Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

Emma
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:25 am

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#51

Post by Emma » Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:47 pm

Just saw this, and in reading the first link I see he asks for information regarding the FBI's 'background check' of President Obama.





Federal elected officials do not undergo a background check, nor do they receive 'security clearance'.Yep, the authority for administrating security clearances is held by the president and then delegated to others. A security check on the president makes absolutely no sense.It's not done for members of Congress either. I've gone 'round and 'round on this subject with a number of people, who still hold tight to the belief that elected officials undergo background checks and receive security clearance. It's clearly a separation of powers issue. I spoke to my Senator's office and they stated that there is no background check/security clearance for those elected to Federal office. I had also emailed my Congressman, who confirmed the same:





"Currently, Members of the House of Representatives are required to take an oath of secrecy upon assuming office. This oath requires that the member not disclose any classified information received in the course of their service with the House of Representatives, except as authorized by the House of Representatives [per my Senator, this is done in the Senate as well]. I have taken the liberty of attaching a report from the Congressional Research Service on the qualifications of Members of Congress. I hope you find it informative."





I have the report on an attachment to the email, but I can't seem to get it to post here. If anyone is interested, I can forward it to them and they can post it on the forum.



brygenon
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#52

Post by brygenon » Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:07 pm

Just saw this, and in reading the first link I see he asks for information regarding the FBI's 'background check' of President Obama.





Federal elected officials do not undergo a background check, nor do they receive 'security clearance'.Yep, the authority for administrating security clearances is held by the president and then delegated to others. A security check on the president makes absolutely no sense.It's not done for members of Congress either. I've gone 'round and 'round on this subject with a number of people, who still hold tight to the belief that elected officials undergo background checks and receive security clearance. It's clearly a separation of powers issue. I spoke to my Senator's office and they stated that there is no background check/security clearance for those elected to Federal office. I had also emailed my Congressman, who confirmed the same:





"Currently, Members of the House of Representatives are required to take an oath of secrecy upon assuming office. This oath requires that the member not disclose any classified information received in the course of their service with the House of Representatives, except as authorized by the House of Representatives [per my Senator, this is done in the Senate as well]. I have taken the liberty of attaching a report from the Congressional Research Service on the qualifications of Members of Congress. I hope you find it informative."


Mr. Archibald and his "confidential FBI sources" disagree. From his [link]complaint,[/link]:





One May 13, 2011, based on further information provided by confidential FBI sources, the Plaintiff sent the FBI's Hardy a further letter (ATTACHMENT 4) enclosing copies of Executive Order 10450, "Security Requirements for Government Employment," issued by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as amended by Executive Order 10550 of August 5, 1954, and again amended in 1978 by President Gerald R. Ford, which indicate that the FBI background checks of presidential candidates had been conducted under presidential directive without interruption for 56 years at the time of Obama's background check that is the subject of this appealed FOIA request.They can't both be right, and since Eisenhower's orders do not mention presidential candidates and Ford was not president in 1978, I'm pretty sure I can call this one.



Emma
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:25 am

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#53

Post by Emma » Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:24 am

They can't both be right, and since Eisenhower's orders do not mention presidential candidates and Ford was not president in 1978, I'm pretty sure I can call this one.Archibald is an idiot who doesn't know the difference between government employees and elected officials.





[/break1]archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10450.html]http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... 10450.html



MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5298
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#54

Post by MaineSkeptic » Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:21 pm

Archibald is an idiot who doesn't know the difference between government employees and elected officials.Or, for that matter, between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20384
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#55

Post by TollandRCR » Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:44 pm




Archibald is an idiot who doesn't know the difference between government employees and elected officials.Or, for that matter, between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.Birthers are quite fond of saying that President Obama works for them. They do not mean that in the sense of an elected public servant; they mean it in the sense of "Hey, boy...." Chris Strunk even fired President Obama.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34433
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#56

Post by realist » Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:56 pm

Docket Update...





07/16/20129 [link]9,[/link] REPLY to opposition to motion re 5 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant White House Counsel filed by ROBERT F. BAUER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 07/16/2012)


Moreover, no FOIA action can be maintained against the Counsel to the


President, because the office “is not subject to FOIA.” [highlight]Taitz v. Ruemmler[/highlight], 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119452 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2011). :lol:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 16711
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#57

Post by RTH10260 » Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:00 pm

Docket Update...Moreover, no FOIA action can be maintained against the Counsel to thePresident, because the office “is not subject to FOIA.” [highlight]Taitz v. Ruemmler[/highlight], 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119452 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2011). :lol:From my cristal ball http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... 25#p397130 :-bd =))



MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5298
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#58

Post by MaineSkeptic » Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:13 pm

In response, Plaintiff argues that Defendant “should not be dismissed . . . because she was responsible for important ministerial duties” related to Plaintiff’s FOIA request. Pl. Resp. at ¶ 4. This is a non sequitur. =)) =)) =))



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34433
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#59

Post by realist » Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:09 pm

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








07/20/2012 [link]10,[/link] RESPONSE re 8 MOTION for Trial filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 07/20/2012)







ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34433
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#60

Post by realist » Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:37 am

Docket Update...





U.S. District Court


District of Columbia (Washington, DC)


CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-02028-RBW




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


Assigned to: Judge Reggie B. Walton


Cause: 05:552 [highlight]Freedom of Information Act[/highlight]





Date Filed: 11/16/2011


Jury Demand: None


Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act


Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant





07/06/2012 7 RESPONSE re 6 Answer to Complaint filed by GEORGE H. ARCHIBALD. (jf, ) (Entered: 07/09/2012)





07/06/2012 8 MOTION to ser case for Trial by GEORGE H. ARCHIBALD (jf, ) (Entered: 07/09/2012)





07/16/2012 9 REPLY in support of re 5 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant White House Counsel filed by ROBERT F. BAUER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Soskin, Eric) Modified text on 7/17/2012 (td, ). (Entered: 07/16/2012)





07/20/2012 [link]10,[/link] RESPONSE re 8 MOTION for Trial filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 07/20/2012)





08/31/2012 [link]11,[/link] MOTION for Summary Judgment by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # [link]1,[/link] Declaration of David M. Hardy, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 08/31/2012)







ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

TexasFilly
Posts: 17754
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#61

Post by TexasFilly » Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:00 pm

Love the MSJ. Lots of Taitz's fuckups cited. Berg's too! :lol:


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 16711
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#62

Post by RTH10260 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:23 pm

Just why does Mr Archibald think that's it the FBI that would be holding any purported immigration documents? Isn't there a specilized immigration authority that would be processing such paperwork ?



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

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#63

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:02 pm

Just why does Mr Archibald think that's it the FBI that would be holding any purported immigration documents? Isn't there a specilized immigration authority that would be processing such paperwork ?I'm not sure. Maybe, hmm. . . :-k . . . he's a total moron? Just guessing.



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#64

Post by Kriselda Gray » Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:17 pm

I'm curious - if the FBI does *not* do background checks on the President, why wouldn't that be one of the grounds for dismissing the FOIA request? I get why they used the grounds they did - that establishes that whether they have the information or not, no one's entitled to it - but would there be any specific reason that they wouldn't throw in "Oh, and BTW, in addition to all that, we ain't got the info, 'cuz we don't do background checks on the Prez?" (aside from the fact that they'd spell that out in proper English with all the fancy legal terms and such :mrgreen: )


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

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

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#65

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:24 pm

I'm curious - if the FBI does *not* do background checks on the President, why wouldn't that be one of the grounds for dismissing the FOIA request?Stating that they did not have any responsive information would actually be a valid response to a FOIA request.I didn't check whether this moron actually administratively exhausted and got such a response before filing his nutty kook suit.



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#66

Post by Kriselda Gray » Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:27 pm

Stating that they did not have any responsive information would actually be a valid response to a FOIA request.Ah, ok - that makes sense


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#67

Post by Piffle » Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:27 pm

Because, you know, the acknowlegement of the existence of the information might be used to indirectly confirm sumpin'. :twisted:



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

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#68

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:53 pm

Because, you know, the acknowlegement of the existence of the information might be used to indirectly confirm sumpin'. :twisted:There is actually a probably valid FOIA response that entails refusing to confirm or deny the existence of the information, called a [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response]Glomar response. The agency still usually must provide as much explanation as it can without revealing the secret, and the agency decision is subject to the usual judicial review after an administrative appeal (or declassification review depending).





Apparently, according to the MSJ, the FBI relied on the fact that the materials would be exempt from disclosure if they existed. Archibald promptly responded with a tantrum demanding they do it anyway without a privacy waiver or any other procedurally proper response by him.





Then he filed his kook suit and here we are.





They apparently in his administrative appeal (amazingly he actually did one) actually taunted him even further by including a copy of the LFBC as a "courtesy." Nice touch.





The FBI has categorically withheld any responsive records pursuant to FOIAExemptions 6 and 7(C). Hardy Decl. at ¶¶ 16, 20.From their Statement of Material Facts.





The FBI's response appears consistently to have been that the records, if any exist, are categorically exempt from disclosure.





Archibald is actually a cut above Orly in that he actually did do an administrative appeal instead of just screeching and making insane demands for things that don't exist. So far as I know, he did not screech, and he more or less properly went through the proper procedure to make insane demands for things that don't exist.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34433
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#69

Post by realist » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:32 pm

ORYR (via Helen Tansey :roll: ) [link]reports on the Archibald case,http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot ... Records%29[/link]...





DOJ Seeks to Dismiss Berryville Resident’s FOIA Request


News Staff @ Clarke Daily News


(Hat tip Helen Tansey)





Just weeks before the November presidential election, the Justice Department filed motions in U.S. District Court in Washington to prevent release of an [highlight]FBI background investigation of President Obama’s loss of his American citizenship as a child growing up in Indonesia, which cleared the way for him to run for president in 2008[/highlight]. :roll:





On Aug. 31, a Justice Department trial unit defending the president in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Berryville resident George Archibald filed motions asking U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to keep results of the FBI’s investigation under seal and to dismiss the case.





Archibald countered by asking Judge Walton to reject the administration’s legal arguments that the FBI records are exempt from release under the FOIA because they relate to FBI investigative methods that must remain secret.





[...]





“The Justice Department [highlight]provided a copy of the president’s Hawaii birth certificate from the same file, which the White House released last year in order to quell reports that he was born in Kenya[/highlight], which would have made him ineligible to run for the presidency” Archibald argued in his response to the court.





Motion for Summary Judgment [link]here,[/link]





Attachment to MSJ - [link]Declaration of David M. Hardy,[/link]





more at the linky dinky


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#70

Post by Piffle » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:57 pm

DOJ Seeks to Dismiss Berryville Resident’s FOIA Request


News Staff @ Clarke Daily News


(Hat tip Helen Tansey) OK, so there probably isn't a single sentence in the article that is factually correct in a strict sense.





But one must realize that Clark County is way, way down the valley, as they say.




Off Topic
Many years ago, one of my great uncles virtually owned Berryville -- bank, hardware store, department store, boarding house and a few thousand acres of land. Nevertheless, my branch of the family (Albemarle County) thought the place was a bit backward. A pic of the department store ca. 1900:





http://clarkecounty.pastperfect-online. ... 472018.JPG



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

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#71

Post by Sudoku » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:14 pm

In reading the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Declaration of David Hardy, it looks like the FBI did "investigate" Obama before he became president. I didn't know they did that. I am reading it incorrectly?



User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#72

Post by everalm » Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:41 am

The person saying this is a Birther and it is axiomatic that in this area Birthers lie.Read previous points in this thread, there is no and never has been an "investigation" or "background check" by the FBI of the President.



User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 9237
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#73

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:46 am

In reading the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Declaration of David Hardy, it looks like the FBI did "investigate" Obama before he became president. I didn't know they did that. I am reading it incorrectly?It looks to me like they're simply saying the information requested is not allowed because it concerns the President when he was 5 years old. I'm guessing the FBI handles FOIA requests the same as our local gov't does and first makes a determination of whether the requested information is covered. If it isn't, they never even proceed to the point of searching for it. This statement seems to be laying out the facts of why the requested info isn't covered but doesn't really address whether there is actually any of the info available or not. It's early, so I may have missed something, but this seems to be more of a "you're not entitled to it so we won't even tell you if we have it or not" sort of statement.



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

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#74

Post by Sudoku » Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:22 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.



User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Archibald v US DOJ, et al.

#75

Post by Piffle » Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:34 am

[highlight]In reading[/highlight] the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Declaration of David Hardy, it looks like the FBI did "investigate" Obama before he became president. I didn't know they did that. I am reading it incorrectly?Is the phrase "in reading" meant to suggest that you actually read the documents thoroughly? If so, I'm amazed that you'd reach such a conclusion.





If anything, the motion and declaration scrupulously avoid confirming or rejecting Mr. Archibald's belief that the materials he seeks exist. Would you be so kind as to cite a particular passage or sentence that would support your inference?





I'm afraid you've committed what is known in logic as the existential fallacy. Here's a specimen of that error:





1. We start by asserting that all unicorns have a single horn. (That, after all, is the defining characteristic of a unicorn.)





2. If all unicorns have a single horn then it logically follows that some unicorns have a single horn.





3. If some unicorns have a single horn, then it must be true that there are some unicorns.





Therefore, it has been proven that unicorns exist. (Not!)



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”