Allen vs. Soetoro appealed to 9th Circuit Court

CASE INVOLVES FOIA REQUEST FOR RECORDS OF BARRY SOETORO & FAMILY

The Post & E-Mail

by John Charlton

Kenneth L Allen, AZ citizen, questions Obama’s citizenship status

(Feb. 13, 2010) — Just how long does it take to get information from the Federal Government via the Freedom of Information Act?  That question is being answered by the proceedings in the case Allen vs. Soetoro.  Mr. Ken Allen of Tuscon, AZ sought all information about Barry Soetoro, Lolo Soetoro, his adopted father, and Stanley Ann Dunham-Soetoro, his alleged mother, in the possession of the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

The case was summarized accurately by Linda Bently of the Sonoran News on July 15, 2009.  Mr. Kenneth L. Allen appealed his case to the 9th Circuit Court following a denial of his original complaint with the U.S. District Court in Tuscon as regards documents of Barry Soetoro.

Allen’s basic argument is that privacy rights of illegal aliens cannot be invoked in his case on the grounds that Obama’s citizenship status has not been proven by documentation, and that therefore his FOIA request for all the documents he has requested should be granted.

While this appeal regards the exclusion of Barry Soetoro (and all aliases) from the FOIA request, the case in the District Court continues for the documents of Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Soetoro.  In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Frank R. Zapata, on Feb. 9, ordered limited discovery prior to hearing a motion for dismissal.  Such discovery would begin by March 19.

On the same day, Feb. 9, 2010, Molly C. Dwyer, Court Clerk for the 9th Circuit Court, set the schedule for filing of the Appellant’s Brief (i.e., Mr. Allen’s argument giving reasons for his appeal). The date is May 24, 2010.

Defendants (a.k.a. “Appellees”) in this case are Barry Soetoro, aka, Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Obama; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General; Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State; Janet Napolitano, Director of the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; the Department of Homeland Security; and the U.S. Department of State.

The Ninth Circuit Court has given the defense until June 21 to reply to Mr. Allen’s Appellant’s brief.

Mr. Allen requests that the public not contact the Ninth Circuit Court in regard to his case.

Source:

Obama’s Own Begin to Turn on Him

Commentary Magazine

Peter Wehner

When a presidency and an agenda are collapsing at the rate that President Obama’s are, it isn’t long before his party begins to distance itself from him. We’ve seen plenty of signs of this lately. Politico.com has a story today titled “Family feud: Nancy Pelosi at odds with President Obama.” According to the story:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s increasingly public disagreements with President Barack Obama are a reflection of something deeper: the seething resentment some Democrats feel over what they see as cavalier treatment from a wounded White House.

Then there are the comments by Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who said, “He [Obama] says ‘I’m for clean coal,’ and then he says it in his speeches, but he doesn’t say it in here. And he doesn’t say it in the minds of my own people. And he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

Much of what President Obama has said hasn’t been believable to many of us for quite some time now. But when influential figures in a president’s own party begin to make statements such as these — especially when you’re only 13 months into a presidency — it’s clear that things are beginning to become a bit unglued. Party discipline is tossed aside; the intra-party sniping makes the situation even worse. And the vicious cycle Democrats are caught in merely accelerates.

It has dawned on many Democrats that in hitching their fortunes to Obama and Obamaism, they have put themselves at enormous political risk. They are all complicit in this; Obama himself outsourced much of his agenda to Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The entire Democratic establishment is the architect of what is shaping up as an epic political failure. But Mr. Obama is head of the Democratic party, and so the responsibility lies with him more than with anyone else. He is primus inter pares. And he is now, with every passing week, the target of their unhappiness. More is sure to follow.

This isn’t going to end well for them.

Source:

Redstate.com Bans the Eligibility Question

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF PRACTICED LAW IN SAME BUILDING AS JUDGE LAND, INFAMOUS SANCTIONER OF ORLY TAITZ

The Post & E-Mail

by John Charlton

Eric Erickson praticed law for six years with Sell & Mellon, LLP, whose website displays an image of Judge Clay D. Land’s courthouse.

(Feb. 13, 2010) — Many Republicans are outraged following the discussion ban of the eligibility question imposed yesterday by the Editor-in-Chief of Redstate.com, a leading Republican News Blog published from Washington, D.C.

Eric Erickson justified his action in a post entitled, “Vigilance: I’m Banning Birfers, Truthers, and Groups Affiliated Therewith” for the following reasons:

We must be vigilant. We must be willing to draw a line in the sand and stand against fatuous nonsense that opens up the right to attacks by a left-leaning media intent on embarrassing the good people who have developed through the tea party movement a renewed sense of civic involvement.

Birfers and Truthers have no place among us. And they are most decidedly not welcome at RedState.

Erickson is evidently that kind of Republican who believes politics needs a sort of Inquisition-like approach, ever- vigilant for political “heretics,” and sees his duty as requiring him to ban them from exercising their free speech on constitutional issues.

He is also that kind of Republican effete who runs when Democrats shout “Boo!” on any issue, not wanting at all to seem politically incorrect to liberals.

He is also that kind of clever progressive, who, in order to hide the fact that he is banning a legitimate discussion, bans  at the same time a position often advocated by those with an extreme anti-American or anti-government stance  (in this case, “Truthers,” who believe 9-11 was engineered by the U.S. government), so as to appear to be middle-of-the-road.

Complete Story: