Orly Taitz, always looking for a new lawsuit to file, has settled on White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler (pictured right) in her official capacity. Why? Something about a forged Obama birth certificate, social-security numbers and Columbia University [sic]. It’s a Freedom of Information Act case and Orly’s old friend Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth has been assigned (1:11-cv-01421-RCL).
I’m reading the complaint and so far I don’t see a connection with the FOIA or Ruemmler. Ah, here she gets to it on page 5 (after 4 pages of general birther stuff). Taitz says she sent Ruemmler a FOIA request to examine the certified copies of Obama’s long form birth certificate and Ruemmler didn’t respond. It would have been helpful if Taitz had put a date on that request, but ya know …
On page 6, Taitz admits that the FOIA excludes “central offices of the White House” but says that this exclusion doesn’t apply because the documents she seeks are not “generated by the President as part of his duties.” So basically, Taitz argues that the birth certificate is not a federal government document which begs the question of how she expects to obtain it under the federal FOIA. Taitz cites United States v Nixon, a case where the subpoena of tape recordings made in the White House was upheld (not a FOIA case). In Nixon, a prosecutor showed sufficient cause that the tapes (now called the Watergate Tapes) likely contained evidence of a crime. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the President did not have absolute immunity from a subpoena. Taitz builds her own pile of suspicion (none of which is worth a hill of beans in court) but doesn’t seem to understand that she’s not a prosecutor, just a regular citizen, and a nut case conspiracy theorist at that.
Has Orly learned anything? Yes and no. The social-security numbers are correctly redacted, but the case is nonsense.
Prediction: Summarily dismissed.
- 981 F.2d 1288: Katherine Anne Meyer v. George Bush, Chairman, Task Force on Regulatory Relief, Etal., Appellants – Notes that the White House Counsel’s Office is not a FOIA agency.
- Kissinger v Reporters Committee 445 U. S. 136 (1980) – Presidential advisors exempt from FOIA
- Electronic Frontier Freedom Foundation v Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Department of Justice – Some parts of the White House are agencies.
- Armstrong et al v Executive Office of the President – FOIA and Presidential Records Act
- 215 F.3d 20: In Re: Executive Office of the President, Petitioner – Ruled that the White House is an agency for the purposes of the Privacy Act even if not for FOIA
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v Department of Homeland Security – The Secret Service is considered an agency and White House visitor logs are agency records subject to disclosure under FOIA
- 365 F.3d 1108: Judicial Watch, Inc., Appellant, v. Department of Justice, Appellee – a case involving the FOIA exemption in a pardon case
Taitz has also filed suit in Hawaii state court against Fuddy and Onaka. The filing is said to be 48 pages long and makes a claim under the State’s Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) a freedom of information statute. [link to Taitz web site] Andy Martin (Martin v. Lingle) already lost a similar case in Hawaii.