D.O.J. stonewalls Leader v. Facebook FOIA request – telegraphs a rat's maze to avoid public scrutiny & accountability
(Sep. 26, 2013)—On Jan. 21, 2009 President Obama declared "a democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency." Apparently, the Department of Justice (D.O.J.) and the Patent Office didn't get the memo.
The mission of the D.O.J. is to "ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."
On Aug. 15, 2013 the D.O.J.'s Vanessa R. Brinkman responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information regarding Leader v. Facebook with anything but transparency.
Even though the request was addressed according to instructions on the D.O.J. FOIA website, the D.O.J. Office of Information Policy (OIP) who "processes Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) requests" said nonsensically "this Office nor any of these senior leadership [including the Attorney General] typically maintain records on specific court cases."
[Editorial: This statement deserves a ROTFL (rolling on the floor laughing). Here we have our chief law enforcers claiming ignorance about conflicts disclosure information from the people who work for them. This is reminiscent of the President first learning about the IRS scandal from the evening news. If our leaders are not in charge, who is? Answer: The Facebook Club, we think.]
The response goes on to inform the requester that the D.O.J. system for handling FOIA requests is "decentralized" and that the requester should consult http://www.justice.gov/oip/oip.htm. Humorously, this website gives the Office of Information Policy contact information—the very ones making the suggestion. In short, contact us, then we'll tell you to... contact us again... then, we'll keep suggesting that you contact us until we've generated lots of official looking paper for our files... and/or until you give up.
The D.O.J. Merry Go Round
Let’s get this straight.
1. According to the D.O.J. website (http://www.justice.gov – in the bottom right sidebar titled "Justice.gov" click "FOIA" which goes to:
2. OIP (http://www.justice.gov/oip/). The menu on that page presents "OIP FOIA" which goes to the contact information for:
3. OIP FOIA (http://www.justice.gov/oip/oip.htm).
4. However, Ms. Brinkman responds that while OIP "processes" requests, they don't "maintain records." Huh? This is reminiscence of the Seinfeld car reservation episode where the car rental agency takes reservations, but they don't hold those reservations.
[Cue circus music.]
Why do we pay these people?
These D.O.J. people are either incompetent, or they are intentionally obscuring the FOIA process to discourage public transparency. If its either reason, why do we pay them? The Requester appealed this embarrassing D.O.J. conduct. Click here to read the appeal (also displayed at the end of this post).
Brinkman took great pains to spell out what they do not, will not and are not required to do. The “decentralized” nature of the D.O.J. FOIA system was emphasized, but nowhere was it mentioned that the D.O.J. website promises to "forward your request to the D.O.J. component they determine is most likely to maintain the records you are seeking."
D.O.J.'s FOIA policy toward U.S. citizens. Graphic: 7thBoro
The reader is left with the impression that Brinkman could not be bothered, or is hiding something. Perhaps both.
Given the D.O.J.’s obstruction, the requester spelled out a list of people and organizations suspected of misconduct in Leader v. Facebook, including their possible collusion with members of the Department of Justice. This person even suggested basic search instructions.
D.O.J.’s "decentralized" FOIA maze prevents scrutiny
The D.O.J.’s “decentralized” FOIA data processing system appears to be at cross purposes with the law of the land on conflicts of interest disclosure. That information should be readily accessible, not hidden inside a rat's maze of deceptions and misdirection. The fact that it is hidden begs the question, "What is so important to hide that the D.O.J. won't follow mandates for which they are supposed to be the chief law enforcers?"
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires mandatory, public disclosure of financial and employment history of public officials and their immediate family.
In 2006, well before Leader v. Facebook, the Judicial Conference mandated automated conflicts screening for courts and judges.
How the Facebook Club hijacked U.S. Politics
The misconduct revealed by the Leader scandal begs the question: “What drives the Department of Justice these days, the U.S. Constitution or the Facebook Club?”
The requester's list reads more like a shadow U.S. Government. Their conduct certainly gives one pause:
- President Obama's protection of Facebook to preserve his 47 million "likes" on Facebook; White House reliance on confiscated private property to sustain its power;
- 16,000 Patent Office Facebook "likes" protected by Director David J. Kappos, using a patented system stolen from Leader Technologies which the Patent Office is right now trying wipe off the map by autocratic fiat;
- Fabricated "likes" are used to titillate and manipulate low-information voters (just enough to statistically manipulate any close election);
- Deregulated Internet electioneering founded upon fraudulent misrepresentation (by Perkins Coii LLP partners — long time person counsels of Barack Obama);
- Protection of the stolen Facebook platform for electioneering and global financial manipulations via massive judicial misconduct in Leader v. Facebook;
- Lack of electioneering accountability and transparency over the private Facebook data manipulation of "likes" without equal access;
- Substantial foreign influence in American electioneering via intertwined Facebook Club relationships; and
- Facebook's Washington, Silicon Valley and Moscow law firms and financiers undermining the Constitutional separation of powers—to secure their own, led by their mentor, Lawrence "Larry" Summers.
We could go on, but the evidence is clear . . .
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." (Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act I)
Dept. of Justice FOIA Appeal, OIP/13-04526 (F) VRB:VAV:CMW, Vanessa R. Brinkman, Aug. 15, 2013 by Americans For Innovation
* * *Footnotes:
 Barack Obama on Gov't Transparency, The White House, Memorandum of January 21, 2009. ''Title 3 – The President, Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.'' Presidential Documents, Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 15, FR Doc. E9-1773, pp. 4683-4684, Jan. 26, 2009 <http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/foia_rr/President_Letter_re_FOIA_Jan-21-2009.pdf> ("A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.").
 Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Wikipedia. Accessed Sep. 26, 2013 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_Government_Act>.
 Mandatory Conflicts Screening For Courts & Judges. Judicial Council of the District of Columbia Circuit. Accessed Sep. 26, 2013 ("On September 19, 2006, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a mandatory conflict screening policy requiring courts and judges to implement automated screening to identify financial conflicts of interest.") <http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20Rules%20Policies%20Procedures%20-%20Mandatory%20Conflict%20Screening%20Plan/$FILE/mandatoryconflictplanfinal2.pdf>.
 D.O.J. Leader v. Facebook Request, Response, Appeal. USPTO FOIA Appeal, OIP/13-04526 (F) VRB:VAV:CMW, Vanessa R. Brinkman, Aug. 15, 2013 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/usptp/2013-08-27-USPTO-FOIA-Appeal-NAME-REDACTED-OIP-13-04526-F-VRB-VAV-CMW-Aug-27-2013.pdf>.