Time: Mon Sep 29 11:48:30 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA13073
for [address in tool bar]; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:50:04 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:46:53
To: Karl Kleinpaste <karl@jprc.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: FOIA timeouts - review
Karl,
I have to run some errands, including
the post office, and delivering our aging
Dell 486 to the shop, for some cleaning,
reconditioning, and upgrades. If I don't
get back to you before day's end concerning
this message below, please remind me, okay?
I think we are seeing the light at the end
of the tunnel during this upgrade to Windows 95,
on a new 586/200, and I want to stay with it
until everything is working perfectly. All in
all, this transition has been almost painless
(almost! :)
Later, okay?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremela.wcom
p.s. It's okay to use [address in toolbar] now.
At 01:16 PM 9/29/97 -0400, you wrote:
>FYI.
>
>Today is officially the timeout for getting responses back from
>everybody, except the Kelly FOIA, which was sent the day the other
>appeals were sent. We specified 2 days' grace, which is October 1.
>I need to prepare new complaints re: 5 USC 552.
>
>Total of 7 FOIAs.
>
>1. CIR for Tax Coordination contract.
>Initial, backhanded sort of response, "we're trying to find these
>records and will get back to you."
>Then Sept. 11, got refusal for contract from IRS, with suggestion I
>ask some other piece of IRS. (I didn't ask _IRS_ for it!)
>
>2 & 3. Thieman & Smolar, U.S. Attys.
>I got the initial "we sent it over there" response from DOJ, but
>nothing since.
>
>4. Clarke, U.S. Atty.
>With the Thieman/Smolar initial response, I got one for him, too,
>routed to Tax Division, whereas Thieman/Smolar were sent to
>"U.S. Attorneys, Executive Office for".
>I subsequently got the FOIA response from Tax Division, which gave me
>a long-winded explanation of what records were at Tax Division,
>followed by "we don't have the records you requested, 'cuz it's just
>not the sort of thing we have here. Why don't you go ask
>Those-People-Over-There about it?", which is silly, because the issue
>of FOIA routing was supposed to be handled internally: The FOIAs were
>just sent generically to DOJ, and DOJ routed to Tax; I did not send to
>Tax myself.
>
>5 & 6. Rader & Chafin, IRS bozos. I got a response which said "the
>information requested to the extent [if] it exists, is not under our
>jurisdiction". What request was this for? They didn't say.
>Sept. 24, got the 5-page garbage response for Rader, incl. Appointment
>Affidavit including X'd-out paragraphs.
>
>Demand for proof of identity before FOIA response can proceed is, I
>feel, from Chafin request, though it does not specifically say so. I
>haven't gotten a letter back out the door, to demand their authority
>to demand proof of my identity, but I could do that today, probably.
>It's the only "unanswered" IRS FOIA.
>
>7. Linda Kelly, new U.S. Attorney. Sent original FOIA when I sent the
>preceding 6 FOIA appeals. I didn't realize until this morning that I
>never sent an appeal after the 10-day limit expired. Duh.
>
>Those of the 1st 6 which haven't been answered timeout on appeal today.
>
>From the lawsuit web pages, see these dates:
>August 8:
>Sent.
>
>August 30:
>Initial responses (routing from DOJ; IRS says they're hunting records).
>
>September 5:
>Unspecified FOIA request, but said "records don't exist."
>
>September 11:
>Response from Tax Division that Clarke's records aren't there.
>Also, response from CIR, that contract should be requested from some
>other piece of the IRS, even though I never asked _IRS_ for the
>contract in the 1st place -- I asked CIR for it.
>
>September 24:
>Horrifying Rader response.
>
>September 27:
>Kelly "we sent it over there" response.
>
>Just realized, I don't have the "prove your identity" probable-Chafin
>intermediate response in the web pages. Fascinating, that they think
>they can demand proof of ident. on that, but didn't ask the same thing
>on Rader, who also holds a "tax auditor" position.
>
>--karl
>
>PS- Wait a sec. IRS responses...
>1. "We're looking, please hold."
>2. "Information, to extent [if] it exists, is not under our jurisdiction."
>3. "Prove your identity." (probable Chafin?)
>4. Rader horror.
>Are they all "answered"?
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail