How the
and How They Treat Independent Inventors
Jed Margolin
For the latest entries, click here.
After my experiences with NASA I thought the United States Air Force would at least deal with me honestly and honorably. They didn’t.
It started when the launch of the X-37B made the news in April 2010.
There was a fair amount of press coverage about the X-37B launched on April 24, 2010. It was even mentioned on various network radio newscasts.
The X-37 was a NASA project that was started in 1998 and canceled in 2003. Only it wasn’t canceled. It was taken Black by transferring it, first to DARPA, and then to the United States Air Force.
It was a big secret until shortly before the launch.
See Air Force X-37B Spacecraft Makes Test Flight from Armed Forces International on April 24, 2010:
http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/air_force_x37b_spacecraft_makes_test_flight.html
There is also a nice article at space.com:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/x-37b-robot-space-plane-launch-100420.html
From the space.com article:
According to released specifications,
the X-37B space plane weighs about 11,000 pounds and is just over 29 feet in
length. It stands slightly more than 9 1/2 feet in height and has a wingspan
just over 14 feet across.
The initial X-37B flight is designed to loiter in space up to 270 days. After
retracting its solar array and closing payload doors, the space plane would
re-enter in automated mode.
I knew the X-36 and X-38 both used synthetic vision so I wondered if the X-37B also used it.
I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the United States Air Force (USAF) in late April 2010 to find out.
This is how it went.
USAF has a web site for making FOIA requests. They don’t make it easy.
The main FOIA Web site is http://www.foia.af.mil/
Although it is not apparent at this point, you have to use Microsoft Internet Explorer. You also have to disable all Pop-Up Blockers. Firefox totally doesn’t work. If you use Firefox it lets you go through the entire process and then says Internal Error Occured, Close the browser and open new browser.
The FOIA Request page is https://www.efoia.af.mil/palMain.aspx
When I go there I get the ominous warning (but proceed, nonetheless):
It turns out that you have to register.
I registered.
Now when I go there I can sign-in.
See the warning: Please Note: The preferred browser is Internet Explorer and all popup blockers should be disabled.
I think that’s new. I don’t think it was there the first time I went to the Web page.
I have now signed in.
Here is the first problem when filing a FOIA request with USAF.
You have to specify which of 27 Service Centers to submit your FOIA request to.
And all they give you are the acronyms.
So, I had to look them up. You won’t have to because I have put them here. Click Here.
Now, the next part.
When you get to actually making the request, the forms are wonky and difficult to edit. It’s difficult to even do a cut-and-paste from a MS Word document. I suggest you compose everything in a document, convert it to PDF, and attach the PDF document. (Say “See attachment” in the boxes.)
Do this for both for the Description of Request and Fee Waiver Request Reason. This assumes you are asking for a Fee Waiver. Note that you can only attach a fee waiver request if you have clicked on Fee Waiver Requested.
Here is a free (and very good) way to make almost anything into a PDF file: http://www.jmargolin.com/nasa/MakingPDF.htm It was written for those making PDF files for filing documents in a Court’s Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System.
It looks like we are almost done filing our FOIA request.
We’re not. We’re not even close.
Do you see the *Location to be searched: ?
Guess how many there are.
The following is just the beginning of the list:
There are 232 locations, of which 102 are Air National Guard units.
Since I did not think the X-37B was developed by the Air National Guard, that left only 130 possible locations for me to send my FOIA request to.
You cannot make your request and click which locations you want it sent to. You can only send it to one location at a time. Then you start over and send it to another location.
Here is the list of locations. I have attempted to group them according to the Centers they are associated with. In some cases I have looked up the web sites for the locations. Click here.
There are some Centers that don’t seem to have a Location, such as AFOTEC. It’s a mystery.
I filed my FOIA requests on Monday morning, April 26, 2010.
Click here for my FOIA Request.
Click here for my Fee Waiver request.
I sent them to the following centers and locations, and case numbers were assigned:
|
Case Number: 2010-04184-F Center: HAF: Headquarters Air Force Location: HAF AF Office of Scientific Research |
|
Case Number: 2010-04185-F Center: AFMC: Bases:
Location: AFRC - WPAFB OH 445 AW |
|
Case Number: 2010-04186-F Center: HAF: Headquarters Air Force Location: HAF AF Headquarters DC |
|
Case Number: 2010-04187-F Center: HAF: Headquarters Air Force Location: AF Program Office Executive Office, DC |
|
Case Number: 2010-04188-F Center: HAF: Headquarters Air Force Location: AF Program Office Executive Office, DC |
|
Case Number: 2010-04189-F Center: HAF: Headquarters Air Force Location: HAF - AF Review Boards Agency, Andrews |
|
Case Number: 2010-04190-F Center: HAF: Headquarters Air Force Location: AFMC - |
|
Case Number: 2010-04191-F Center: AFSPC: Bases:
HQ AFSPC, CO, Los Angeles, CA, Patrick, FL, Peterson, CO, Location: AFSPC - AFSPC HQ |
|
Case Number: 2010-04192-F Center: AFSPC: Bases: HQ
AFSPC, CO, Los Angeles, CA, Patrick, FL, Peterson, CO, Location: AFSPC - Vandenberg AFB |
|
Case Number: 2010-04193-F Center: AFSPC
Bases: HQ AFSPC, CO, Los Angeles, CA, Patrick, FL, Peterson, CO, Location: AFSPC Patrick AFB |
|
Case Number: 2010-04194-F Center: HAF: Headquarters Air Force Location: DRU AF Operational Test & Eval Center |
Note that in Case 2010-04185-F it was supposed to go to AFMC (Air Force Materiel Command):
Center:
AFMC: Bases:
Instead, it was handled by AFRC:
Location: AFRC - WPAFB OH 445 AW
AFRC is the Air Force Reserve Command.
The organization most likely to be involved in the X-37B project is the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=148
This is what they say about their Air Vehicles Directorate.
Air Vehicles
Directorate -- With headquarters at Wright-Patterson AFB,
Unfortunately, AFRL is not on the Locations list so you cannot make a request to AFRL.
This is what we have learned so far. If you are a Federal Agency (such as USAF) and you are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and you want to keep some of your activities out of the reach of the Freedom of Information Act you:
1. Set up a system that requires Requestors send a separate request to each location.
2. Leave the department to be protected off the list.
That is what USAF has done with AFRL.
Later that day on Monday I received a phone call from someone who identified himself as Technical Sergeant Kennerly.
He said he had noticed that I had filed several FOIA requests that appeared to be identical, and were they in fact identical?
I said, “yes”, because the USAF FOIA Web site requires that a separate request be made to each location.
