FOIA
Public Information Act of 1966
Public Information Availability
89th United States Congress
Effective July 5, 1967
An Act to amend section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 324, of the Act of June 11, 1946 (60 Stat. 238), to clarify and protect the right of the public to information and for other purpose
Devil Details
The devil is in the details.
unknown quote
Government, police, prosecutors and most notably Judges detest the humble knowing the details. In the details, the corruption comes sharply into focus.
Since the truth is in the details, this is why Washington State Prosecutors and Judges blocked and succeeded in keeping details of the hate crime by the City of Enumclaw Police in the dark. In short, zero investigation at every level, with mounting cover-ups, deflections and denials for justice. See the City of Enumclaw at www.enumclaw.com.
A Win-Win
Freedom of Information Requests are a win-win opportunity to probe the dark corners of corruption or to ascertain facts to dispel rumors.
Not only are there severe penalties for not complying, but when requests are denied, avoided or delayed, it reveals the corrupt for who they are.
Always keep track of who you are requesting information from and the start date. Later, I will reveal the empty logic Washington State Judges employ for not providing information. Listen to The Consider Podcast for details.
The simple act of requesting information and the type of response provides a quick snapshot of the quality, or lack of quality, of those you are requesting information from.
Win-win because even if one does not obtain the requested information, worthwhile facts can be deduced from that fact. It is one of the few tools that are a win-win for the humble in the land.
Jesus was clear on Freedom of Information requests those who refuse to eagerly comply are hiding something.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. (John 3:20)
For more information, go to www.consider.info and input post number 8796.
The Consider Podcast
Examining Today’s Wisdom, Folly & Madness
www.consider.info
FOIA Whitepaper
The following is commissioned research.
Freedom of Information Requests: What Happens if the Government Does Not Respond?
One of the more notable things about American society is the sheer amount of power that an individual has against the state. Even something as “simple” as the Bill of Rights has few and far equivalents around the world. Whether it is due to our anticolonial history or persistent skepticism of government overreach, the American legal system empowers individuals with certain tools to challenge the government and stand up for themselves.
While there are plenty of tools to discuss, I want to spend this post diving into the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Approaching its 60th birthday, FOIA is the groundbreaking federal legislation that lets Americans request access to records from federal government agencies.
Even if you have never submitted a FOIA request before, having an understanding of what FOIA is (and what happens if the government doesn’t respond to a FOIA request) can help you better appreciate this landmark piece of legislation. It not only provides much-needed transparency into governmental action, but it also helps average citizens hold government officials to account.
A Very Brief History of FOIA
FOIA was born out of growing concerns about secrecy within the federal government. There was specific concern about national security-related affairs. After all, the Cold War was ongoing, the U.S. government had many projects and initiatives under the shroud of secrecy, and the public had increasing skepticism about federal government activity.
Consequently, Congress amended 1940s-era legislation (specifically, Section 3 of the Administrative Procedures Act) and created FOIA. At its core, FOIA promotes government transparency and accountability by letting citizens acquire information about federal agency activities. More specifically, the law applies to departments and government agencies under the Executive Branch of the federal government.
For concerned citizens, it gets even better. There are zero prerequisites to filing a FOIA request. You can make a FOIA request regardless of your citizenship status. This includes everyone from U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to organizations, associations, and universities.
The key question, however, is how much information these government agencies have to divulge in a FOIA request. The unfortunate part for FOIA requesters is that the government can rely on nine specific exemptions to block certain information from being shared in a FOIA request. You can find a list of those nine exemptions here. The exemptions range from national security secrets and privileged communications between agencies to information that, if disclosed, would invade another person’s privacy.
To make a FOIA request, an individual or entity must make a submission in writing. It must be directed at the specific agency that holds the requested records. When actually making the request, the requester should provide a specific description of the records being sought, be specific about possible names, dates, and places, identify the agency component (or components) that probably have the requested records, and the preferred method for receiving the records (for instance, electronic or printed).
A Lack of Government Response
The mechanics of FOIA are relatively straightforward. The initial onus is on the requester to make a proper request to the relevant agency or department. But assuming that the request has been properly made, the ball is then in the government’s court to review and respond to the request.
According to the statute, agencies need to respond to FOIA requests within 20 days. That being said, this 20-day deadline often isn’t met. Screening for classified information takes time and congressional funding for individuals to handle FOIA requests often isn’t enough to meet the demand of requests. All of this leads to delays and, undoubtedly, frustration for those who are submitting FOIA requests.
But what happens if the government doesn’t respond at all? If the relevant government agency doesn’t respond within the required timeframe, the requester doesn’t have zero recourse.
However, let’s back up. If there isn’t a government response within the relevant timeframe, that may be an indication that the agency is delivering a constructive denial. If that is the case, the requester can move forward to the next step. Specifically, that requester can make an administrative appeal to the head of the relevant agency. It involves sending a letter that, among other things, identifies the FOIA request that is being appealed. From there, the agency is required to make some sort of determination on the appeal within 20 business days.
So what happens if the administrative agency rejects the appeal? All hope isn’t lost. The requester can go one step further and file a lawsuit in federal court. The goal would be to obtain a judicial order that compels the relevant agency to comply with the FOIA request. If the requester wins, the court can order the agency to not only provide the requested information, but may also require the agency to pay court costs and attorney’s fees.
That’s not all, however. If the requester prevails in court, there may be some additional penalties and sanctions for the agency and/or individuals who made the incorrect decision. For instance, fines may occur. In Connecticut, civil penalties can range from $20 to $1,000. In Illinois, the fines may go all the way up to $5,000 per occurrence. Government employees can potentially lose their jobs and the agency as a whole can experience significant reputational damage.
Partial Disclosures
As you can see, there are different ways that individuals can appeal adverse FOIA decisions. The process isn’t necessarily easy (and the odds of overturning an appeal may be slim) but the process is still present.
That being said, there are situations where there isn’t an outright approval or denial. More specifically, there are situations where some of the requested information is delivered to the requester, but some of the information is redacted (essentially blacked out). Sometimes, there are so many redactions that the delivered documents are basically unintelligible.
There has been some notable litigation surrounding these redactions. For instance, there was a U.S. Supreme Court case called Department of Justice v. Landano. This was a murder trial where the prosecution was accused of withholding material exculpatory evidence. Landano filed a FOIA request with the FBI for information associated with the murder investigation. The FBI delivered redacted documents and argued that the redactions occurred in accordance with FOIA regulations that protect the identity of informants. The Supreme Court agreed with the defendant and stated that the informants who supplied the information did not need to remain anonymous in a court setting.
While this is just one Supreme Court case, it shows that the government does not have unlimited power or authority to heavily redact documents in FOIA requests. Yes, national security concerns are a clear reason for redaction, but the justifications for redactions aren’t limitless.
Holding the Government Accountable
So what does this all mean for us? Specifically, what does it mean for individuals who have submitted FOIA requests and haven’t heard back from the relevant government agencies?
For starters, not hearing back from the relevant agency doesn’t mean that your FOIA campaign has ended. There may be benign reasons for the non-response (like an overworked agency) or more troubling reasons for the non-response (like a denial).
Some requesters may want to end their FOIA journey there. However, if you want to proceed, you can take several different paths. I’d encourage you to pursue at least some type of appeal, whether that is through the administrative legal process or litigation in federal court. One helpful resource is the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). Basically, OGIS acts as a mediator between requesters and agencies. They help resolve FOIA disputes and may provide some resources to help you advance your case.
Overall, patience, persistence, and follow-up are important. Understanding your rights and the FOIA appeal process is essential as you try to obtain your sought-after documents.
If you aren’t actually submitting a FOIA request, I hope you can see how beneficial this process is. Essentially, there are two weighing factors here. On one hand, there is a need for average citizens to know about what is actually occurring in government. It holds government institutions and actors to account, thereby building more trust within the system. On the other hand, there are certain pieces of information that are too sensitive to be publicly released. In those sorts of cases, FOIA gives the government the power to redact—or not provide—certain types of information.
There is a healthy balance here, yet the problem sometimes occurs in the adjudication process. Especially for individuals, it can be difficult to navigate the appeal process and, frankly, win an appeal. The odds can be slim. For individuals seeking to win FOIA appeals, it is critical to be organized, precise, and patient. Convincing an administrative tribunal or court isn’t an easy task, yet it can be done. The process exists for a reason.
In the end, America is a landmark of liberty. Even if the process isn’t perfect, FOIA is a great tool to keep citizens informed, hold government to account, and ensure confidence in our federal government.
For more information, go to www.consider.info and input post number 8796.
The Consider Podcast
Examining Today’s Wisdom, Folly & Madness
www.consider.info
Reality Check
About: King County Superior Court, State of Washington, Plaintiff, V. Malcolm Fraser, Defendant Cause No. 12-1-01886-0 Knt was in truth and fact King County Superior Court, State of Washington, Plaintiff V. Sound Doctrine Church of Enumclaw Washington. Washington State Prosecutors abuse legal activities and an impossible crime to destroy and drive out of the City of Enumclaw Timothy Williams or Sound Doctrine Church. The accused, Malcolm Fraser, was abusively used by King County Prosecutors and Enumclaw Police to proxy-prosecute Timothy Williams.
Disclaimer
The Consider Podcast attempts to express opinions through God’s holiness. Nothing concerning justice or injustice should be taken as legal advice or a call to action. There is no political agenda. There is no individual moral life advice. Indeed, each person is solely responsible before God and man for their actions or inactions. The Consider Podcast is narrowly focused on one thing, and only one thing – the need for all to surrender to a life of repentance according to the whole gospel.
More Information
[chc-content] Basic InformationJudge and Police Corruption
King County Court Ideology Prosecutions
Seattle Washington
City of Enumclaw Police
King County Prosecutors
Roughly 2010 Frame Up
Enumclaw Police
Chief Judge Beth M. Andrus
Chief Judge Lori K. Smith
Detective Grant McCall
King County Prosecutors
Short List Below
Judge Beth Andrews whitewashed the crimes of Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall, setting into motion the whitewashing of the City of Enumclaw’s criminal activities.
Judge Lori K. Smith purposely created a "family court" in a criminal trial. In other words, Judge Lori K. Smith, because of her prejudicial mindset, threw out the concept of evidence and rights of the accused.
Judge Smith, being raised to her position by prosecutors and as reflected on her website, is so narrowly focused on her agenda that aspects of criminal law are undermined.
Judge Beth Andrews and Judge Lori K. Smith created the lawlessness inherent in the Family Court with a criminal trial. Combined with Seattle’s police prosecutor corruption, the ideology-driven trial of Detective McCall’s foolish religious beliefs and police power abuse was steamrolled ahead.
Thus, prosecutors were enabled to rid the jury pool of anyone who believed in evidence. Literally, King County Prosecutors asked potential jurors if anyone thought that evidence was necessary for a criminal trial. Such were sent packing.
The city of Enumclaw Police backed Baptist "Detective" Grant McCall’s contradictory, self-righteous religious beliefs with abusive police tactics to support Mr. McCall’s criminal hate crime activities.
The City of Enumclaw Police was thus able to frame an innocent man with zero evidence because Detective McCall was creating a crime that did not and was impossible to commit.
Fact is, had any authority done their job the criminal activity of Grant McCall would have been quickly revealed.
More information is located at:
enumclaw.com
consider.info [/chc-content]
Post Number
This Post's ID Number Is= 8796
- Remember the Post ID Number.
- Enter the post number and it will be find.