Specially-Designated ‘FOIA Denial Officers’ Are Handling The Education’s Rejected Requests

August 14, 2014 § Leave a comment

Specially-Designated ‘FOIA Denial Officers’ Are Handling The Dept. Of Education’s Rejected Requests
from the we’ve-got-some-bad-news-and-some-bad-news dept
While you would think this position exists at multiple agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA, the NYPD), it’s never been captured in stark black-and-white. Morgan Smith, reporter for the Texas Tribune, recently tweeted out a photo of a rejected FOIA request. A rejected FOIA is not necessarily newsworthy. But it is when it’s been rejected by someone bearing the unlikely title of “FOIA Denial Officer.”

Taylor D. August, of the Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, is also a FOIA Denial Officer. Considering the government’s general antipathy towards transparency, you’d think several agencies would have a full-time request denier on staff. But while many agencies spend more time stonewalling and denying requests, only the Dept. of Education actually has designated employees on hand solely to reject requests.

A look at the DOE’s FOIA FAQ gives us the first clue:
10. Who has the authority in ED to withhold documents (in part/whole)?

The FOIA Officers, the Office of Inspector General and the Regional FOIA Denial Officers have the authority to withhold documents.
It appears this agency is extremely well-equipped to handle numerous rejections. Three tiers of rejection are available to requesters, running all the way up to the OIG. There’s no reason given as to why the DOE would need regional “denial officers,” but this position traces back to 2006.

In a section titled (of all things) “Customer Service,” the DOE details its FOIA response automation, which routes through the Office for Civil Rights. Citing the “significant number” of requests it receives (at that point averaging around 900 per year), the agency detailed its efforts to keep up with the paperwork.
To further customer service with respect to FOIA and Privacy Act requests, OCR has been a significant participant in the Department’s initiative to automate case management under these laws. Executive Order 13392, “Improving Agency Disclosure of Information,” issued on Dec. 14, 2005, emphasizes the need for more efficient and effective processing of FOIA and Privacy Act requests.
What most of us would believe was an order intended to increase the release of responsive documents, the DOE read it as an indication it wasn’t rejecting requests efficiently enough.
In addition, in FY 2006, consistent with Executive Order 13392, OCR established new FOIA procedures, including delegation to the 12 OCR office directors of the authority of FOIA denial officers. This allows FOIA requests to be processed in a more efficient and timely manner, and establishes clear accountability for FOIA processing.
As of 2006, the DOE had 12 more officials dedicated solely to rejecting FOIA requests than all other government agencies combined. (Unofficial numbers obviously impossible to obtain, much less verify, but the term “FOIA denial officer” produces search results that indicate only the DOE has such a position.)

More details on the “Denial Officers” can be found in the agency’s FOIA policies and procedures (embedded below.) Here’s the definition of the term:
Denial Officers. The FOIA Officers, the Secretary’s Regional Representatives, or officials designated by them (Regional FOIA Review Officers), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) who are authorized to withhold records, in whole or in part, that fall within one (1) or more of the nine (9) exemptions or three (3) exclusions of the FOIA.
Initial determinations are made by regular FOIA officers who look for possible withholding exemptions and consider fee waivers. This is handled regionally and requests possibly eligible for rejection are passed on to one of the 12 regional denial officers.
In each instance in which it is recommended that record(s) or portion(s) thereof be withheld, carefully separate materials to be withheld from those to be released, redact (e.g., remove) all exempt information from the records, and forward a copy of the redacted materials, along with an unredacted version for comparison, to the appropriate denial official. Indicate where in the records the redactions occur and why the relevant exemption(s) apply;

In each instance where “no responsive records” are located, forward (a) a memorandum to the appropriate denial official describing with particularity what records (both electronic and hard copy) were searched, search times (differentiating between computer search times and manual searches since there is a different fee rate assessed for each of these searches), and who conducted the search, and stating that the search results were negative together with (b) a draft denial letter to the requestor to be signed by a FOIA Officer;
Denial officers will always be the be the bearer of bad news.
If the denial official agrees with the recommendation to deny the request, the denial official notifies the requestor in writing of the decision to withhold the information, in whole or in part, and informs the requestor of his/her appeal rights.
However, the denial officer isn’t solely limited to writing rejection letters. He or she can also push back.
If the denial official disagrees with the recommendation to deny the request, he/she notifies the FOIA Coordinator and the PO Action Office and directs the FOIA Coordinator to provide the records to the requestor.
At which point, the requester receives the responsive documents thanks to a denial officer, but from someone whose title is less resolutely negative. As much fun as it might be to press the REJECT button, denial officers will never know the joy of making a requester happy. It’s a thankless job with a brusque title… unless you’re the sort of person who enjoys doling out rejection or simply takes pride in your work, no matter what that work might mean.

