| Index 1 |
| Previous |
| Next |
| Click on the Page to ENLARGE Original and/or Find English Text version Below |
|
| Page 1/1 |
| Copyright © 2009-2013, Marc CAMPUS |
June 14, 2007
U.S. Department of Justice,
INTERPOL-U.S. National Central Bureau
Attn: Martin Renkiewicz, Director
Washington, DC 20530
RE: FOIA 2006
Dear Mr. Renkiewicz:
This letter serves two purposes; to respond to your denial of the above-referenced Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request and to request an additional appeal as it relates to your refusal to comply
with the above-referenced FOIA request.
I am in receipt of your previously-issued letter regarding the file at issue. Per 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(2), (b)(7)
(C) and (b)(7)(D), you are deleting portions of the file and withholding one page in its entirety, claiming an
exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(D). It is well settled that, as a government agency, you bear
the burden of demonstrating that materials sought under FOIA are not agency records and that such
records have not been improperly withheld. See Katz v. National Archives & Records Admin., 862 F.
Supp. 476, (D.D.C. 1994) affirmed 68 F.3d 1438, 314 (C.A.D.C. 1995). To date, it is our contention that
you have failed to sufficiently meet your burden of proving that such information previously requested on
multiple occasions was properly withheld. Furthermore, there is a strong presumption in favor of
disclosure of documents under FOIA and any exemptions are to be narrowly construed. Anderson v.
Department of Health and Human Services, 907 F. 2d 936, (C.A.10 Utah 1990). As such, FOIA places the
burden on the agency to justify withholding of any requested documents, and burden remains with agency
when it seeks to justify redaction of identifying information in particular document as well as when it seeks
to withhold entire document. U.S. Dept. of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991). As such, please allow this
letter to serve as an exhaustion of all administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Thomas v. Office of U.S.
Attorney for the East Dist. of New York, 171 F.R.D. 53 (E.D.N.Y. 1997).
Last but not least, as a member of the United Nations and INTERPOL’s National Central Bureau, a
complete investigation is not only necessary but warranted especially since the National Central Bureau is
the national center for police cooperation issues. Your failure, as a signatory country, to abide by the U.
N. bylaws by ensuring justice is served shows a lack of international courtesy, diplomacy, and respect.
And additionally, Mr. Renkiewicz, you have also failed to abide to ICPO-Interpol Rules on
Processing of Information for the Purposes of International Police Cooperation, particularly to
Article 5 that clearly states NCBs huge duties of care with personal information processing and
NCBs responsibilities.
I hope that this matter can be handled without any more unnecessary delay.
Sincerely,
Marie Campus, Director
CS 1 GROUP LEGAL OFFICE Co.
U.S. Department of Justice,
INTERPOL-U.S. National Central Bureau
Attn: Martin Renkiewicz, Director
Washington, DC 20530
RE: FOIA 2006
Dear Mr. Renkiewicz:
This letter serves two purposes; to respond to your denial of the above-referenced Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request and to request an additional appeal as it relates to your refusal to comply
with the above-referenced FOIA request.
I am in receipt of your previously-issued letter regarding the file at issue. Per 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(2), (b)(7)
(C) and (b)(7)(D), you are deleting portions of the file and withholding one page in its entirety, claiming an
exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(D). It is well settled that, as a government agency, you bear
the burden of demonstrating that materials sought under FOIA are not agency records and that such
records have not been improperly withheld. See Katz v. National Archives & Records Admin., 862 F.
Supp. 476, (D.D.C. 1994) affirmed 68 F.3d 1438, 314 (C.A.D.C. 1995). To date, it is our contention that
you have failed to sufficiently meet your burden of proving that such information previously requested on
multiple occasions was properly withheld. Furthermore, there is a strong presumption in favor of
disclosure of documents under FOIA and any exemptions are to be narrowly construed. Anderson v.
Department of Health and Human Services, 907 F. 2d 936, (C.A.10 Utah 1990). As such, FOIA places the
burden on the agency to justify withholding of any requested documents, and burden remains with agency
when it seeks to justify redaction of identifying information in particular document as well as when it seeks
to withhold entire document. U.S. Dept. of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991). As such, please allow this
letter to serve as an exhaustion of all administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Thomas v. Office of U.S.
Attorney for the East Dist. of New York, 171 F.R.D. 53 (E.D.N.Y. 1997).
Last but not least, as a member of the United Nations and INTERPOL’s National Central Bureau, a
complete investigation is not only necessary but warranted especially since the National Central Bureau is
the national center for police cooperation issues. Your failure, as a signatory country, to abide by the U.
N. bylaws by ensuring justice is served shows a lack of international courtesy, diplomacy, and respect.
And additionally, Mr. Renkiewicz, you have also failed to abide to ICPO-Interpol Rules on
Processing of Information for the Purposes of International Police Cooperation, particularly to
Article 5 that clearly states NCBs huge duties of care with personal information processing and
NCBs responsibilities.
I hope that this matter can be handled without any more unnecessary delay.
Sincerely,
Marie Campus, Director
CS 1 GROUP LEGAL OFFICE Co.
