The Quad City Times reports that 9 US Department of Education contractors who allegedly accessed President Obama’s student loan records both before and after the election, were arraigned today (May 24) in federal court in Davenport, Iowa.
All plead not guilty. The trial date is set for July 6.
Queue ‘they’ve been threatened to keep quiet’ in 3, 2, 1…
“These staunch patriots are political prisoners of a criminal regime run by a Moslem crypto Communist fascist…..’
Except spelt with a lot more caps and a lot less spell check……
And yes I know its “spelled”……
I read a comment on another thread (I can’t find the right thread) discussing how draconian the policy is at the P&E. I went to the P&E site to see, and I saw a big write-up about a FOIA request by Ken Allen of Arizona for Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport information (as well as a bunch of other information). The post states that all of the information was denied, and then Allen appealed. He says that his appeal was ignored so he filed a lawsuit. Allen says that “the judge ruled that the information on Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama/Soetoro should be released as well as records pertaining to Lolo Soetoro.” All other information was denied. Some e-mail exchanges are given between the Justice Department and Allen and there was supposedly some kind of agreement, etc. but in the end, no information was given, according to Allen (according to the P&E). Now Allen has filed a motion on the matter.
I repeat the information here because I thought that you mentioned having made a FOIA request for Stanley Anne’s passport information. I know what you think about the P&E, but I have a hard time believing the whole Ken Allen scenario is a fabrication. Maybe I’m wrong.
@charo
Which policy is draconian at the Pest?
As for the whining about “they won’t give me stuff about people, I suggest you read the Pests list of demands
There is precisely one reference in the 16 demands regarding his mother, specifically
10. Barry Soetoro’s medical records and those of his mother from January 1, 1961, through the present day.
There is no reference other than that and no reference to Lolo Soetoro at all.
You can’t whine about not getting “Stuff” at the same time as you patently didn’t ask for it.
Bovril,
The only reason I posted the above was because Doc (I think) requested the passport information. Allen allegedly says that “the judge ruled that the information on Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama/Soetoro should be released as well as records pertaining to Lolo Soetoro.”
Links to documents in Allen v. Soetoro are on this page:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/docket/
I had no difficulty whatever asking for passport records for Stanley Ann Dunham. I have a letter from the Department of State accepting the request and stating that they have started working on it. No doubt Allen asked for records on a living person at the same time, and then put it all in his lawsuit. I know from the court filings in a similar case (Strunk v State) that the DoS told Strunk that it accepted and started working on the Stanley Ann Obama request, but refused the request for Barack Obama since he was a living person who had not granted permission to Strunk.
That said, I’m still waiting for an answer.
Overheard
“These people need to release what they found about Obama’s Kenyan passport”
Response
“You need to buy a hearing aid , you don’t listen, all you do is beat up the bushes, you need to go back to the crazy house, the only thing these guys found out was they broke the law”
.
I think the elderly gentleman meant “beat around the bush”.
The issue is that most of the information that Allen requested seems like it would be protected by privacy laws.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/24/motion-to-compel-filed-against-state-dept-and-dhs/
Not only that it seems like Allen requested information that probably would not have existed. By that and him using the name “Soetero”, it seems like to me that Allen never intended to get the information. This seemed more like a publicity stunt than anything else.
5. Proof (as defined and described above) including but not limited to all documentation on fixed or electronic media relating to or touching upon the question of whether Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, legally changed his name from his adopted Indonesian name, Barry Soetoro, to Barack Hussein Obama and when his name was legally changed;
6. Proof (as above) including but not limited to all documentation on fixed or electronic media relating to or touching upon the question of whether Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, became a repatriated American citizen after returning to the United States from Indonesia at age 10 including but not limited to the date of that repatriation;
7. Proof (as above) relating to the question of whether Barry Soetoro became a naturalized U.S. citizen and the date of that naturalization; or compliance with 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 236, 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(b).
13. Any and all documents and other proof in whatever media recorded relating to the question of whether a group called “Friends of Barry Soetoro” or any similar name contributed to Kenyan political candidate Raila Odinga in 2006;
14. Any and all other documents relating to or proof concerning any and all conflicting citizenship or residence records and/or reports regarding Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Obama’s travels to Kenya and Indonesia;
Then of course the Post and Fail makes the Phil from tROSL and birther leap in logic….
“Allen’s appeal was ignored, so he filed a lawsuit on July 6, 2009 to obtain the requested information, acting pro se, as he stated that no lawyer wished to take the case. According to Allen, the judge “dismissed the FOIA complaint with regards to Barry Soetoro and Barack Obama; they have never given a reason to this date. What that told me was the Judge knows that Barack Obama is in fact Barry Soetoro.”
Regarding the Motion to Compel, The Post & Email asked Mr. Allen:
Is the Motion to Compel connected to your Allen v. Soetoro case, or is it a different filing?
Mr. Allen’s response:
It is the amended version. It’s the only part the judge didn’t dismiss; he didn’t dismiss Stanley Ann or Lolo. The DOS and DHS have said that they have passport documents and those were supposed to be released about 4 to 6 weeks after our status report on March 8, 2010.
The Post & Email asked:
Why hasn’t the information you requested been released to you? Have they ever given a reason?
And Allen’s response was:
They haven’t given any reason. I believe they’re stalling because Stanley Ann wasn’t in Hawaii when Obama was born. I also believe that she was out of the country long enough to lose her own citizenship!
Allen then responds in the comments…
Kenneth Allen says:
Monday, May 24, 2010 at 10:02 PM
These are the facts, the documents that I have filed are there for everyone to see. A question should be asked now, why won’t they release any documents, and why would they stonewall if there were no problems with the passport information and other documents pertaining to Stanley Ann Soetoro; aka Obama; aka Dunham and Lolo Soetoro?
Was Stanley Ann in violation of section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nat. Act of 1952. See: Rogers v. Bellei
No. 24
Argued January 15, 1970
Reargued November 12, 1970
Decided April 5, 1971
401 U.S. 815
This case was decided in 1971, but it’s full of facts about natural born Citizens. I have only highlighted one area, and I am investigating this case along with three more that might be of interest. Also Ann Dunham didn’t comply with section 301 of the immigration and Nat. Act of 1952;
And of course Rondeau showing how “unbiased” she really is…
Mrs. Rondeau replies: How about if a whole bunch of us send in similar FOIA requests to the “coward” Eric Holder?
My thoughts on these privacy issues: I know that dead people have no right to privacy, but I think that these laws/rules/policies should be modified so that any release of a dead person’s records which might effect a living person would require their assent. With the increased understanding of the role of genetics in disease the information about ancestors takes on increased importance & should not willy-nilly be made available to any crank with an axe to grind. Similar arguments can be made for other records.
I think that it may go beyond privacy issues. What we are seeing is a concerted effort by sites like the Post and Fail to attempt to discredit the anyone or any piece of proof that supports the fact that Obama was born in HI and is a NBC. For instance their most recent article where they attempt to cast doubts on the job Factcheck did on examining the COLB….
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/20/is-factcheck-org-working-with-obama/
Look at the e-mail Rondeau writes to them….Some excerpts…
Do you have the letter that Obama would have written to the Hawaii Department of Health requesting that this document be released? As you know, Hawaii is a closed-records state when it comes to birth records, and a request for release of information must be received in order for them to open any records. So far, no one has been able to locate the letter of release that Obama would have had to have sent to the Health Department if in fact this document belongs to him or was generated from the Health Department. If he never wrote such a letter, then how did this document enter the public domain?
We would like to see the original digital photos of the COLB.
We also have the following questions relating to your article of August 21, 2008:
1. “Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.” When, exactly (precise date and time window) was Recently’?
2. You indicate the document resides’ in the Obama headquarters in Chicago. Where and at what time did you take the photos? Can you indicate exactly (room, office number) where the photograph session took place and provide additional photos of that location? There are reports that Tommy Vietor, a member of Obama’s current staff, took the COLB to the White House “for safekeeping.” How could it be in two places at once? Are there two copies? Is one the original and the other a copy?
3. Who owns the Canon Powershot A570 used for the photos? Did they take the pictures?
4. Who is holding the document in the photo named birth_certificate_3.jpg?
5. Is there a complete list of people present when the photos were taken?
6. Many people have claimed that the photos are frauds. Why have you not pursued them for defamation or slander?
7. Would you be willing to set up another session to inspect the actual COLB again with additional reporters and document experts present?
Thank you very much. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sharon Rondeau
Managing Editor
The Post & Email, Inc.
http://www.thepostemail.com
No answer was received; in fact, the message was never opened.
