Archive | FOIA RSS feed for this section

Arrogant Apuzzo attacks Atlanta ALJ

(Anyone who calls his blog:  “A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers,” assuming by “right” he means “correct” rather than “right wing,” has already pled guilty to the charge of arrogance.)

In Friday’s installment of “right answers” Mr. Apuzzo offers a new article titled: All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen.”

Apuzzo starts off with the big lie (highlighted in blue):

image

Ignorance of the record is no excuse. I was in the court room in Atlanta on January 26 and I saw plenty of evidence Obama was born in the United States. The case presented on behalf of Mr. Welden included  Exhibit 1: Birth Certificate, Barack Obama, II. In his presentation, attorney Van Irion referred to the Certificate and relied on its contents to show that Barack Obama, Sr. Was born in Kenya.  See Hearing Transcript beginning on Page 5:

Continue Reading →

FOIA 2.0

I talked to Chris Strunk in Atlanta last week about his FOIA request for Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport records. He was disgusted with the process and had given up. I don’t blame him. Trying to get a timely and responsive answer through the FOIA to the basic question, “when did she have US passports?” has been a very frustrating experience for me too.

It’s been three years since my original FOIA inquiry. On at least two occasions the US Department of State has violated the statute by failing to respond within the time mandated by Congress. I’ve had to appeal, and my appeal proved valid since it netted me an additional (but uninteresting) document.

Today I received a letter from the appeals officer stating:

The Department has no basis for believing that we have any additional records and all responsive records have been produced at this time.

That is a very troubling response because if it is true, the Department of State has not only destroyed the 1965 passport application of Stanley Ann Dunham (which is plausible) but also the microfilm copy of the issuance card for it and that is very implausible, since documentation exists to show that cards from that period were microfilmed and to destroy it would be a violation of retention policy.

Frankly I don’t believe that they have released all the records they have. That said, I already decided that, unlike Mr. Strunk, I am not going to take the federal lawsuit option. No less than Jesus Christ himself advised his followers (of which I am one) not to get tangled up in lawsuits.

However, what I am going to do is to submit another FOIA request, this time in written in such an iron-clad manner that they can’t squirm out of it with squirrely language and cannot use the ploy that one person deny what another person knows is true.

The Department of State has 20 working days in which to respond as to whether they will perform the search.

So check back in a couple of years to see what happens.

How old was Obama when he moved to Indonesia?

I did a bad thing. I said something without checking my facts. I won’t make excuses. I did it and I apologize. What I said, in the article Math anomalies in new article, was that the date of the Obama divorce decree doesn’t jive with Obama moving to Indonesia at age 2  following the divorce. That’s wrong. Barack actually was 2 at the time of the divorce so a move at age 2 would be consistent with a move following the divorce.

imageSo, did Barack Obama really move to Indonesia at age 2, instead of age 6 as I have always said? Could the statue of Barack Obama in Jakarta, Indonesia, shown right, be that of a two-year old?

The way to answer such questions is to look at the record. The Washington Post says the move occurred in 1967, but they don’t source it. The Post wrote:

The son’s notion of his loving mother’s naivete began in Indonesia, when they arrived in the capital city, Jakarta, in 1967, joining Soetoro, who had returned to his home country several months earlier.

That Post article is the source the Wikipedia uses to document the date, and probably where all the conventional wisdom on the subject springs from.

To answer any lingering doubts, one must consult primary sources, and in this case there is a wealth of contemporary information obtained via the Allen FOIA. What we find in the record is that Barack’s stepfather Lolo Soetoro returned to Indonesia in late July or early August of 1966 and that while in Indonesia an application was filed to return to the United States to be with his wife and child. (The visitor program under which Soetoro had been in the US required him to return to his native country for two years prior to returning to the US.) In a document dated October 6, 1967, we find this (page 31):

The applicant’s United States citizen wife resides at 2234 University Avenue, Honolulu, Hawaii, with her 6-year-old United States citizen son by a prior marriage. The applicant, who returned to Indonesia and has been residing there for over 14 months in an effort to satisfy the foreign residence requirement, earns a very meager salary and is dependent upon members of his family. His wife has remained with his stepchild in the United States and earns about $400 per month. She has made an application for a visa for herself and her son to travel to Indonesia as she is determined to join her husband as soon as possible, if he is not permitted to return here, because she can lo longer endure the separation.

