Categories
Documents

The FOIA Project

I discovered an amazingly rich site for information related to FOIA appeals and lawsuits: The FOIA Project.

From the site’s About page:

The goal of FOIAproject.org is to provide the public with timely and complete information about every instance in which the federal government grants or withholds records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Updated daily, this “FOIA accountability engine” now includes detailed information on every case that challenges government withholding in federal court. And we have started expanding coverage to decisions on FOIA administrative requests on an agency-by-agency basis.

The site was created to “shame” government agencies who, it deems, seek to skirt laws related to FOIA requests. I don’t agree that there’s a general plot among agencies to hide information from the citizens of the country, especially the agencies most often targeted (EPA comes to mind). At the same time, it is important to ensure that the Freedom of Information Act is implemented in deed, as well as word.

Regardless with whether you agree with the underlying premise of the site or not, The FOIA Project is a great place to access court documents for FOIA lawsuits.

Categories
Documents Legal, Laws, and Regs

Pssst: The law is for everyone

I confess here and now: I am a PACER junkie. For the uninitiated, PACER is the federal court online system.

I rarely go a day without looking for new court filings in the many court cases I follow. When a new motion is submitted, I’m in alt. Think how science fiction fans react to a new Doctor Who episode, and you get the idea.

There seems to be a misconception about legal filings, and the law. Contrary to popular myth, neither are for lawyers, only. Yes, you have to be a lawyer to practice law, but you don’t have to be a lawyer to be interested in the law or legal documents. You don’t have to be a lawyer to have an opinion on laws, or legal documents, either. You may misunderstand a decision, or misstate the importance of a case, but doing so is no different than misunderstanding any other decision, or misstating the importance of any other event. The art of law is no different than the art of philosophy, geology, history, or computer programming.

What happens in the courts has a profound impact on all of us. If Congress passes laws, and the Executive Branch implements these laws, it is the Courts that refine the laws—ensuring that the laws are applied consistently, and adhere to basic principles on which the nation is formed.

Think of law as a statue. Congress, acting on its own or based on the demands of the populace, decides it wants a new statue. If enough members of Congress agree, it writes up a specification for the statue, and provides funding to create it.

The Executive Branch of the government, via its agencies, takes these specifications and formulates a plan for creating the statue. Once the first draft of the plan is complete, the relevant agency submits the plan to the master architect/bean counter, otherwise known as the Office of Management and Budget. The OMB checks that the statue implementation plan is cost effective, and won’t piss off the master sculpture (i.e. the President). If the plan passes muster, the agency submits it to the people for comment. Commentary flows in that ranges from the sublime to the inane. How much impact the commentary has depends on any number of factors, including the impetus of creation, and which raw resource dealer has the best lobbyist. Eventually, the agency finalizes the plan and sends it and the raw materials off to the minions to create the statue.

Lo, and behold, here is the statue.

The law is art, and art is always in the eye of the beholder. The people may not agree with how the statue looks. One person may think its too crude; another may think it varies from the specifications too much; a third may deem it blasphemous and demand it be taken out into a field and blown up with dynamite. If one or more people are personally impacted by the creation of the statue, they may take their artistic disdain to the Courts.

The Courts take up the tools of the legal trade—a dainty chisel and fine sandpaper here, a blow torch there. They’ll hear the arguments of the people and the creators, look at the specifications provided by Congress and the finished work of the agencies, and within the boundaries that constrain their own activities (because it does no one any good to have a Mad Artist suddenly take a sledge hammer to a great piece of art), they’ll decide if the people are wrong, and the work is fine. Or they may decide that the people are correct, and the piece needs work.

It is the Courts, then, who refine the statue. Over time, they brush away the imperfections. Sometimes they may go a little too far, and a repair is necessary. Other times the Courts may disagree on artistic interpretation, or the people may disagree with the Courts, and a higher Court will either confirm an interpretation, or reverse it before any irrevocable action has taken place. Put that blow torch down, and back away slowly.

As time goes by, the statue—the law and its regulations and rules—becomes more rigid and less amenable to change. The legal people call it ‘precedent’ but we can think of it as Monkey Christ. If we sit around, twiddling our thumbs, waiting for some legal mind to suggest we might want to be concerned about this new law, regulation, or court decision, we may lose the opportunity to have input, and get stuck with a really ugly piece of work.

