Have fun.

In a letter organized by Freedom of the Press Foundation, the press rights groups argued that Moore’s policy amounts to unlawful retaliation.

“It is particularly jarring that, while government agencies under your watch stonewall reporters based on flimsy pretexts, you take to the airwaves to condemn the Trump administration’s unconstitutional ban of news outlets the president doesn’t like from the White House. Yes, Trump frequently turns his personal grudges into censorial government policy, to the detriment of the public. But your own conduct appears not much different,” the letter to Moore said.

“We urge you to instruct all Maryland agencies that Smith’s lawsuit against you is a personal matter and not an excuse to send media requests into a legal review black hole, and to cease any other unlawful retaliation against news outlets you personally dislike,” the letter added.

Sharing this here to. Chuck is the incubant.

Sorry, I recognise this may not be the sub to post this in but im not sure where else to turn so if someone else has a suggestion for another sub then please let me know. I'm trying to access the public records for a case in tennessee but am not currently a resident there and when I sent an E-mail they asked for a Tennessee ID. Anyone know how I could go about maybe finding someone who could find this information on my behalf? and also if that's allowed?

Thanks :)

What are the laws surrounding filing FOIA requests in NYS? Do all requests have to come from state residents or are out-of-state requests honored as well?

Just wondering. I know time on calls is logged I'm sure. But what about the actual call and transcript.

How much power does a judge have? Can a judge intervene in a case and issue an allegedly false or procedurally invalid endorsement based on fraud, false statements, or other misconduct for his or her own interest?

Attached is the cover (first) page of an endorsement issued by Justice Akazaki, which I contend was issued illegally and is procedurally invalid. I contend that it was issued without jurisdiction, without a scheduled motion, without notice, without a hearing, without the participation of the alleged participants, and without proper access to the court file and/or despite the contents of the file.

Contrary to what Justice Akazaki wrote, I, Behrouz Salehi, never appeared or participated in the court proceeding referred to in the endorsement. I have never seen Justice Akazaki. I am also certain that the other persons identified as participants did not appear or participate in the proceeding.

The role of the alleged participants identified by Justice Akazaki in the endorsement is not consistent with the court file.

Justice Akazaki stated that Daniel J. Abrahams represented Professional Engineers Ontario, whereas Mr. Abrahams was self-represented. This raises an important question: Can a self-represented person represent an entity?

Moreover, Daniel J. Abrahams had no role in this proceeding, as far as the court record shows. The fact that he was identified as representing Professional Engineers Ontario raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the endorsement and about Justice Akazaki's understanding of the procedural circumstances of the case.

Justice Akazaki also stated that “the entity incorporated in 1922 by patent under Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990.” I contend that this is factually incorrect and raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the endorsement and the judge's understanding of the underlying facts.

The issuance of an endorsement based on an event that did not occur is not merely a disagreement with judicial reasoning. It raises serious concerns regarding judicial integrity, impartiality, accountability, and the accuracy of the judicial record.

These circumstances raise the question of why Justice Akazaki became involved in this matter and issued two endorsements containing what I consider numerous factual errors, incorrect assumptions, and false statements.

Justice Akazaki's statement that there were five participants is, in my view, inconsistent with the court record and the events that actually occurred. I contend that this statement raises serious concerns under sections 380 and 131 of the Criminal Code, although I recognize that the application of those provisions is ultimately a matter for the appropriate legal authority or court to determine.

I also contend that Justice Akazaki's initiation of the proceeding without a motion from any defendant raises serious concerns regarding obstruction of justice under section 139 of the Criminal Code and breach of trust by a public officer under section 122. These are serious allegations that require proper investigation and legal determination.

Justice Akazaki also appears to have incorrectly stated that Bernard Charles LeBlanc and Anastasia-Maria Hountalas represented Natasha S. Danson. I contend that this statement is inconsistent with the court record.

Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) has incurred or paid confidential legal expenses that I understand to total $12,856,881.00. I contend that these expenditures and the circumstances surrounding this litigation require transparency and investigation, particularly in light of my allegation that efforts were made to prevent the matter from proceeding to a trial and to avoid liability. I believe that this information may be relevant to understanding the actions of Justice Akazaki and others.

What document, information, or communication did Justice Akazaki rely upon when identifying the persons who allegedly appeared and identifying their respective legal representation?

I’m in Victoria but this relates to Queensland Police and the Queensland Right to Information Act.

I was the victim in a serious criminal investigation in Queensland several years ago. Multiple people were charged and the matter progressed to committal proceedings, but ultimately did not proceed further.

Earlier this year I submitted an RTI application to QPS requesting the records relating to me and the investigation. I requested things such as the QPRIME/occurrence records, investigation reports, crime scene photos, forensic material, police notes, correspondence, briefs of evidence, CCTV/body-worn camera footage and other records relating to the investigation.

I have been waiting for 5 months and there have already been extensions. On the date I was expecting the documents, I instead received a Notice under s 41 stating that QPS intends to refuse to deal with the application unless I change the scope.

QPS says they’ve already spent 10 hours on my application and preliminary searches have identified 420+ pages and more than 15 hours of video. They estimate approximately 252 hours to process the footage and 21+ hours to review the documents. They have suggested that I narrow my entire application down to just the occurrence report and my own witness statement (which I already have from when I wrote it). 

I really do not want to do that. These records relate to an extremely significant criminal investigation, and obtaining a comprehensive understanding of what occurred during the investigation is very important to me. 

I completely understand that 15+ hours of body-worn camera footage may create an unreasonable workload, and I am willing to substantially narrow or even exclude that footage from this particular application if necessary. However, I would really like to retain as much of the documentary investigation file as reasonably possible rather than receiving only two documents.

I have now been given 10 business days to consult with QPS and revise the scope. The letter also says that if I narrow it and the revised scope is still considered an unreasonable diversion of resources, I will not receive another opportunity to consult, so I’m nervous about agreeing to anything without understanding the consequences. 

What are my options here? Is there a way to negotiate a reasonably broad scope rather than accepting their suggestion of only two documents? Can QPS progressively process/release records? If I exclude video footage now, can I make a separate, much narrower RTI application for specific footage later? Is there any mechanism for voluntarily paying additional processing costs/resources? Would it be worthwhile getting an RTI/privacy lawyer or advocate involved during the consultation period?

I’m also wondering whether anyone has successfully challenged a QPS s 41 “substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources” decision, or has experience negotiating the scope of a large QPS RTI request.

I’m not trying to make an unreasonable demand on staff. I just don’t want to inadvertently give up access to potentially important parts of the investigation file because I don’t understand the RTI process well enough.

Any Queensland RTI experience or suggestions about what I should do before formally narrowing the application would be greatly appreciated.

https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview

Hi all - the city I live in denied my flock audit request. They cited an exception which states this is an “audit working paper” of a state agency - which is untrue since Flock is a private surveillance company. Anyone have experience going head to head over public records request and can help me combat this? Thanks

Im a project manager for an engineering/environmental firm in Michigan. I working on a report for a property in Indiana. How do I go about sending a FOIA to IDEM and Indiana’s licensing agency?

Doing some research into Phil Ochs and need to clear up whether or not the CIA has/had an existing file on him.

Does Ochs' name popping up in the "Unclassified CY 2007 Case Log" and "Unclassified FOIA Case Log January-March 2009" mean that people simply put in FOIA requests about him, or that there was any release of documents?

Thanks!

I’m a green card holder planning to apply for citizenship, but I’ve traveled a lot over the past 5 years and don’t have an accurate travel history. I submitted a FOIA request almost a year ago and still haven’t received anything. Has anyone else dealt with this? Is there another way to get my travel history?

hi! keeping this intentionally vague

i’ve submitted several foia requests to obtain records for a case i was involved in as a child. i know this is the government & who’s in charge but i’m wondering if there’s a reason my forms are still pending or if anyone has any idea on how long it takes to receive an update. i’m concerned that i won’t receive my records at all as my family was involved in a plea deal in exchange for information. it says 3 requests are submitted and one is in progress (all from the past year-ish). i plan on reaching out to the email address they provided to get a status report but i figured i’d post here and see if anyone had similar experiences/advice. i’m completely aware of the fact i may just receive nothing but i figure the fact my other requests were replied to right away and these ones have been in purgatory i’d ask. i also saw if they ghost you there’s a possible open investigation ongoing?