So Factcehck ignores the P&E and they take that to mean that Factcheck is working with Obama…Maybe Factcehck didn’t want to get involved in whatever game they knew that the P&E was going to try and run…
More from the article…
“No one in Hawaii has vouched for the authenticity of the document released by Factcheck, The Daily KOS, or even the document which White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed was released by the state of Hawaii. In fact, regarding the online COLB displayed by Factcheck, Daily KOS, and later, the Obama campaign, Janice Okubo, Health Department spokeswoman, stated that she doesn’t “know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
On May 12, the following letter was sent by USPS to Factcheck.org’s office in Washington, DC, as provided on their website:
May 12, 2010
FactCheck.org
Annenberg Public Policy Center
320 National Press Building
Washington, D.C. 20045
Dear Sir or Madam:
I have tried twice to reach you by email but have not received a receipt or a response.
I have some questions regarding information you posted on your website during the 2008 presidential campaign. I have enclosed a copy of my last email of May 2, 2010 with the questions to which I am seeking answers.
The Post & Email would also like to know if you have vetted the statement of the Kenyan Minister of Lands, Mr. James Orengo, who on March 25, 2010, stated clearly that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in his country:
Mr. Orengo’s statement, which became part of the official Kenyan Parliament “Hansard” of that day, was reported by many newssites, including The Post & Email, WorldNetDaily, and others.
We would appreciate a reply from you on this important constitutional issue.
“Factcheck.org is clearly not non-partisan. Its coverage of an “attack ad” which the McCain campaign launched in October 2008 defends Bill Ayers as a different kind of terrorist than those who attacked America on 9/11/01. It also fails to say that people died as a result of Ayers’s bomb-making activities in an apartment in Greenwich Village, and that a San Francisco police officer also lost his life due to a Molotov cocktail which was hurled through a window where he was on duty, with Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn considered suspects in the case.
Factcheck’s answer to a question regarding Michelle Obama’s vacation in England with her daughters and mother is also misleading. The question asks if taxpayers’ footed the bill for Michelle’s extended stay, and Factcheck cleverly responded that “no taxpayer money was used for the first family’s personal expenses.” However, it admits that the cost of security was paid for by the American taxpayer, stating that the Obamas paid for “personal expenses” themselves. There is no corroboration of Factcheck’s statement through a copy of a press release or reputable news report.”
I guess from the comments we can expect a return from our friend “Dr. Polarik”…
SapphireSunday says:
Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 4:09 PM
I hope that Dr. Polland does write this up for us. I missed seeing his deleted comments; I would like to read them, if he doesn’t send an editorial or article.
—————-
Mrs. Rondeau replies: We have invited Dr. Polland to put all of his thoughts and data together in an editorial or technical analysis.
Joseph Maine says:
Friday, May 21, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Where did Mr. Polland’s posts/responses go?
—————
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Rather than submitting the information in Comments, he has been encouraged to prepare an editorial or investigative article so that the information is not shared piecemeal, but rather, in a manner which does his research the most benefit.
I disagree. My father died a few years ago, and his records affected me insofar as he left assets to me. If those records (in this case, his will, stock certificates, real estate deeds, and bank accounts) wasn’t publicly available without all of the mentioned living people acquiescing, they might never be released in my lifetime.
The risk of them being available is that if you knew where to look, you could see what I received after he died and how much he’d been worth monetarily. The risk of them not being available is greater, though. If they were unavailable, it would be impossible to contest a will (which didn’t happen in my case, just sayin’). It would be impossible for creditors to make a claim against the estate unless they were mentioned specifically.
I wouldn’t want to see a situation where creditors were denied access, or the opposite, where creditors could gain access, but the general public could not.
As for passports, driver’s licenses, military records, etc., the public right to know far outweighs any concerns for privacy. Besides, there is very little information in those records which couldn’t be collected elsewhere.
I’m pretty sure that if creditors won a judgement that they were owed money by the estate, the court would give them access to all of the records.
I have heard more persons discussing that the law is Unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause forbids state and local laws that contradict federal laws in matters where the federal government has authority to act.
Once again it only applies in situations exactly where the law contradicts the current law. Arizona’s law requires that State/Local authorities hand over suspect illegals to the proper federal authorities. Maybe you’ve forgetten (since we haven’t enforced these laws) but it’s still a crime to enter our country illegally.
But as long as we are talking about Constitutionality let’s talk about the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). This clause prohibits states and localities from passing laws that burden interstate or foreign commerce by, among other things, creating “discriminations favorable or adverse to commerce with specific foreign nations.”
Boycotting Arizona is UNCONSTITUTIONAL so knock it off already. Also to the Arizona government, how about we step up and actually file suit against these cities?