Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#76

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:13 am

First, I am not a birther. I go to Doc's, Squeeky's and read NBC and Bad Fiction. I often read here, but this is my first time to post.I generally read all the docs in the birther cases as they become available. I had not paid any attention to the Archibald case. I thought any info was already public from Strunk, etc., and that the FBI didn't investigate elected officials. In reading the Declaration of David M. Hardy, on page 7 and 8, where he talks about the exemption 7 threshold, it looks like they do investigate elected officials. That surprised me.I don't think Archibald has a chance of getting anything released, as it should be. I just didn't know the FBI did that.The FBI doesn't do that. You appear to have misread the Declaration. It is the invariable policy of the FBI to cite 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) in response to FOIA requests about living third parties and to refuse to disclose documents without a privacy waiver by the target of the request. This is boilerplate. It neither confirms nor denies the existence of the documents.I think if you read the Declaration again, you will find it contains nothing whatsoever confirming the existence of any responsive records.



User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 9436
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#77

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:45 pm

Whew! I'm always hesitant to post an answer that has anything to do with the legal stuff, for fear of being wrong, but in this instance it looks like I actually got it right! That's cause for dancing.....but then again, I'm easily amused. And just happy to not be wrong in public any more than absolutely necessary.



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#78

Post by SueDB » Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:48 pm

Whew! I'm always hesitant to post an answer that has anything to do with the legal stuff, for fear of being wrong, but in this instance it looks like I actually got it right! That's cause for dancing.....but then again, I'm easily amused. And just happy to not be wrong in public any more than absolutely necessary.Don't worry about being wrong, the folks here will set ya straight nicely. Even a acorn...err a truff...err hell with it.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

Sudoku
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:08 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#79

Post by Sudoku » Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:32 pm

I think if you read the Declaration again, you will find it contains nothing whatsoever confirming the existence of any responsive records.Thanks, I guess I expected either a simple statement that there are no records responsive to the request or that any information, if gathered, is exempt.Thanks, again.



A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#80

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:16 pm

I think if you read the Declaration again, you will find it contains nothing whatsoever confirming the existence of any responsive records.Thanks, I guess I expected either a simple statement that there are no records responsive to the request or that any information, if gathered, is exempt.Thanks, again.You're welcome. The reason they have the policy of a uniform blanket denial is that by adopting a policy of responding in a divergent way when there are responsive records would inadvertently disclose information to which the requester is not entitled, that is, that there are responsive records. Responding in either case with a blanket denial serves to protect the privacy interest of the target.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34510
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#81

Post by realist » Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:17 pm

Docket Update...





09/10/2012 12 [link]MOTION to Deny Summary Judgment,[/link] [link] MOTION for Scheduling Order,[/link]


[link]MOTION to Produce,[/link] by GEORGE H. ARCHIBALD (dr) (Entered: 09/12/2012)





links shortly


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34510
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#82

Post by realist » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:24 pm

Docket Update...





09/13/2012 [link]13,[/link] RESPONSE re 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by GEORGE H. ARCHIBALD. (dr) (Entered: 09/17/2012)





09/25/2012 [link]14,[/link] REPLY to opposition to motion re 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 09/25/2012)













ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34510
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#83

Post by realist » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:55 pm

Docket Update...





12/21/2012 [link]17,[/link]


Memorandum in opposition to re 16 MOTION for Order filed by ROBERT F. BAUER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 12/21/2012)





12/21/2012 [link]18,[/link]


RESPONSE re 15 Memorandum filed by ROBERT F. BAUER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 12/21/2012)




Edit: Links as soon as Scribd will let me upload. :(


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34510
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#84

Post by realist » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:22 am

Dust. Bites.





Docket Update...





ARCHIBALD v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al


Assigned to: Judge Reggie B. Walton


Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act





Date Filed: 11/16/2011


Jury Demand: None


Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act


Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant





03/13/2013 [link]20,[/link]


ORDER granting 5 Motion to Dismiss; denying without prejudice 8 Motion for Trial. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, it ORDERED that the defendants' Motion to Dismiss White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler as Defendant is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Set Case for Trial is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 3/13/2013. (lcrbw2) (Entered: 03/13/2013)







ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24522
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#85

Post by bob » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:54 am

Only Ruemmler was dismissed. Cross-motions for summary judgment remain pending.Interesting reference to the Take Care Clause.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”