Have found a link to the Acoustical Society of America This link also confirms that part of the Taos Him Investigation was electrical http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JASMAN000096000005003334000002&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&bypassSSO=1
On Apr 8, 7:09 am, John Dawes <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is the U.S. Department of Energy web page referring to the FOI > application of Greg Longhttp://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/foia/vfa0060.htm > > I have also found a letter dated November 22 1995 written by Sherry > Robinson, Public Affairs Department University of New Mexico which > states that a report by Taos Hum investigators Joe Mullins and Jim > Kelly will be published in the Acoustical Society Newsletter, however, > I have been unable to find this > > On Apr 6, 12:05 pm, John Dawes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I am sorry there is little that I can add to this. Some time ago I > > asked some American friends if they could find the results of part two > > of the Taos Investigation, They contacted the University of New Mexico > > and were informed that no information on the final investigation was > > available, funding had been withdrawn and the investigation was now > > closed. > > I also contacted the UK government pointing out the similarity between > > Hum sufferers in the USA and the UK asking if it would be possible for > > an exchange of information, I received no answer to this. > > I believe something important was discovered during the investigation > > but it will be difficult to find out exactly what this was. > > > On Apr 6, 10:27 am, dboots <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Is their any place on the web we can find this document that is > > > copied and pasted here??? Did Greg Long give up after these > > > denial's back in 1995? Has anyone else attempted to get the document > > > released using FOIA??? > > > > Not all FOIA's appeal's go to this length in explaining exactly > > > what the denial reasoning behind it is based on Thanks for posting > > > this, but is their a web link > > > to this document ??? > > > > On Apr 5, 1:37 am, John Dawes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Greg Long, Case No. VFA-0060, August 15, 1995 > > > > > Case No. VFA-0060, 25 DOE ¶ 80,129 > > > > August 15, 1995 > > > > DECISION AND ORDER > > > > OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY > > > > Appeal > > > > Name of Petitioner:Greg Long > > > > Date of Filing:July 14, 1995 > > > > Case Number: VFA-0060 > > > > On July 14, 1995, Greg Long of Philomath, Oregon filed an Appeal > > > > from a > > > > determination issued on June 29, 1995 by the Albuquerque Operations > > > > Office > > > > (Albuquerque Operations) of the Department of Energy (DOE). That > > > > determination > > > > denied in part Mr. Long's request for information submitted pursuant > > > > to the > > > > Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by > > > > the DOE > > > > in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. This Appeal, if granted, would require the > > > > DOE to > > > > release the withheld information. > > > > The FOIA requires that agency records which are held by federal > > > > agencies, and > > > > which have not been made public in an authorized fashion by a > > > > covered branch > > > > of the federal government, generally be released to the public upon > > > > request. 5 > > > > U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). In addition to this requirement, the FOIA lists > > > > nine > > > > exemptions that set forth the types of information which may be > > > > withheld at > > > > the discretion of the agency. 5 U.S.C. § 5552(b)(1)-(b)(9). See also > > > > 10 C.F.R. > > > > § 1004. 10(b)(1)-(b)(9). The DOE regulations further provide that > > > > documents > > > > which may be exempt from mandatory disclosure will nonetheless be > > > > released to > > > > the public if the DOE determines that disclosure is not contrary to > > > > federal > > > > law and is in the public interest. 10 C.F.R. § 1004.1. > > > > I. Background > > > > In a letter dated March 23, 1995, Mr. Long filed a FOIA request > > > > with > > > > Albuquerque Operations seeking two related categories of > > > > information. The > > > > first category concerns the investigation of a mysterious and > > > > unexplained > > > > "hum" reported by many people in and around Taos, New Mexico. In > > > > particular, > > > > Mr. Long noted that Sandia National Laboratory had been involved in > > > > exploring > > > > this phenomenon starting in > > > > 1991. The second category asks for documents in which Sandia > > > > personnel > > > > explored similar "hums" elsewhere in New Mexico. > > > > Albuquerque Operations reported to Mr. Long on June 29, 1995 that > > > > Sandia > > > > National Laboratory had provided one responsive record for each > > > > category. The > > > > first, the "Electromagnetic Test Report, Electromagnetic > > > > Investigation of the > > > > Taos Hum, Test Report, dated September 27, 1994," was released in > > > > its > > > > entirety. The second document, a draft report on "other possible > > > > sources of > > > > the Taos 'Hum.'" was withheld in its entirety. Albuquerque > > > > Operations > > > > explained that the report was never finalized because funding for > > > > the project > > > > had been terminated. Accordingly, Albuquerque Operations withheld > > > > the document > > > > under the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5 of the FOIA > > > > on the > > > > grounds that the document contained preliminary opinions and > > > > findings which > > > > were never finalized. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); 10 C.F.R. § 1004.10(b) > > > > (5). > > > > Albuquerque Operations did provide Mr. Long with findings done by a > > > > team at > > > > the University of New Mexico who were working in conjunction with > > > > the Sandia > > > > National Laboratory team. Mr. Long has appealed the withholding of > > > > the draft > > > > report. > > > > II. Analysis > > > > Exemption 5 of the FOIA exempts from mandatory disclosure documents > > > > which are > > > > "[i]nter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would > > > > not be > > > > available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with > > > > the > > > > agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); 10 C.F.R. § 1004.10(b)(5). The > > > > Supreme Court > > > > has held that this section exempts "those documents, and only those > > > > documents, > > > > normally privileged in the civil discovery context." National Labor > > > > Relations > > > > Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975). Among these > > > > privileges > > > > is the "executive" or "deliberative process" privilege. This is the > > > > privilege > > > > that Albuquerque Operations relied upon in withholding information > > > > in this > > > > case under Exemption 5. > > > > The "executive" privilege shields from mandatory disclosure > > > > documents, > > > > advisory in nature, which are created during agency consideration of > > > > proposed > > > > action, and which are part of the decision-making process. Coastal > > > > States Gas > > > > Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980). > > > > Thus, > > > > application of the privilege "under (b)(5) depends not only on the > > > > intrinsic > > > > character of the document itself, but also on the role it played in > > > > the > > > > administrative process." Lead Industries Assoc., Inc. v. > > > > Occupational Safety > > > > and Health Admin., 610 F.2d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 1979) (Lead > > > > Industries). > > > > As a result, to withhold an intra- or inter-agency document under > > > > the > > > > "executive" privilege of Exemption 5, it must be both predecisional, > > > > i.e., > > > > "antecedent to the adoption of agency policy," and deliberative, > > > > i.e., "it > > > > must actually be related to the process by which policies are > > > > formulated." > > > > Jordan v. Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 773 (D.C. Cir. 1978). > > > > See also > > > > Assembly of California v. Department of Commerce, 968 F.2d 916, > > > > 920-21 (9th > > > > Cir. 1992); Formaldehyde Inst. v. Department of Health and Human > > > > Services, 889 > > > > F.2d 1118, 1122 (D.C. Cir. 1989). That is to say, a document must > > > > not only be > > > > prepared as part of agency consideration of some matter, it must > > > > also "bear on > > > > the formulation or exercise of policy-oriented judgment." Ethyl > > > > Corp. v. > > > > Environmental Protection Agency, 25 F.3d 1241, 1248 (4th Cir. 1994); > > > > Petroleum > > > > Info. Corp. v. Department of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1435 (D.C. > > > > Cir. 1992); > > > > Playboy Enterprises v. Department of Justice, 677 F.2d 931, 935 > > > > (D.C. Cir. > > > > 1982). While the Albuquerque Operations determination in this case > > > > explains > > > > the first prong of this test, it does not address the second. > > > > Therefore, the > > > > determination does not adequately explain its basis for withholding > > > > and, we > > > > will remand this matter to Albuquerque Operations for a new, more > > > > detailed > > > > determination. > > > > In making a further determination in this case, Albuquerque > > > > Operations should > > > > also consider the fact that even if a document meets the criteria > > > > set forth > > > > above, the document may not be simply withheld in its entirety. The > > > > FOIA, as > > > > implemented by 10 C.F.R. § 1004.10, requires that "[a]ny reasonably > > > > segregable > > > > portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such > > > > record > > > > after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this > > > > subsection." 5 > > > > U.S.C. § 552(b). See The Oak Ridger, 21 DOE ¶ 80,120 at 80,564-65 > > > > (1991) (and > > > > cases cited therein); Boulder Scientific Co., 19 DOE ¶ 80,126 at > > > > 80,577 (1989) > > > > (and cases cited therein). In the context of the "executive" > > > > privilege of > > > > Exemption 5, this means that non-deliberative material ordinarily > > > > should be > > > > released to the requester. Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink, > > > > 410 U.S. > > > > 73, 87-91 (1972). The only exceptions to the > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hum Sufferers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hum-sufferers?hl=en.
