grand jurors are also to be selected at random from a fair cross section of the district in which they are convened. 18 USC § 1861. The individuals who have made this presentment were not convened by this Court to sit as a grand jury nor have they been selected at random from a fair cross section of this district. Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

    As such, leave to file this presentment is hereby DENIED. Further, though the papers presented to the Clerk of Court shall not be filed, they shall be assigned a miscellaneous number along with this oder for the Court’s record.

    SO ORDERED this 2nd day of July 2009.”

  8. avatar
    Bob July 7, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    In effort to not cross topics, I posted that over here.

  9. avatar
    misha July 7, 2009 at 8:02 pm #

    I don’t know if anyone has seen this, but here is an article on Sven’s and jtx’s immediate family: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/5772589/New-sub-species-of-monkey-discovered-in-Amazon.html

  10. avatar
    Epectitus July 8, 2009 at 9:25 am #

    Now, now, now… you’ve crossed the line from snarky to just plain mean. Tsk-tsk.

  11. avatar
    richCares July 9, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    that picture can’t be jtx, monkeys don’t lie!

  12. avatar
    Taylor Lawrence July 28, 2009 at 12:59 pm #

    This comment “assumes” that Barak Obama was a US citizen to begin with: “It’s all based on the presumption that President Obama somehow had his name or nationality changed, even though US law is clear that parents cannot denounce a child’s birth right citizenship”.
    I am not aware of any proof that the is.
    I would love to see some, but untill I doo I must acccept the fact that it may not exist.

    What I do know is that Obama has proven that nothing he says can be trusted. He is a liar.

  13. avatar
    Bob July 28, 2009 at 1:05 pm #

    I am not aware of any proof that the is.

    The COLB.

  14. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 3, 2009 at 2:39 am #

    No. In the same order, the Court directed Orly to serve Obama and other defendants on or before 8 am at September 8th. Since Obama had not yet been served, the Court had no jurisdiction to issue orders directed at him. By “parties” the court meant the parties who had previously appeared in the case via their filings — meaning Orly, Kreep & their clients.