Then I explained to him the basics of Synthetic Vision, and then Technical Sergeant Kennerly said he had some other things he had to do.
On Tuesday Morning, April 27, 2010 I received an email from Darrin Booher (“Booher”), a FOIA Analyst at Wright-Patterson. In it he denied my request for a fee waiver because:
"There is no contribution to an understanding of the subject by the general public, but rather a small segment of interested persons. Requestor doesn't appear to have the capability to, or intention to, disseminate this information to the general public. Furthermore, there is no significant contribution to the public if it were widely released. Therefore, the request for a waiver of fees is denied."
Booher gave me until April 30 to indicate how much money I was willing to pay.
Click here for the Booher email.
Gentle Reader, since you are now reading this, what do you think of my “capability to, or intention to, disseminate this information to the general public” especially if you are reading it on my Web site?
I called Technical Sergeant Kennerly and told him of the Booher email.
Technical Sergeant Kennerly said to ignore it, that my FOIA request was going to be handled by the Pentagon. He also asked me to forward him a copy of the Booher email, which I did. Click here for my email to Technical Sergeant Kennerly.
Nonetheless, I responded to Booher. Click here.
Booher responded by closing my FOIA request without responding to my email. Click here.
I did not think it was a big deal, just the actions of a nasty civilian government bureaucrat. After all, Technical Sergeant Kennerly had told me that my FOIA request was going to be handled by the Pentagon.
In the Air Force, the rank of Technical Sergeant is a big deal.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant)
Technical Sergeant, or Tech Sergeant, is the sixth enlisted rank (E-6) in the U.S. Air Force, just above Staff Sergeant and below Master Sergeant. A technical sergeant is a non-commissioned officer and abbreviated as TSgt. Official terms of address are "Technical Sergeant" or "Sergeant", although many use "Tech Sergeant".
Within the enlisted Air Force, promotion to TSgt has historically been the second most difficult rank to achieve (only the rank of Senior Master Sergeant, capped by Federal law, has lower promotion rates) and is the most difficult promotion most career Air Force members achieve. To be considered for a promotion to Technical Sergeant, a Staff Sergeant must have 6 years' time in service and 24 months time in grade, however, 10–12 years time in service is normally when this grade is reached. Technical Sergeants provide technical mentorship to junior enlisted members in preparation for entry into the senior noncommissioned tier and promotion to the rank of Master Sergeant.
With Technical Sergeant Kennerly handling the matter, what could possibly go wrong?
I had correspondence from FOIA officers in other locations.
There was Sherrie Crochunis from Peterson AFB:
Mr. Margolin,
I received three identical FOIA requests for Patrick AFB and I just want to confirm that there should only be one request. I will forward one request (2010-04191-F) onto Patrick AFB for processing and assume the other two (2010-04192-F & 2010-04193-F) are duplicates and close them out on 28 April, if I don't hear otherwise from you.
Thank you,
Sherrie Crochunis
AFSPC FOIA & Privacy Act Manager
Click here for our correspondence.
I received an email from Shelly Valliere, Wing FOIA/PA Manager at Patrick. She did not have a problem granting me a fee waiver. Then she kicked it upstairs.
The SAF FOIA office at the Pentagon will respond to your FOIA request (reference: Case No. 2010-04186-F). Therefore, we have closed Case No. 2010-04191-F here at Patrick AFB. All future inquiries/correspondence concerning Case No. 2010-04186-F should come from that office.
I have been told that “SAF” is “Secretary of the Air Force.”
Click here for Ms. Valliere’s emails.
I received an email from Pennie Carlo, Pubs & Forms Manager, AFRL/RIOI. This appears to be the elusive AFRL but I don’t know how this relates to Mr. Booher, FOIA Analyst at Wright-Patterson.
Click here for our correspondence.
It looked like it was going to be productive, but ends with Ms. Carlo kicking it upstairs to Headquarters.
Upon transfer of your case #2010-04190-F, we were informed that this is a duplicate of case #2010-04842-F which is already being handled by HAF/IMIO. For this reason we will close case #2010-04190-F at the Rome FOIA office.
This is the response I received from the Pentagon on June 10 (Click here for the response):
Dear Mr. Margolin
This is in response to your April 26, 2010, Freedom of Information Act request for information relating to the use of Synthetic Vision and various U.S. Patents.
The Office of The General Counsel, Intellectual Property Office conducted a proper search for records relating to Items 2 and 5 of your request; however, no information was found. Therefore, a no records determination was made.
Should you
decide that an appeal to this decision is necessary, you must write to the
Secretary of the Air Force, Thru: HAF/IMIO (FOIA), 1000 Air Force Pentagon,
Additionally, we requested assistance from the Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA) and the Air Force Flight Test Center for Item 1 with negative results. AFHRA suggest you try NASA, if you have not done so already.
Please contact the undersigned at (703) 693-2736 should you have any questions and refer to case #2010-04186-F. There are no fees associated with the processing of this request in this instance.
Sincerely
Signed by ESPINAL.JOHN.
M.1184810375
JOHN M. ESPINAL
FOIA Disclosure Officer
Note that this only applies to Case 2010-04186-F
Case Number: 2010-04186-F
Center: HAF: Headquarters Air Force
Location: HAF AF Headquarters DC
It does not apply to any of the other ones, so it does not address departments such as AFRL which is the most likely suspect for having documents related to the X-37B project.
The USAF blew me off. Technical Sergeant Kennerly’s role in this is not exactly known but is substantial.
This FOIA request was only about the use of synthetic vision in the X-37B. It’s not like I asked about the secret stuff, like what is the X-37B for? Is the cargo bay for bringing stuff up? Is it for bringing stuff down? Is it for delivering weapons? All it has to do is drop titanium rods with a tapered front and small controllable vanes at the back for maneuvering. Maybe with an ablative coating. The kinetic energy delivered from orbit would be devastating. Is it for anti-satellite activities? Being about to pull up right next to LEO and MEO satellites makes disabling a satellite easier and less detectable than firing something from the ground. I suggest the USAF put out the cover story that the purpose of the X-37B is to investigate the feasibility of in-orbit refueling of satellites. They could maneuver it wherever they wanted without being accused of having a nefarious purpose. It wouldn’t violate any Space Treaties. It would be a benign and peaceful use.
I haven’t asked about the use of Synthetic Vision in the F-22 and F-35, or the Common Ground Stations for the Predator and Global Hawk UAVs.
USAF has created a cumbersome method of implementing its duties under the Freedom of Information Act by requiring a request be made separately to each location.
Then it complains when identical requests are made to a number of locations.
