‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, November 25, 2019 6:52 PM, jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote: ...
>>the denial using Glomar exception is here: > > https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/02/11/1-29-19_MR67282_REJ-G_106095.pdf > > This document doesn't say why the Glomar exception is applicable. It does > not even include the term "Glomar". Frustratingly, in this PDF format I > cannot select and copy text. Why??? welcome to FOIA! the agencies do this on purpose, usually returning scanned images of documents rather than searchable text or annotated PDFs. this is a "feature" for them, not a bug :) [ almost the entire CIA CREST archive is like this, once they released it from the confines of the National Archives in Maryland ] regarding Glomar, any time "can neither confirm nor deny" is the response, it is categorized as "Glomar" denial. > How would the (re-)disclosure of these Cypherpunks emails, which were > originally disseminated to thousands of people, including (presumably) > foreigners, result in "identifiable or describable exceptionally grave damage > to the national security"? The simple answer is, 'No way in hell!!!'. > That response was deliberately wrong. agreed; again, typical of FOIA - blanket denials, and upon appeal, more specific denials. (and maybe, if you're lucky, a partial response!) > This is still true. A re-filing might be better done in another person's > name, to ensure that the concepts of "collateral estoppel" and "res judicata" > aren't used to reject the claim a second time. hey Ryan! ;) (MuckRock has a clone request feature. wink wink nudge nudge...) > Given that recent case out of the Northern District of California, it seems > likely that a better tactic would be to have somebody else file essentially > the same FOIA application in the Northern District of California, citing that > precedent, and then have the right to appeal the agency's denial(s) to that > California district. However, I see no reason that both tactics could not be > pursued, in parallel. Except, that the last time I heard of what it was, a > District Court docket fee was $350, but it might have changed. Getting a > waiver of the docket fee ("In Forma Pauperis") might be possible, but it > might merely be in a form which delays the payment, not completely waives it. > > It would also be useful to pre-load the FOIA requests with arguments as to > why things like the Glomar exception shouldn't apply: The Cypherpunks > mailing list was never "secret"; it was always open to anyone who wanted to > subscribe to it; everyone who posted to it knew that their postings would be > sent to hundreds (eventually thousands) of subscribers. In principle, any > person who wanted a copy of the entire (or a portion) of the Cypherpunks > email database could have 'easily' achieved that by simply subscribing to it: > It certainly isn't clear why the collection of Cypherpunks emails, all of > which were public and moreover were fully intended to be public, would be a > 'matter of national security'. Make them WORK for the exceptions! And, > if re-filed in the Northern District of California, cite that as relevant > precedent. having someone file in Northern District of California, with preemptive refutation of Glomar applicability is a good idea. paging all FOIA nerds! best regards,