Obama was registered in school in Indonesia January 1, 1968. That pretty much nails it. Obama was 6 years old when he went to Indonesia. I should add that the date of the Soetoro marriage (also from the FOIA) is in March of 1965.

Why is anyone discussing this in the first place? There are two answer to that question. First the birthers want to cast doubts on every aspect of Barack Obama’s live story so that they can maintain that he is a “stranger” and is hiding his true self. The second reason relates to Indonesian law. If Obama was 6 (and he was) then Indonesia wouldn’t have granted him Indonesian citizenship without renouncing US citizenship (and that’s impossible for a 6-year-old). So it proves Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.

I want to thank Mario Apuzzo for pointing out my error on his blog, although it would have been more helpful if he had told me directly, since I don’t normally visit his blog.

More Dunham passport documents

More is not necessarily better

Central to the conspiracy theories and crank beliefs about President Barack Obama is the claim that he was born, not in Hawaii as the Encyclopedia Britannica says, but rather in Mombasa, Kenya. Despite the extreme implausibility of the Obamas traveling to Kenya for the birth of their son, and the wealth of official documentation proving the President was born in Honolulu, theories of a Kenyan birth persist to this day.

In January of 2009 I resolved to find even more proof that Barack Obama was not born in Kenya, evidence beyond the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth available at the time, and in addition to the newspaper birth reports from the Health Bureau. I reasoned that if President Obama had been born in Kenya, his mother must have been there with him at the time, and travel to a foreign country requires a passport. No passport, no travel to Kenya. To answer the passport question, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the United States Department of State on January 27, 2009, asking for records of any passports issued to Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama or Soetoro).

I did not imagine back in 2009 that this simple FOIA request would still be kicking around 32 months later, but it is. In the interim I have written several articles about the request and its frustrating ups and downs. Things were complicated by the fact that routine passport applications for records in the time period of interest were destroyed in the 1980’s to reduce record storage costs.

 

Continue Reading →

Taitz gets sucky birthday present

Happy Birthday Orly! Chief Judge Royce C. Lambert probably didn’t know  it was your birthday when he wrote a rather unpleasant (from your point of view) ruling today in the case of Taitz v Astrue. It’s not without irony that the judge wrote: “Today is not her lucky day.”

The order itself is quite brief and to the point:

Final judgment is hereby entered for defendant, dismissing this case with prejudice.

“With prejudice” means that you can’t file the same case again – the complaint can’t be “fixed.” I’m sure you will move for reconsideration, but it won’t help.

I can’t say I’m sorry, but I have some sympathy for how you feel, losing the case that you made such a big fuss over, and on your birthday, even.

Here’s the memorandum

TAITZ v ASTRUE (USDC D.C.) – 33 – MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth – gov.uscourt…

Read more:

Taitz files again, again (Update 2)

RuemmlerOrly 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.

Learn more:

Update 2:

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.

Judge clears Taitz wreck

DC District Court Chief Judge the Hon. Royce C. Lamberth has dealt with the Orly Taitz problem. After castigating her for her  repeated inability to grasp the concept of blanking out the first 5 digits of a social-security number, he allowed her 78-page motion in opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss her FOIA lawsuit against the Social Security Administration to be filed, ordering that Exhibit 9 which still contained improperly redacted information be filed under seal.

Judge Lamberth showed the kind of judgment that I would expect from someone in his respected position. Rather than joust with Taitz’s incompetence, he has taken a decisive, pragmatic step that will allow him to rule on the motion to dismiss itself and, this observer hopes, send Taitz packing back to California. However the judge rules, he has cleared the procedural wreck of Taitz’s lawsuit from the highway of justice. [Was that over the top?]

For those who enjoy gawking at wrecks on the highway of justice, here’s the motion:

TAITZ v ASTRUE (USDC D.C.) – 31.0 – Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by …