It seems odd that the DOE would stand alone in its creation of a FOIA Denial Officer. So many government agencies are more than happy to reject request after request (and appeal after appeal), but none have been so brutally honest as to create a position solely for this purpose. The DOE’s system may actually be more streamlined than those at comparable agencies, but only the DOE has the strength of character to let requesters know that a fully and specifically trained expert is behind their request’s rejection.

Parental Alienation Judges and Liars need training

December 7, 2016 § Leave a comment

Phillips flags parental alienation and calls for ‘targeted’ training
December 3, 2016Cristina Cavilla
Phillips flags parental alienation and calls for ‘targeted’ training
The Shadow Minister for Justice, Elliott Phillips, has called for the targeted training of Gibraltar’s judiciary, lawyers and other professionals to better recognise instances of parental alienation.
Parental alienation involves the psychological and emotional manipulation of a child with the sole purpose of destroying the loving relationship they once shared with a parent.

It is an issue that arises from family breakdowns and custody disputes and is a growing phenomenon that Mr Phillips hopes to raise awareness of and the “devastating” consequences it can have on children as well as the ‘alienated’ parent.
“One of the things that concerns me the most is that we are really at the embryonic stage of all of this in Gibraltar,” Mr Phillips said highlighting how the United States, in particular, has gone leaps and bounds in recognising and identifying parental alienation syndrome.

The appearance they could be wrong in all their findings

December 6, 2016 § Leave a comment

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of December 5, 2016 at 9:00:00 AM:

Full Licensed Name: David John Wessel
Full Former name(s): None
Date of Admission as Lawyer
by Illinois Supreme Court: May 3, 1982
Registered Business Address: David John Wessel
205 W Randolph St Ste 1630
Chicago, IL 60606-1894
Registered Business Phone: (312) 558-3000
Illinois Registration Status: Active and authorized to practice law – Last Registered Year: 2016
Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information) In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she has malpractice coverage.
Public Record of Discipline
and Pending Proceedings: None


December 5, 2016 § Leave a comment


Like this one M.R.24458 – In re: L. Tod Schlosser. (May 18, 2011)

Disciplinary Commission.

The motion by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to approve and confirm the report and recommendation of the Hearing Board is allowed, and respondent L. Tod Schlosser is DISBARRED.

Order entered by the Court.

Recent Disciplinary Decisions from Supreme Court | Recently Filed Complaints and Reports | Announcements | Schedule of Hearings | Clerk’s Office Services


This page contains links to recently filed opinions and announcements of disciplinary decisions issued by the Supreme Court and the dates listed below. The list is sequenced in inverse chronological order with the most recent filing at the top. Click on a date listed below to go to the opinions and/or announcements issued on that date.NEW FILINGS

November 21, 2016
September 22, 2016
May 18, 2016
March 22, 2016
January 21, 2016
November 17, 2015
September 21, 2015
May 14, 2015
March 12, 2015
January 16, 2015
November 20, 2014 (opinion)
November 13, 2014
September 12, 2014
May 16, 2014
March 14, 2014
January 17, 2014
November 20, 2013
November 15, 2013 (opinion)
September 25, 2013
May 22, 2013
May 20, 2013
March 15, 2013
January 18, 2013
November 19, 2012
September 17, 2012
May 18, 2012
March 19, 2012
January 20, 2012 (opinion)
January 13, 2012
November 22, 2011
November 17, 2011
September 26, 2011
September 22, 2011 (opinion)
September 20, 2011
May 18, 2011
March 21, 2011
January 19, 2011
November 12, 2010
September 23, 2010
September 22, 2010
September 20, 2010
May 18, 2010
May 17, 2010
March 16, 2010
January 21, 2010
November 17, 2009
September 22, 2009
June 4, 2009 (opinion)
May 18, 2009
March 16, 2009
January 20, 2009
November 18, 2008
September 17, 2008
September 16, 2008
May 19, 2008
March 17, 2008
January 23, 2008
November 20, 2007
September 18, 2007
May 18, 2007
March 19, 2007
January 12, 2007
November 17, 2006
September 21, 2006
September 20, 2006
May 18, 2006 (opinion)
May 16, 2006
March 23, 2006 (opinion)
March 21, 2006
March 20, 2006
January 17, 2006
January 13, 2006
November 22, 2005
September 27, 2005
September 26, 2005
June 13, 2005
May 20, 2005
May 19, 2005
March 22, 2005
March 18, 2005
January 14, 2005
November 19, 2004
November 17, 2004
September 27, 2004
September 24, 2004
May 18, 2004
May 17, 2004
May 14, 2004
March 15, 2004
March 12, 2004
January 23, 2004 (opinion)
January 20, 2004
January 16, 2004
November 20, 2003 (opinion)
November 20, 2003
November 17, 2003
November 14, 2003
November 14, 2003
October 16, 2003
October 14, 2003
September 25, 2003
September 24, 2003
September 22, 2003
September 19, 2003
May 22, 2003
April 1, 2003
March 19, 2003
January 24, 2003
January 23, 2003
November 26, 2002
November 21, 2002 (opinion)
September 20, 2002
September 19, 2002
May 24, 2002
March 26, 2002
March 22, 2002
January 30, 2002
January 29, 2002
January 28, 2002
November 28, 2001
November 29, 2001
September 21, 2001
September 20, 2001

The appearance of some real scumbags AKA child reps…

December 5, 2016 § Leave a comment

So i have posted some US case laws, here is one from Illinois. I will be concentrating on them for a few days (prepping for trial)
Illinois State Supreme Court case (NOT a federal)
Bates v Bates, 819 N.E.2d 714 (2004) ILLINOIS
– Dr. Richard Gardner referenced several books on PAS and an index of 56 articles on PAS.
– He described PAS as a disorder arising primarily, if not exclusively, in the context of child custody disputes
– it results from the combination of one parent’s programming or brainwashing a child into a campaign of denigration against the other parent, and the undue in documentation of the child by the programming parent with his or her own inflated “contributions”
– Dr. Robert B. Shapiro, a clinical psychologist, licensed in Illinois and a member of the Board of Evaluate families in custody disputes, also testified that PAS was generally accepted by the relevant psychologically community, observing that “I don’t know anybody who doesn’t accept it.”
– the court found “that the principle of Parental Alienation Syndrome is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular filed.”
– Dr. Gardner defined PAS as a psychiatric disorder arising in the context of a child custody dispute
– In this disorder, one parent “programs” or “brainwashes” a child into a campaign of denigration against the other parent, even though that other parent is generally good and loving
– The denigrating custodial parent inflates his or her own contributions, and PAS arises as a result of a combination of both the undue denigration and the inflated heightening of the custodial parent’s contribution
– the trial court found that Edward had proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that S.B.’s present environment seriously endangered her physical, mental, moral and environmental health, and that it was in S.B.’s best interest that Edward be awarded sole custody immediately
– the court the words “parental alienation syndrome,” basing its findings instead on the standard set out in Section 602(a)(8) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/602(a)(8)), namely:
– “the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the parents and child.”
– the trial court recited that it would consider the report (from the GAL) “for what its worth” along with many other factors, abd, therefore, any error in considering the report was not prejudicial — 342 Ill.App. 3d at 214-15
– the private interest involved here is the right of parents to the companionship, care, custody, and management of ther children
– in Lassiter v Department if Social Services, 452 US 18, 27, 68L.Ed.2d 640, 649-50, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 2159-60 (1981), the Supreme Court held that right to be an important interest, warranting deference and protection, absent a powerful countervailing interest
– we have also recently held that one of the fundamental rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment is the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children without unwarranted state intrusion — Wickham v Byrne, 199 Ill. 2d 309, 316 (2002)
in In re Andrea F., 208 Ill.2d 148, 165 (2003), a case involving termination of parental rights, this court held that parents have a fundamental due process right to the care, custody, and contril of their children
– the representative, like any other witness, is not immune from error in observation and from inadvertent bias.
– The proper weight to be given the report of a child;s representative may be influenced by nay factors, including his training and experience, the contacts between the representative, the parties, and the child, and the existence of any bias or tendency to favor one gender of parent over the other
– cross-examination is likely to affect the trial court’s assessment of the worth of the representatives recommendations in many cases
– Section 506(a)(3) is unconstitutional
– representative’s report was received in evidence, read, and relied on by the trial court, and, thus Norma’s right to procedural due process was denied
– Section 610 of the Act allows modification of a prior custody judgement, absent consent, only if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, upon facts that have arisen since or were unknown at the time of prior judgement, that modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child — 750 ILCS 5-610
– the trial court found that S.B.’s present environment seriously endangered her physical, mental, moral or emotional health and that a substantial change in circumstances had been proved by clear and convincing evidence
– the court expressly considered the standards for determining best interests set out in Section 602 of the Act, including “(8) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child.” — 750 ILCS 5/602(8)

Legally Kidnapped

December 5, 2016 § Leave a comment

Legally Kidnapped
Police probe death of 1-year-old boy in foster care
International adoptions may get harder due to proposed U.S. regulations
Attorney: Accused in social worker killing unfit for trial
Glynn an anomaly in Georgia foster-care crisis
State cannot issue child care licenses for family detention centers, judgment finds
Police probe death of 1-year-old boy in foster care
Posted: 04 Dec 2016 07:07 AM PST

A Greenwich woman is grieving the death of her 1-year-old son after police say the child died in Bridgeport while in the care of foster parents.

More >> Police probe death of 1-year-old boy in foster care
International adoptions may get harder due to proposed U.S. regulations
Posted: 04 Dec 2016 06:48 AM PST
Michael was one of more than 15,000 children adopted internationally in 1998. But by 2015, that number had dwindled to 5,647.

And now, international adoption agencies worry that a sweeping set of proposed State Department regulations could erode that number further.

More >> International adoptions may get harder due to proposed U.S. regulations
Attorney: Accused in social worker killing unfit for trial
Posted: 04 Dec 2016 06:34 AM PST
A hearing is expected to be held early next year to help determine if a woman charged with killing a social worker and three relatives in Vermont is fit to stand trial.

More >> Attorney: Accused in social worker killing unfit for trial
Glynn an anomaly in Georgia foster-care crisis
Posted: 04 Dec 2016 06:20 AM PST
Child foster care issues are well-known in Georgia. Now Georgia’s foster-care problems are known nationwide.

The Associated Press published an article Nov. 13 reporting five states account for almost two-thirds of the national increase of children in foster care. Leading those five is Georgia, which according to the report went from 7,600 foster-care children during September 2013 to 13,266 in October of this year.

More >> Glynn an anomaly in Georgia foster-care crisis
State cannot issue child care licenses for family detention centers, judgment finds
Posted: 04 Dec 2016 06:09 AM PST
A judge issued a final judgment Friday to prevent the state from issuing a child care license for family detention centers, such as the 2,400-bed immigration detention center in Dilley or a 1,000-bed center in Karnes County, according to the Austin-based advocacy group Grassroots Leadership.

More >> State cannot issue child care licenses for family detention centers, judgment finds

lots of waste and more to go ?

December 5, 2016 § Leave a comment


A List of proposed Republican budget cuts [ Notice Social Security and
Military are NOT on this list.]

The following are all of the programs that the new Republican House of
Representatives majority
has proposed cutting:

* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy — $445 million annual
* Save America ‘s Treasures Program — $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland — $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation — $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts — $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities — $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program — $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies — $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs — H.R. 2274 (in last Congress),
authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion
* U..S. Trade Development Agency — $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy — $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding — $47 million
annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy — $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund — $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid — $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half — $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% — $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service — $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program — $70 million annual savings.
* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program — $125 million annual
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization — $530 million
annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment — $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit — $2 billion annual savings.
ª Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their
Trading Partners in Massachusetts — $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants — $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning — $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission — $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration — $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act — $1.15 billion
annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy — $1.27 billion annual
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership — $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program — $52 million annual savings.
* Economic Assistance to Egypt — $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development — $1.39 billion annual
* General Assistance to District of Columbia — $210 million annual
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority — $150
annual savings.
* Presidential Campaign Fund — $775 million savings over ten years..
* No funding for federal office space acquisition — $864 million annual
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act — More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it
(such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury,
instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget — $1.8
billion savings over ten years.
* Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees — $1 billion
total savings.
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees —
$1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of
— $15 billion total savings.
* Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies — $1 million annual savings.
* Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental
Climate Change — $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN’T THAT
* Eliminate Market Access Program — $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program — $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
$93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program —
$56.2 million annual savings.
* Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs — $900 million
* Ready to Learn TV Program — $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

* The TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

My question is, what the hell is all of this horse shit doing in the budget
in the first place?!

How many times does the child’s constitutional get violated to have parents is directly related to attorneys and judges ?

November 18, 2016 § Leave a comment

If there was no litigation the appearance the scumbags wouldn’t get extortion monies out of the noncustodial parent is just unjust and business as usual in ILLINOIS.