To those who came back to check before going to bed, “Sorry.” The day flew by, and by the time I got home from work it was after midnight, and I was beat. Of course, I’m running late this morning for a breakfast meeting, so let me just address the David Iglesias FOIA responses received to date.
It seems that Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined that the easiest way to address my request is one item at a time. I’ll give you the original question and the response below:
Q4: Mr. Iglesias has recently stated that public corruption cases were not ignored during his tenure. Please provide details of Mr. Iglesias’ calendar during the Vigil trials?
A4: A request must describe the records sought in sufficient detail to allow location of the records with a reasonable amount of effort (i.e., processing the request should not require an unduly burdenson effort or be disruptive of Department operations). Please provide more specific information about the records you seek, such as appropriate dates, locations, names, natures of the records, etc.
Ok, let’s consider this a group exercise. If someone would be so kind as to provide me the exact dates of the Vigil trial, I will happily re-submit my request.
Q14: Please produce the name of any USA that has ever been appointed outside of the current political/constitutional process for the appointments of USAs.
A14: The Freedom of Information Act only applies to records already in existence and does not require an agency to conduct research, create new records, or answer questions presented as FOIA requests.
Hmm, it doesn’t look like I’m going to get an answer to this one.
Q3: Letter(s) signed by Assistant United States Attorneys concerning Mr. Iglesias’ foreign travels, management or other perceived shortcomings.
A3: It is the policy of the Executive Office neither to confirm or deny that records concerning living third parties exist. Further, any release to you of such records, if they do exist, would be in violation of the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The requested material would also be exempt from release pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) and/or (b)(7)(C) which pertain to records whose disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Now, this response did also include an outline for an appeal to this ruling. So, if one of you legal begals that read this blog religiously would like to step up and help guide me on how best to respond in the name of the public good, I would be much obliged.
The next set of questions was lumped together as a third party request:
Q5: Please provide the result of the investigation and review of the Eric Serna information concerning possible public corruption, bribery, political and “charitable” contributions involving but not limited to Con Alma and Southwest Charities.
Q7: Please provide a list of the public corruption crimes and related crimes that will be, have been or may be adversely impacted by the statute of limitations and the failure of the office, under Mr. Iglesias to proceed in a more prompt manner?
Q9: Mr. Iglesias, since leaving the office of the United States Attorney, has referred to emails concerning contacts with members of the public concerning voter fraud or the “voter fraud task force.” Please provide a set of all copies of DOJ/USA correspondence and emails provided to Mr. Iglesias concerning voter fraud or the Voter Fraud Task Force from members of the public.
Q10: Please provide copies of his responses. Please provide the DOJ/USA policy concerning employee access to emails for personal purposes, both during and after employment.
Q12: Copies of all of Iglesias’ emails received from, or sent to, members of the public.
A5,7,9,10,12: You have request records concerning a thrid party (or third parties). records pertaining to a third party generally cannot be released absent express authorization and consent of the third party, blah, blah, blah.
So, that’s where we stand to date.