Obama new allegations, Illinois FOIA violations, Citizen Wells charges, Illinois Attorney General, Bar Association, US Senate censure

Whereas:

Barack Obama has been a licensed attorney in the state of
Illinois since the early nineties and was a associate attorney
with Miner, Barnhill and Galland from 1993 to 2002.

Barack Obama also taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

Barack Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act
pro-disclosure statute was originally enacted on July 1, 1984.

The following is the position of the state of Illinois as stated
by the Illinois Attorney General:

“It is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business.”

“Attorney General Lisa Madigan believes that an open, honest and accountable government, the cornerstone of a democracy, can only be achieved through the free and open exchange of information between government and its citizens. Both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Open Meetings Act (OMA) endeavor to open the workings of government to the public, shed light on government actions and, in the process, strengthen our democracy. Similarly, the newly enacted government ethics laws are intended to increase government accountability. The Office of the Attorney General is committed to ensuring compliance with these laws and increasing awareness by both the public and public officials of their rights and obligations under them.”

Barack Obama has violated the letter of the law
and spirit of the Illinois FOIA.

Obama refused to supply information on one occasion when he
stated:

In a Tribune interview Thursday, the Illinois Democrat said he had no intention of sharing any of the documents he might still have in his possession.”

“The problem is whatever remaining documents I have are inevitably incomplete. And then the questions going to be, where’s this or where’s that. Once I start heading down that road, then it puts me in a position that could end up being misleading. I don’t want to mislead people. I don’t know the extent of the records that I have as a state senator.”
 
Obama has also either ignored requests for his records or given
evasive answers:

The Chicago Tribune has reported that it “requested documents from his time in Springfield and never received a response.”

In an interview with Tim Russert:

“MR. RUSSERT:  You talked about Senator Clinton having records released from the Clinton Library regarding her experience as first lady, and yet when you were asked about, “What about eight years in the state senate of Illinois,” you said, “I don’t know.” Where, where are the—where are your records?

SEN. OBAMA:  Tim, we did not keep those records.  I…

MR. RUSSERT:  Is your schedule available anywhere?  Are—the records exist?

SEN. OBAMA:  I—Tim, I kept my own schedule.  I didn’t have a scheduler.

MR. RUSSERT:  Senator Durbin, your colleague, publishes his schedule each day.  Would you do that?

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, you know, these days I have a public presidential schedule that I think everybody has access to.”
It is obvious that Barack Obama has violated the Illinois
FOIA Law by his failure to produce records that he has and has
violated the spirit of the law and policies of the State of
Illinois by his cavalier, evasive and irresponsible conduct.

It is self evident that the following should occur and I hereby
formally request the following:

A) That an investigation into the record keeping and compliance
with Illinois State Law by Barack Obama be initiated by the
Attorney General of the State of Illinois.

B) That the activities of Barack Obama in regard to the above and
any other federal and state laws be reviewed by the Illinois
State Bar Association.

C) That the aforementioned activities of Barack Obama be
investigated and reviewed in the United States Senate for possible
censure proceedings.
ILLINOIS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
The following is taken from the A GUIDE TO THE ILLINOIS FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION ACT:

“The Freedom of Information Act is the principal Illinois law governing the inspection of public records. It is a pro-disclosure statute originally enacted on July 1, 1984. This important open-government law is grounded in the principle that the public should be able to access public records and information about the workings of their government.

Illinois courts have long recognized that “good policy requires liberality in the right to examine public records.” Weinstein v. Rosenbloom, 59 Ill. 2d 475, 482 (1974); see also Copley Press Inc. v. City of Springfield, 143 Ill. App. 3d 370 (4th Dist. 1986); Warden v. Byrne, 102 Ill. App. 3d 501, 505 (1st Dist. 1981); People ex. rel. Gibson v. Peller, 34 Ill. App. 2d 372, 374 (1st
Dist. 1962). The courts have also recognized a common law duty to disclose public records, qualified only by a balancing of the public’s right to know against individual privacy rights and governmental interests. Lopez v. Fitzgerald, 53 Ill. App. 3d 164, 167 (1st Dist. 1977), aff’d 76 Ill.
2d 107. According to the court in People ex rel. Gibson v. Peller, 34 Ill. App. 2d 372, 374 (1st Dist. 1962), the common law right to inspect records also carries with it a right to reproduce or copy public records:”
“Under the Freedom of Information Act, public records are presumed to be open and accessible. Illinois Education Association v. Illinois State Board of Education, 204 Ill. 2d 456 (2003). The principal mandate of the Act is found in subsection 3(a), which provides that “[e]ach public body shall make available to any person for inspection or copying all public
records.” The remainder of the Act implements this requirement.”
“The Act requires all “public bodies” to make their public records available for inspection. According to subsection 2(a) of the Act, the term “public body” includes any legislative, executive, administrative, or advisory bodies of the State, State universities and colleges, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other
municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees, or commissions of this State, and any subsidiary bodies of those public bodies, including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue, and also School Finance Authorities created under Article 1E of the School Code.”
“It is the policy of the State, as enunciated in the Act, that all persons are entitled to “full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them.” The Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly embraced the
philosophy that public records are presumed to be open and accessible.”
“Subsection 2(c) of the Act defines the term “public records” to include all records, reports, forms, writings, letters, memoranda, books, papers, maps, photographs, microfilms, cards, tapes, recordings, electronic data processing records, recorded information and all other
documentary information having been prepared, or having been or being used, received, possessed or under the control of any public body.”
“Section 3 requires public bodies to make public records available “to any person.” A “person” is defined in subsection 2(b) as “any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, organization or association, acting individually or as a group.””
“Are office telephone records of members of a public body public records?
Yes. Telephone records of a member of a public body would be considered a
public record for purposes of the Act. Certain exemptions may exist that permit a withholding of these records per section 7 of the Act.”
“Are e-mails of members of a public body public records?
Yes. E-mail records of a member of a public body would be considered a public record for purposes of the Act. Certain exemptions may exist that permit a withholding of these records per section 7 of the Act.”
The Illinois FOIA act and manual can be viewed here:

http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/government/FOIA_guide.pdf
The following exerpt is from “FOIA and technology–When will
they converge?” By David Silverman, Joliet.
“Illinois has enacted comparable state laws that include “electronic records” within the definition of state government records.” “For purposes of the Local Records Act, “officer” is broadly defined as “any elected or appointed official of a court, county, municipal corporation or political subdivision.”22 Arguably, even e-mails received or transmitted from an elected or appointed official’s home computer are governed by the Local Records Act depending upon their subject matter. While these “home e-mails” may not be subject to disclosure under FOIA because they are not in the possession or control of the public body, they may very well be subject to the Local Records Act.”
Additional Barack Obama remarks about his records:

“I have no idea. I mean [muffled on recording]. I really don’t. Again, I did not have at my disposal. I wasn’t preparing for the Obama state senatorial library.”
“We did not keep those records.”
“Nobody has requested specific documents.”
“I have no idea. I mean [muffled on recording]. I really don’t. Again, I did not have at my disposal. I wasn’t preparing for the Obama state senatorial library.”
“An Obama spokesman, Ben LaBolt, last week declined to say where  Obama’s records from his years in the Illinois State Senate are located. There is no law mandating the state to archive the records. The records from Obama’s office — if he kept them — would potentially show appointments with lobbyists, policy memos, meetings, etc.”
“Well, let’s be clear.  In the state senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois. The, the stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule.  I didn’t have a schedule.  I was a state senator.  I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library.  I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues.  So…”
 

 

 

Advertisements

7 responses to “Obama new allegations, Illinois FOIA violations, Citizen Wells charges, Illinois Attorney General, Bar Association, US Senate censure

  1. Shouldn’t Obama’s cell phone records that Larry Sinclair requested, also fall under this law?
    I am shocked at what I am witnessing in this election.

    IMHO the MSM have lost all credibility. :>(

  2. citizenwells

    That is an interesting question.
    If the cell phone was paid for by the state directly or in expense reimbursement, I would
    certainly think so.
    Obama was apparently still an associate of the law firm at that time as well as being a college
    lecturer. The Illinois FOIA is fairly broad in it’s
    application and the Illinois government and
    Attorney General have made it clear what their
    positions and intent are.
    I wonder if Obama will attempt to use his judicial
    link to exempt himself from part or all of his records.

  3. citizenwells

    Larry has requested info under the FOIA and he
    claims that he was given vague answers. Larry is
    aware of my post and I am sure we will discuss it
    further.

  4. sharprightturn

    Thanks for commenting on my blog. I am interested in your posts about Obama’s records and whereabouts in November, 1999.
    I’ll check back in later to stay up to date…..
    Good blog. Thanks.

  5. citizenwells

    Thank you.
    I posted a comment on Larry Sinclair’s blog earlier about my reasons for researching Obama’s records and why I began scrutinizing more intensely.

  6. MR. RUSSERT: You’ve been talking a lot about lobbyists and money in politics. This is The Boston Globe in August: in eight—“Obama’s eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns came from” political action committees, “corporate contributions,” “unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial service firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.” You now talk about, “Well, I’m not taking any money from lobbyists.” You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal lobbying—employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it’s coming from, and your rhetoric.

    SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, look, I, I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. I have raised money in order to bankroll my campaigns.

    Here is the link to the whole transcript for the Russert/Obama November ’07 Meet The Press Interview:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/

    Russert was dead 7 months later, on Friday the 13th.

  7. Pingback: Presidents challengers mysterious deaths, Andrew Breitbart Tim Russert General Patton, LA Coroner death, Pulmonary embolism or heart attack induced? | Citizen WElls

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s