Then it plays the Shell Game so it can say it does not have responsive documents.
The purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to allow citizens to understand how their government works.
By gaming the Freedom of Information Act USAF has shown how Government works.
Jed Margolin
June 28, 2010
July 26, 2010
I filed an Appeal on June 29, using USPS Express Mail. As per Mr. Espinal’s instructions I mailed it to:
Secretary of the Air Force
Thru: HAF/IMIO (FOIA)
1000 Air Force Pentagon
USPS delivered it on June 30. See jm_usps_xmail.pdf
Here is my Appeal.
And here is an html version of the Appeal to make it easier to read online: Appeal - html
On July 19 I logged into USAF’s FOIA Web site and discovered:
I tried calling Mr. Espinal but he does not answer his phone.
I emailed him at the address he used to send me his response of June 10: haf.foia@pentagon.af.mi
Then I emailed the FOIA Public Liaison af.foia@pentagon.af.mil
I received a response today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ORG - HAF Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)" <org.foia@pentagon.af.mil>
To: <jm@jmargolin.com>
Subject: RE: 2010-04186-F - Response Letter
Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:12 AM
Mr. Margolin, we did receive your appeal; however, we need clarification as to what you are actually appealing. Is it:
- Our "no records" response, if so, what is your justification
Or
- Are you filing a complaint on activities not listed in the Public Access Link?
Thanks, John
----Original Message-----
From: Jed Margolin [mailto:jm@jmargolin.com]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:25 PM
To: ORG - HAF Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Subject: Re: 2010-04186-F - Response Letter
I filed an appeal which USPS delivered on June 30, 2010.
According to the USAF FOIA web site no appeal was filed.
Did you receive the appeal?
Jed Margolin
----- Original Message -----
From: Espinal, John <mailto:haf.foia@pentagon.af.mil>
To: jm@jmargolin.com
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:55 AM
Subject: 2010-04186-F - Response Letter
This is our final response to your FOIA request.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It says it is from “John” but was sent from org.foia@pentagon.af.mil which is not the email address used by John Espinal on June 10 (haf.foia@pentagon.af.mi) or the email address of the FOIA Public Liaison (af.foia@pentagon.af.mil).
I responded with:
===============================================================
From: "Jed Margolin" <jm@jmargolin.com>
To: "ORG - HAF Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)" <org.foia@pentagon.af.mil>
Subject: Re: 2010-04186-F - Response Letter
Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:56 AM
Please identify yourself.
Your email address (org.foia@pentagon.af.mil) is not the email address used
by John Espinal on June 10 (haf.foia@pentagon.af.mi) or the email address of
the FOIA Public Liaison (af.foia@pentagon.af.mil).
Jed Margolin
==============================================================
His response was:
==============================================================
From: "ORG - HAF Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)" <org.foia@pentagon.af.mil>
To: <jm@jmargolin.com>
Subject: RE: 2010-04186-F - Response Letter
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:32 AM
Mr. Margolin, I replied from our org box.
Thanks, John Espinal
-----Original Message-----
From: Espinal, John Civ USAF HAF/IMIO
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:30 AM
To: ORG - HAF Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Subject: FW: 2010-04186-F - Response Letter
-----Original Message-----
From: Kennerly, Chris TSgt MIL USAF HAF/IMIO
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:01 PM
To: Espinal, John Civ USAF HAF/IMIO
Subject: FW: 2010-04186-F - Response Letter
FYA
CHRIS B. KENNERLY, TSgt, USAF
HAF/IMIO, Freedom of Information Act, The Pentagon
703-693-2735
============================================================
Note that Technical Sergeant Kennerly is in the loop.
For the complete email, including quoted messages, click here.
Having determined who had sent me the email, I responded to the original message which asked if my Appeal was an Appeal or something else.
============================================================
From: "Jed Margolin" <jm@jmargolin.com>
To: "ORG - HAF Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)" <org.foia@pentagon.af.mil>
Subject: Re: 2010-04186-F - Response Letter
Date: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:00 AM
Dear Mr. Espinol.
> Mr. Margolin, we did receive your appeal; however, we need clarification as to what you are actually appealing. Is it:
>
> - Our "no records" response, if so, what is your justification
>
> Or
>
> - Are you filing a complaint on activities not listed in the Public Access Link?
1. My Appeal is clearly marked, "Appeal under the Freedom of Information Act to USAF Response dated June 10, 2010" so it is, indeed, an Appeal.
My Appeal further states:
This is an Appeal under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.) to the USAF Response dated June 10, 2010 (Appendix at AFA3) in the above listed FOIA Requests filed April 26, 2010 (Appendix at AFA4) by Jed Margolin ("Margolin").
How can you interpret that as meaning anything else?
And what do you mean by "complaint on activities not listed in the Public Access Link?" What activities are you referring to? Are they supposed to be listed on the Public Access Link? And if they are not listed in the Public Access Link, and should be, why aren't they?
2. My Appeal is complete in itself and I will not repeat it or summarize it here. Perhaps you should read the Appeal.
3. The Freedom of Information Act is a Statute and takes precedence over a Department's/Agency's rules and regulations, especially when they are designed to frustrate the intent of the statute.
4. I want USAF to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. I want my FOIA Request honestly handled.
5. Please confirm that the address at which USAF accepts Legal Service is:
Air Force/JACL
When I asked this question using OGC's FormMail I received a reply from someone who either does not understand the meaning of the term "Legal Service" or who intentionally misdirected me to the wrong departments. I had to spend time and energy finding this address. No one at USAF seems willing to provide an honest direct answer to a simple question.
6. Thank you for confirming that USAF has received my Appeal. The clock is running.
Regards,
Jed Margolin
============================================================
For the complete email with quoted messages, click here.
As of today (it’s only Monday, July 26) I have not received a response to the email.
In other news, I filed a Second FOIA Request on July 18, 2010.
Jed
Margolin
1981 Empire
Rd.
Phone: 775-847-7845 Email: jm@jmargolin.com July 18, 2010
ACC - Beale AFB
This request is made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
1. According to the Beal AFB Web site (http://www.beale.af.mil/index.asp):
The 9th Reconnaissance Wing is responsible for delivering timely, relevant, and persistent high altitude intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, deploying warrior Airmen, and leveraging technology to increase capability for our joint partners. To accomplish this mission, the wing is equipped with the nation's fleet of U-2 and RQ-4 reconnaissance aircraft and associated support equipment. The wing also maintains a high state of readiness in its combat support and combat service support forces for potential deployment in response to theater contingencies. The 9th Reconnaissance Wing is composed of more than 3,000 personnel in four groups at Beale and multiple overseas operating locations.
2. I would like all documents relating to the use of Synthetic Vision in operating the RQ-4 and other Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Unmanned Aerial Systems, or Remotely Piloted Vehicles operated by the Air Force.
A. Synthetic Vision is defined by the FAA in FAA Title 14 Part 1 as follows:
Synthetic vision means a
computer-generated image of the external scene topography from the
perspective of the flight deck that is derived from aircraft attitude,
high-precision navigation
solution, and database of terrain, obstacles and relevant cultural features.
FAA Title 14 Part 1 is available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl
A mirrored copy is available at: www.jmargolin.com/svr/refs/ref05_faa.pdf
Synthetic Vision includes Enhanced Synthetic Vision.
B. According to the following report (quoting OSD’s UAV Reliability Study issued in 2003) the use of enhanced synthetic vision was recommended to help UAV operators maintain flight and sensor perspective.
HSW-PE-BR-TR-2005-0001
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
311th Human Systems Wing
Thompson, Tvaryanas, and Constable
March 2005
From pages 1-2:
The Office of the Secretary of Defense's UAV Reliability Study (19) issued in 2003 is the most comprehensive review of UAV mishaps to date, the results of which were extracted in large part into DoD's UAVRoadmap 2002-2007 (21) and served as the basis for the Defense Science Board's analysis of UAV mishaps (20). This study found the aggregate sources of failures in the Air Force's RQ-1 Predator, Navy/Marine's RQ-2 Pioneer, and Army's RQ-5 Hunter were power/propulsion (37%), flight controls (26%), communications (11%), human factors (17%), and miscellaneous (9%). It noted "the proportions of human error-induced mishaps are nearly reversed between UAVs and the aggregate of manned aircraft, i.e., human error is the primary cause of roughly 85% of manned mishaps, but only 17% of unmanned ones." Two theories were offered to explain this observation. First, human influence in UAVs is significantly reduced (e.g., "70% less") and is countered by increased automation. Second, human error rates remain constant between UAVs and manned aircraft and are simply overshadowed by the higher unreliability of other subsystems in UAVs. Although no breakdown of human factors was provided, the study reported "three of the areas (power/propulsion, flight control, and operator training) have historically accounted for 80 percent of UAV reliability failures" and "overall mishap rates for UAVs could be significantly reduced by focusing reliability improvement efforts in these areas," implying human error-induced mishaps were related to training deficiencies. Additionally, the study suggested UAV operator situational awareness may be degraded by the challenges of "human-machine synergy" when the human is on the ground. Recommendations included enhance operator training, particularly through simulation in the ground control station (GCS) environment, automate launch and recovery operations, and employ enhanced synthetic vision technology to help UAV operators maintain flight and sensor perspective. The only additional human factors identified in the Defense Science Board's UAV study (20) were the limited experience level of UAV operators and maintainers, inadequate overall professional development of UAV personnel, and the need to better address takeoff and landing errors.
{Emphasis added.}
Thus, there is good reason to believe that USAF’s RQ-4 and other UAVs have and use synthetic vision.
Costs
I claim the journalist exemption. The answers to these questions are material to the articles/blogs I am writing called:
1. How NASA Treats Independent Inventors at www.jmargolin.com/nasa/nasa.htm
2. How the
and How They Treat Independent Inventors at http://www.jmargolin.com/usaf/usaf_web.htm
Sincerely yours,
/Jed Margolin/
I directed it to Beale AFB and Nellis AFB.
For the PDF version click here.
I expect to write more about this soon.
=============================================================================
August 31, 2010
There has been a great deal of activity since the last entry.
I now have four FOIA cases going.
1. The First FOIA case is mostly about the use of synthetic vision in the X-37B and/or X-40A.
Click here for FOIA Request #1.
USAF has created a cumbersome method of implementing its duties under the Freedom of Information Act by requiring a request be made separately to each location.
Then it complains when identical requests are made to a number of locations.
Those locations that responded eventually passed it up to HQ.
Then HQ said it has no responsive documents.
Of course they don’t. The responsive documents are all at the different locations.
I filed an Appeal.
Then they argued about whether the Appeal I filed was an Appeal.
They had 20 days to respond to the Appeal and failed to do so.
My next step will be to file a Complaint in U.S, District
Court for the District of Nevada. When you file a Complaint under the Freedom
of Information Act you can file either in U.S. District Court for the
When you sue the
This requires that you:
1. Either mail or personally deliver a copy of the
Summons and Complaint to the U.S. Attorney for the District in which you bring
the action;
2. Mail (by Certified or Registered U.S. Mail) a copy of the Summons and
Complaint to the Attorney General of the
3. Mail (by Certified or Registered U.S. Mail) a copy of the Summons and
Complaint to the U.S. Agency you are suing.
It’s called SERVING THE UNITED STATES AND ITS AGENCIES, CORPORATIONS, OFFICERS, OR EMPLOYEES.
The process of Serving is commonly called Legal Service.
The address at which an agency (or anyone) accepts Legal Service is called: The address at which an agency (or anyone) accepts Legal Service.
Everyone in the Legal Profession knows what it means.
But not USAF.
When an Agency denies your FOIA Appeal they are required to tell that you have the right to sue them. They are also required to tell you the address at which the Agency accepts Legal Service.
But if you are suing them because they have not responded to your Appeal you aren’t given that information.
As far as I can determine the address at which USAF accepts Legal Service is:
Air Force/JACL
However, I have not been able to get anyone to confirm it in writing or even an email.
This is one of the running threads through the four FOIA requests.
For the current file of emails for Foia #1 click here.
Note that I received a full fee waiver in Foia #1.
===============================
2. My second FOIA request is about the use of synthetic vision in flying the RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV.
I sent it to Beale AFB and Nellis AFB.
For FOIA #2 click here
This is when USAF adopted the strategy of denying me the fee waiver. I guess they didn’t like the way this article/blog started out.
For USAF’s first response click here.
Eventually Search fees were waived and I authorized $90 for copy fees.
Nellis said there were no responsive records.
As of August 9, Beale and Holloman agreed to search.
I don’t remember asking Holloman in this FOIA request. That was in FOIA 3.
As of August 31 they were still searching.
For the current file of emails for Foia #2 click here.
===============================
3. My third FOIA request is about the use of synthetic vision in flying the MQ-1 Predator and the MQ-9
Reaper UAVS at Holloman AFB.
For FOIA #3 click here
They gave me more grief about the fee waiver.
Eventually they decided there were no responsive documents and waived all fees.
For the email trip click here.
For their determination click here.
===============================
4. My fourth FOIA request is about the use of synthetic vision in flying the C-130 (and its variants).
I sent it to the four active duty locations listed as flying the C-130.
ACC - Dyess Air Force Base,
AMC - Little Rock AFB,
USAFE - Ramstein
PACAF -
For FOIA #4 click here.
Dyess said there are no responsive records and waived all fees. Click here for Dyess.
Then Yokota started playing the “no fee waiver” game with a vengeance.
This one is a real train wreck, and there is no way to stop it.
USAF’s chosen champion is Roger V. Hansel (“Hansel”) along with a large supporting cast.
Getting Hansel to confirm the address at which USAF accepts legal service was like pulling teeth. Your own teeth.
For the email trip click here.
Ramstein has not responded and is in default. I wonder if I can foreclose on them.
Stay tuned.
October 27, 2011
I have been very tardy in updating this page. (I've been busy with other things.)
On October 9, 2010 I filed an Appeal under the Freedom of Information Act with the Secretary of the Air Force for:
Case Number: 2010-06808-F AFMC
Bases: Arnold, TN, Brooks City-Base, TX, Edwards, CA, Eglin, FL, Gunter, AL, Hanscom, MA, Hill, UT, Kirtland, NM, Robins, GA, Tinker, OK, Wright-Patterson, OH
Case Number: 2010-06809-F AMC
Air Mobility Command - Dover, DE, Fairchild, WA, Grand Forks, ND, MacDill, FL, McChord, WA, McConnell, KS, McGuire, NJ, Pope, NC, Scott, IL, Travis, CA, Little Rock, AR
Case Number: 2010-06810-F : USAFE
Case Number: 2010-06811-F PACAF
Pacific Air Force - Eielson, AK, Elmendorf, AK, Hickam, Hawaii, Kadena, Japan, Kunsan, South Korea, Misawa, Japan, Osan, South Korea, Yokota, Japan
For my Appeal: Click here.
These are the responses I received from the Department of the Air Force, Headquarters Air Force Legal Operations Agency. They are all from the same guy:
1. This is about my FOIA Request regarding the use of synthetic vision in the X-37B. I filed the Appeal in July 2010. The Freedom of Information Act gives agencies 20 days to respond to an Appeal. Maybe Air Force time is different.
From: Earl L. Johnson, Paralegal Specialist, Information Litigation Branch, AFLOA/JACL.
Date: November 29, 2010
FOIA Appeal Number: 2011-00006-A
_______________________
AFLOA/JACL
Information Litigation
Mr. Jed Margolin
1981 Empire Road
Dear Mr. Margolin
We received your FOIA appeal (2011-00006-A) dated June 10, 2010 from HQ ACC/A6CK. Please refer to the above number in any future correspondence with us regarding this appeal. Our policy is to process appeals in the order in which we receive them. We received this appeal November 22, 2010.
When we have completed our review, your appeal will be forwarded to the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force for final action. That office will respond directly to you concerning that action.
Please notify our office if your address is incorrect or if it changes during this process. Thank you for your patience and be assured that we will review your appeal as carefully and quickly as possible: If you have any questions, our office can be reached at (703) 696-9290.
Sincerely
Earl L. Johnson, Paralegal Specialist
Information Litigation Branch
_______________________
The next two are about my FOIA Request regarding the use of synthetic vision in the C-130. I filed the Appeal October 9, 2010 and sent it to:
ACC - Dyess Air Force Base,
AMC - Little Rock AFB,
USAFE - Ramstein
PACAF -
I received two responses to my Appeal, both well past the 20 day statutory requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
2. The first one appears to be the Appeal I sent to AMC.
From: Earl L. Johnson, Paralegal Specialist, Information Litigation Branch, AFLOA/JACL.
Date: December 8, 2010
FOIA Appeal Number: 2011-00007-A
_______________________
AFLOA/JACL
Information Litigation
Mr. Jed Margolin
1981 Empire Road
Dear Mr. Margolin
We received your FOIA appeal (2011-00007-A) dated Oct 9, 2010 from HQ AMC/A60. Please refer to the above number in any future correspondence with us regarding this appeal. Our policy is to process appeals in the order in which we receive them. We received this appeal December 6, 2010.
When we have completed our review, your appeal will be forwarded to the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force for final action. That office will respond directly to you concerning that action.
Please notify our office if your address is incorrect or if it changes during this process. Thank you for your patience and be assured that we will review your appeal as carefully and quickly as possible. If you have any questions, our office can be reached at (703) 696-9290.
Sincerely,
Earl L. Johnson, Paralegal Specialist
Information Litigation Branch
_______________________
3. The second one appears to be the Appeal I sent to PACAF.
From: Earl L. Johnson, Paralegal Specialist, Information Litigation Branch, AFLOA/JACL.
Date: January 3, 2011
FOIA Appeal Number: 2011-00009-A
_______________________
AFLOA/JACL
Information Litigation
Mr. Jed Margolin
1981 Empire Road
Dear Mr. Margolin
We received your FOIA appeal (2011-00009-A) dated Oct 9, 2010 from HQ PACAF/A6X. Please refer to the above number in any future correspondence with us regarding this appeal. Our policy is to process appeals in the order in which we receive them. We received this appeal December 28, 2010.
When we have completed our review, your appeal will be forwarded to the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force for final action.
That office will respond directly to you concerning that action.
Please notify our office if your address is incorrect or if it changes during this process. Thank you for your patience and be assured that we will review your appeal as carefully and quickly as possible. If you have any questions, our office can be reached at (703) 696-9290.
Sincerely,
Earl L. Johnson, Paralegal Specialist
Information Litigation Branch
_______________________
For a PDF of the letters click here.
There are two things to note:
1. The Air Force conveniently ignored the Appeal I sent to:
ACC - Dyess Air Force Base,
USAFE (FOIA 2010-06810-F) -
Ramstein
2. The Air Force acknowledged my Appeals on:
November 29, 2010
December 8, 2010
January 3, 2011
They all said, “Thank you for your patience and be assured that we will review your appeal as carefully and quickly as possible.”
As of today (October 27, 2011) I have not heard from them again.
Air Force Time indeed.
October 27, 2011 (continued)
There has been something humorous/disturbing to come out of this.
On July 15, 2011, I received a message through my Web site’s Form mail, coming from someone claiming to be a friend of Mr. Booher.
From: "Mr. Booher's Friend" <mat222@woh.rr.com>
To: <xxx@jmargolin.com>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 3:41 PM
Subject: feedback
Sender IP Address: 65.185.101.246
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Mr. Booher's Friend (mat222@woh.rr.com) on Friday, July 15, 2011 at 17:41:02
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
msg: Dear Margolin,
i have found the messages between Mr. Darrin Booher and yourself here: http://jmargolin.com/usaf/jm_wpafb_booher2.pdf and have to decided to give you some reasons as to why you can't and never will get the information you have requested.
Reason one, you are not an author, a member of the press, or any other form of professional media outlet.
Reason two, your website is sub-par; my 10 year old can do better.
Reason three, you think you are some form of professional media outlet because you have a computer and an internet connection. these two things make you just like the other millions of people who have them. insulting a man who has military training and has fought to defend your right to speak the way you do just makes you seem like a baby whose mother has not given it what it wants. but it makes sense since you probably live in your mothers basement living on pizza rolls and hot pockets. Maybe when you get a Journalism degree and get a house of your own you may get what you want.
signed,
Mathew
P.S. you should also get a job to help pay for the information you have requested from Mr. Darrin Booher's office. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naturally, I responded.
From: "Jed Margolin" <xxx@jmargolin.com>
To: "Mr. Booher's Friend" <mat222@woh.rr.com>
Cc: "Booher, Darrin L Civ USAF AFMC 88 CG/SCOKI" <Darrin.Booher@WPAFB.AF.MIL>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: feedback
{Original Message}
Dear Mathew.
Thank you for your opinions, even though they are a mite unkind.
You have confirmed that opinions are like anal sphincters.
Everybody has one,
Some people are one.
Mr. Booher is indeed fortunate to have you as a friend.
With friends like you, who needs enemas?
Sincerely yours,
Jed Margolin
P.S. - How's the weather in
As a courtesy I sent a copy to Mr. Booher. He read it but did not respond.
From: "Booher, Darrin L Civ USAF AFMC 88 CG/SCOKI" <Darrin.Booher@wpafb.af.mil>
To: "undisclosed-recipients:"
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:02 AM
Attach: ATT02065.txt
Subject: Read: feedback
Your message
To: Mr. Booher's Friend
Cc: Booher, Darrin L Civ USAF AFMC 88 CG/SCOKI
Subject: Re: feedback
Sent: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 04:42:09 -0400
was read on Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:02:23 -0400
January 21,
2012
Yesterday I received a letter from Cheri L. Cannon, Deputy General Counsel (Fiscal, Ethics and Administrative Law). For a PDF scan of the letter click here. I also used OCR to convert it to text. For an html version click here.
I am also reproducing it here.
|
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
OFFICE THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Jan 10 2012
SAF/GCA 1740 Air Force Pentagon
Mr. Jed Margolin 1981 Empire Road
Dear Mr. Margolin
This letter replies to two appeals, dated October 9, 2010, (2011-00006-A, 2011-00007-A) challenging the adequacy of the records search for "all documents relating to the use of Synthetic Vision in operating the C-130 (all variants) operated by USAF."
I have been delegated the responsibility to conduct the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force review in your case. I considered your appeals and determined they should be denied.
Upon receiving the initial request, the FOIA offices at both Dyess AFB and Little Rock AFB requested that the respective offices of primary responsibility conduct a record search. Those offices found no responsive records. Dyess AFB and Little Rock AFB provided you with "no records" responses on August 18, 2010 and August 30, 2010, respectively. You appealed the "no records" responses based on what you called "hard evidence that synthetic vision is, indeed, used in the C-130."
A record must exist and be in the possession and control of the Department of Defense at the time of the request to be considered subject to DoD 5400.7-R_AFMAN 33-302 and the FOIA. There is no obligation to create, compile, or obtain a record to satisfy a FOIA request. See, e.g., Krohn v. Dept of Justice, 628 F.2d 195, 197-98 (D.C. Cir. 1980); DoD 5400.7-R, AFMAN 33-302, ¶ C1.4.4.3.
The adequacy of an agency's search under the FOIA is determined by a test of "reasonableness. Weisberg v. United States Department of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983). DoD 5400.7-R_AFMAN 33-302, ¶ C5.3.1.2.2 states: "If a requester appeals an Air Force 'no records' determination, Air Force elements must search again or verify the adequacy of their first search." A second search was conducted at each base, but again, no responsive records were found.
I found the scope and methodology of the searches to be thorough and comprehensive and reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. See e.g., Campbell v. United States, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (noting that an agency must search using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested); Weisberg, 705 F 2d at 1351. To conclude, both offices have satisfied their obligations to search for records under the FOIA.
This constitutes the final Air Force action on your appeal. The FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, provides for judicial review of this determination.
Sincerely
Cheri L. Cannon Deputy General Counsel (Fiscal, Ethics and Administrative Law) |
I looked up the cases she cited.
Krohn v. Dept of Justice, 628 F.2d 195, 197-98 (D.C. Cir. 1980) [Click here for html version]
Weisberg v. United States Department of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983) [Click here for html version]
Campbell v.
A. This is what Ms. Cannon said regarding Krohn v. Dept of Justice:
There is no obligation to create, compile, or obtain a record to satisfy a FOIA request.
{Emphasis added}
Her characterization of Krohn suggests that the Freedom of Information Act is purely voluntary on the part of the Air Force.
This is what Krohn was about:
|
1
Appellant's Freedom of
Information Act case requested the Department of Justice to produce: With
respect to "each and every criminal case" in which judgment was
entered pursuant to F.R.Crim.P. 32(b) during 1977 in the
2
The Eastern District of Virginia
( 3
The 4
The District of
Massachusetts ( 5 "the smallest set of records which will enable (him) to conveniently and accurately collect the following information about the cases: 6 1) The District Court docket number of the case and which District Court; 7 2) The name of the defendant; 8 3) The date on which judgment was entered; 9 4) The judgment imposed; 10 5) The name of the sentencing judge; 11 6) Whether or not the Government allocuted at sentencing in the case and, if so the recommendation, if any, to the judge with respect to sentencing; 12 7) The offense(s) (Citation to U.S.Code) of which the defendant was convicted; 13 8) The offense(s) (Citation to U.S.Code) with which the defendant was charged at the initiation of the criminal prosecution; 14 9) Whether or not the disposition of the criminal case involved a plea bargain and, if so, the terms of the plea bargain, including any agreement concerning the conduct of the Government at sentencing." 15 His original request was subsequently amended to add: 16 "10) The name(s) of the attorney(s) for the defendant, including local counsel for the defendant, if any; 17
11) The name(s) of the attorney(s) for
the 18 As indicated above, his primary request is for the "information" described in (6) and (9), i. e., (1) for records indicating in "each and every . . . criminal case" whether the Government "allocuted at sentencing" and if so the Government's oral "recommendation" at that time; and (2) whether a "plea bargain" was involved, and if so the "terms" thereof "including any agreement concerning the conduct of the Government at sentencing." And his request is for records that will enable him to obtain such "information about the cases . . . conveniently and accurately . . .". |
The Majority Opinion can be summarized as:
|
26 Basically appellant's request is for data not records. As can be noted, his request is for highly-selective "information". In fact, appellant describes his action as an effort to obtain "Sentencing Statistics." . . . 28 Finally, the records described above, which Krohn demands, "are not mandated by law and (the Department of Justice has) . . . not . . . determined (that such records are) necessary or useful for the overall work of (the) agency." (App. 17). This case is thus determined by the holding of Justice White's opinion in NLRB v. Sears Roebuck Co., 421 U.S. 132, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1945):
29 The (Freedom of Information) Act . . . only requires disclosure of certain documents which the law requires the agency to prepare or which the agency has decided for its own reasons to create. Sterling Drug, Inc. v. FTC, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 237, 450 F.2d 698 (1971). Thus, insofar as the order of the court below requires the agency to create explanatory material, it is baseless.[1]
30
421
31 It also appears that appellant's request is too vague to satisfy the statutory requirement that it reasonably describe the requested records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). A reasonable description requires the requested record to be reasonably identified as a record not as a general request for data, information and statistics to be gleaned generally from documents which have not been created and which the agency does not generally create or require. Here the request is so broad and general as to require the agency to review the entire record of "each and every . . . criminal case" in order to determine whether it contains any evidence of the data, information or statistics that appellant requests. Such request is fatally flawed by lack of a reasonable description. Cf. Irons v. Shuyler, 465 F.2d 608, 610-11 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied 409 U.S. 1076, 93 S.Ct. 682, 34 L.Ed.2d 664. The decision of the District Court is therefore affirmed. |
Here is how Krohn applies to my FOIA request.
It doesn’t.
1. My FOIA request was not for data, it was for records (documents).
2. The Majority Opinion said:
¶29 The (Freedom of Information) Act . . . only requires disclosure of certain documents which the law requires the agency to prepare or which the agency has decided for its own reasons to create. Sterling Drug, Inc. v. FTC, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 237, 450 F.2d 698 (1971). Thus, insofar as the order of the court below requires the agency to create explanatory material, it is baseless.[1]
Sterling is an old case (1971), as is Krohn (1980). The Freedom of Information Act has been amended several times since then. The current Freedom of Information Act says that agencies are required to produce documents unless they fall within stated exemptions which the Agency is required to justify. For the current Freedom of Information Act (2007) go to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+5USC552 .
3. My FOIA request was not unfocused or burdensome. It was very specific. I even attached hard evidence that the C-130 is equipped with synthetic vision. For example, in my Appeal (click here) I included the product brochure for Tac View from CMC Electronics. See Exhibit 8 at PDF page 33. It shows it being used in a C-130 (PDF page 34). They advertise that it supports synthetic vision (PDF page 35).
And note that there was a dissenting opinion in Krohn by Circuit Judge Wald:
|
33 WALD, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
34
I dissent on the ground that Krohn's
request was not so unfocused or burdensome, as the majority opinion asserts,
as to justify summary rejection either because it required the creation of
new records, or because it failed to adequately describe the records sought.
Krohn's FOIA request was specifically for "the smallest set of
records" which would allow him to collect the data he seeks, App. I at
21, and Krohn later asserted he would take whatever records exist, even if
they are "fragmentary and inaccurate."
35
The government has not, contrary to the
opinions of the majority and the district court, asserted that absolutely no
documents responsive to Krohn's request exist. The Rowe affidavit in fact
indicates that some documents do exist, they just "(do) not exist in a
form that, if collected, would be reliably accurate." App. I at 17. The
government's brief also admits that some of the data Krohn requested could be
located but asserts that documents relating to plea bargaining and allocution
"simply do not exist because there is no requirement that such records
be separately maintained." Gov't Br. 11 n.6 (emphasis supplied). The
fact that records need not be maintained does not of course establish they do
not exist, and in fact the government goes on to admit that some plea
bargaining and allocution information may be in its files but argues that its
release "would not be responsive to appellant's request for all the
listed information from each and every file."
36 Because neither the Rowe affidavit nor the government's brief establishes that no responsive documents exist, and because of the way Krohn has couched his request, I find the reasoning in Disabled Officer's Ass'n v. Rumsfeld, 428 F.Supp. 454 (D.D.C.1977), aff'd without opinion, 574 F.2d 636 (D.C.Cir.1978), instructive. The names and addresses the Association requested in that case were available on various personnel and other records in the Defense Department, but because all of them were not on a single document, the Department argued that the Association had "not requested an identifiable agency record within the meaning of the FOIA." 428 F.Supp. at 456 (emphasis in original). That argument was rejected:
37 Plaintiff is not attempting to use the FOIA to force defendants to create a record which they do not already have, and its request is one for an existing record within the meaning of the Act. If the Department of Defense did not maintain records on retired disabled officers, then plaintiff's request could be seen as an attempt to compel defendants to compile information they do not possess and Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., supra, would have more applicability to this case. However, defendants have stated that the Department of Defense has personnel and financial records pertaining to retired disabled officers, and plaintiff is only requesting them to disclose a limited portion of, or amount of information from these files, the names and addresses of the retired disabled officers. The fact that defendants may have to search numerous records to comply with the request and that the net result of complying with the request will be a document the agency did not previously possess is not unusual in FOIA cases nor does this preclude the applicability of the Act.
38
39 I would remand for further explanation by the government as to why it cannot produce at least some of the documents Krohn requested. |
Thus, Krohn is not relevant to my case.
B. This is what Ms. Cannon said regarding Weisberg
v. United States Department of Justice (1983) and Campbell v.
The adequacy of an agency's search under the FOIA is determined by a test of "reasonableness. Weisberg v. United States Department of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983). DoD 5400.7-R_AFMAN 33-302, ¶ C5.3.1.2.2 states: "If a requester appeals an Air Force 'no records' determination, Air Force elements must search again or verify the adequacy of their first search." A second search was conducted at each base, but again, no responsive records were found.
I found the scope and methodology of the searches to be thorough and comprehensive and reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. See e.g., Campbell v. United States, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (noting that an agency must search using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested); Weisberg, 705 F 2d at 1351. To conclude, both offices have satisfied their obligations to search for records under the FOIA.
Ms. Cannon is relying on AFMAN (Air Force Manual) and then attributing it to the two cases cited.
Indeed Weisberg involved the FBI, not the Air Force.
And the FBI did attempt to cooperate with Weisberg, just not enough.
At some point the Freedom of Information Act was amended which further restricted an agency’s right to withhold documents.
Ms. Cannon seems to be basing Air Force policy according to a 35 year-old version of the Freedom of Information Act. She really should read the current version.
And let’s look at the Air Force Manual she quoted from (for AFMAN 33-302 click here).
Here is ¶ C5.3.1.2.2:
C5.3.1.2.2. (Added)(AF) If a requester appeals an Air Force “no records”
determination, Air Force elements must search again or verify the adequacy of
their first search. The package must include documents that show the Air
Force element systematically tried to find responsive records. Tell, for
example, what areas or offices were searched and how the search was
conducted--manually, by computer, by telephone, and so forth. In the event
a requester sues the Air Force to contest a determination that no responsive
records exist, formal affidavits are required to support the adequacy of any
searches conducted.
{Emphasis added}
She left out the part where she was supposed to say how the search was conducted.
She left it out because she didn’t do it.
That’s bad faith. Not only did she selectively quote from AFMAN (which is not statutory) she failed to follow it.
This is what we learn from
A. Adequacy of the search. Viewing the FOIA terrain
with an eye toward providing guidance to agencies consistent with congressional
intent, the court explained with respect to an adequacy-of-search claim in Oglesby
v. United States Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C.Cir.1990), that "the agency must show that it made a
good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods
which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested."
{Emphasis added quoting Oglesby}
She hasn’t shown that USAF has made a “… good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested” because she didn’t do it.
C. My FOIA Appeal was directed to four locations known to have C-130 units based there:
ACC - Dyess Air Force Base,
AMC - Little Rock AFB,
USAFE - Ramstein
PACAF -
Ms. Cannon addressed only Dyess AFB and Little Rock AFB. She ignored Ramstein and Yokota.
So, why should I believe her when she said:
I found the scope and methodology of the searches to be thorough and comprehensive and reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.
I don’t.
D. There are some possibilities here:
1. USAF does not know what equipment is on their aircraft;
2. USAF does not have operating manuals for the equipment on their aircraft;
3. USAF considers compliance with the Freedom of Information Act to be optional;
4. USAF likes being sued.
And, going back to her statement:
A record must exist and be in the possession and control of the Department of Defense at the time of the request to be considered subject to DoD 5400.7-R_AFMAN 33-302 and the FOIA. There is no obligation to create, compile, or obtain a record to satisfy a FOIA request.
If Ms. Cannon were more current with the Freedom of Information Act, she would know that the Freedom of Information Act is not optional on the part of the Agency, it is mandatory.
Ms. Cannon is an attorney. See http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioid=12224
She should know better.
E. Perhaps USAF should reconsider their FOIA policy.
Today, a Google search for the terms: USAF FOIA “synthetic vision” produced about 4,410 hits.
This article/blog is #1, #2, #3.
I saved it. Click here.
Jed Margolin
January 21, 2012
April 4, 2012
I received a letter today from USAF denying my appeal of October 9, 2010. The date on the letter is April 2, 2012 which makes it 541 days from October 9, 2010; or 1 year, 176 days; or 77 weeks; or 1 year, 25 weeks; or 12,984 hours; or 46,742,400 seconds.
The Freedom of Information Act (a)(6)(A) gives an agency 20 days to respond to an appeal (not counting Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays).
(6)(A) Each agency, upon any request
for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall -
(i) determine within 20 days
(excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of
any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately
notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons
therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency
any adverse determination; and (ii) make a determination with respect to any
appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public
holidays) after the receipt of such appeal. If on appeal the denial of the
request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify the
person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that
determination under paragraph (4) of this
subsection. The 20-day period under clause (i) shall commence on the
date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the
agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first
received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency's
regulations under this section to receive requests under this section. The
20-day period shall not be tolled by the agency except -
(I) that the agency may make one
request to the requester for information and toll the 20-day period while it is
awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester
under this section; or
(II) if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment. In either case, the agency's receipt of the requester's response to the agency's request for information or clarification ends the tolling period.
I will be generous and allow USAF 30 days including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. That makes them late by only 511 days; or 1 year 146 days; or 1 year, 21 weeks; etc.
For those who might not remember October 9, 2010 this was an appeal of the no fee-waiver game played by Roger V. Hansel (“Hansel”) along with a large supporting cast. click here.
For a scan of the denial of my appeal click here.
Or, read this:
|
Dear
Mr. Margolin This letter replies to your October
9, 2010, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal (2011-00009-A) of the PACAF
FOIA Manager's denial of your request for a fee waiver. In your original FOIA
request, you requested "all documents relating to the use of Synthetic
Vision in operating the C-130 (all variants) operated by USAF." While
your request is to several Air Force installations, this letter only responds
to the request to I have been delegated the
responsibility to conduct the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force review
in your case. I have considered your appeal and determined it should be
denied. A FOIA requester is entitled to a
fee waiver or reduction "if disclosure of the information is in the
public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public
understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not
primarily in the commercial interest of the requester." 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(A)(iii). In making my decision, I have reviewed your initial FOIA
request, your fee waiver request, and your appeal. I considered the factors
found in DOD Regulation 5400.7 _ AFMAN 33-302, Chapter 6, and other
applicable law. Based on my review, I have determined that your request does
not qualify for a fee waiver because it does not meet the standard found in
the FOIA. Accordingly, your appeal is denied. This constitutes the final Air
Force action on your appeal. The FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, provides for judicial
review of this determination. Sincerely CHERI
L. CANNON Deputy
General Counsel (Fiscal,
Ethics and Administrative Law) |
This is what I would characterize as a non-responsive denial. Ms. Cannon did not give any reasons that were actually directed to my appeal. What she said was, “Denied, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.”
It is ironic that Ms. Cannon’s title is Deputy General Counsel (Fiscal, Ethics and Administrative Law).
Ms. Cannon has the ethics of the rubber stamp that it took her 541 days to find.
Is this blog in the public interest?
Today, I did a Google search using the terms: USAF FOIA. I don’t see how you can get
more general than that with something that involves the Freedom of Information
Act.
The search produced approximately 2,850,000 hits. Click here.
It should come as no surprise that the USAF FOIA Web site was #1.
What did come as a surprise (even to me) was that this blog is #5. That is, #5 out of 2,850,000.
We have learned two valuable things today.
1. USAF decides what is in the public interest. What the public is really interested in is irrelevant.
2. USAF doesn’t know how to use Google.
Jed Margolin
April 4, 2012