So I’m a PACER pusher, as well as junkie. I created a Documents at Burningbird web site to share my legal and other documents with you. I hope to get you hooked, too.

Categories
Documents

Swartz Update: An Inside Look at the Secret Service and FOIA

A quick update on the Aaron Swartz FOIA request.

There have been several court filings related to Wired magazine Poulson’s FOIA case, regarding the investigative material for the court case against Aaron Swartz. Poulson walks the talk on transparency, and provides links to all of the documents. I’m also preparing a docket sheet with links to the court documents. (Duplication aids transparency.)

One of the documents is a status report (PDF) filed by the Secret Service. In it, we see the state of FOIA requests within this agency. It gives us a good idea of how overwhelmed government agencies are with FOIA requests—especially after Sequestor cuts. The problem of overwhelmed FOIA resources is compounded by the fact that non-profits and other organizations will sue an agency if a FOIA request isn’t met within the 20 days.

The Poulson court case is different, in that he was denied access to the documents, and the agency didn’t respond to the appeal. But I know of several lawsuits filed by organizations just because the agency (typically the EPA) hasn’t responded in 20 days.

We have to remember that transparency comes with a cost. I’m not saying the results aren’t worth the costs, but we can’t pretend that all of this open goodness doesn’t come without a price tag.

From the document:

The United States Secret Service (“Secret Service”) employs less than 1,800 nonoperational personnel service in administrative positions. The Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (“FOI/PA”) Office of the Secret Service, when fully staffed, recently had eleven (11) personnel who are assigned to redact and process FOIA requests, including reviewing documents to determine what, if any, information should be withheld under the FOIA. Due to government-wide budgetary reductions, the Secret Service FOI/PA Office was forced to cut two staff positions which has left the FOI/PA Office with only nine personnel that are assigned to redact and process FOIA requests.

The Secret Service is currently processing three other voluminous FOIA requests which require the full-time, exclusive attention of two of the agency’s nine FOIA processors [emph. added] In the case of one of these two requests, the FOIA processor has been working on it, full-time, for two years. This leaves seven FOIA processors to complete the remaining FOIA requests which come to the office.

In fiscal year 2012, the Secret Service FOIA/PA Office received approximately 1,595 FOIA requests. To date, for fiscal year 2013, the Secret Service FOI/PA Office received approximately 1,138 FOIA requests. The Secret Service FOI/PA Office, in one week, from July 15 – 19, 2013, received 234 additional FOIA requests. To date, the Secret Service FOI/PA Office has 1,001 pending FOIA requests.

One FOIA request that requires a full time employee for two years. Time to dig around and see which FOIA request this is.

Categories
Documents Legal, Laws, and Regs

Initial Complaints from the Cantaloupe Listeria Outbreak Court cases courtesy Marler Clark

Bill Marler, of Marler Clark, has posted links to court complaints the law firm has filed because of the Cantaloupe Listeria outbreak in 2011. This was one of the most significant food illness outbreaks of modern times.

I could wish more law firms would post their legal filings, especially those at the state level that are difficult to access outside the state. Yes, most of the documents are legalese, but many court filings are plain, factual descriptions of events of importance—without embellishment and opinion. Many court documents reflect historically important decisions that can have a significant impact on our society.

Court documents can also contain subtle humor, eloquence, as well as brilliant examples of wit and logic.

Categories
Critters Documents

Several new filings in Front Range Equine Rescue et al vs. USDA horse slaughter inspection case

update

One of the new plaintiffs in the case, listed in the amended complaint, is The Foundation to Protect New Mexico’s Wildlife. It was formed by former governor Bill Richardson and Robert Redford.

Well, now, this might generate some evening news coverage.

There has been a flurry of filings in the Front Range Equine Rescue et al vs. USDA court case. Most of the filings have been from those seeking to intervene in the case, including the state of New Mexico (for the plaintiffs) and the Confederated Yakima Tribes (for the defendants). Other companies wanting to open horse slaughter plants have also sought to intervene, and the list of plaintiffs has grown, considerably.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the USDA has filed an opposition to the preliminary injunction.

Relevant documents have been uploaded for your access.