I am sorry there is little that I can add to this. Some time ago I asked some American friends if they could find the results of part two of the Taos Investigation, They contacted the University of New Mexico and were informed that no information on the final investigation was available, funding had been withdrawn and the investigation was now closed. I also contacted the UK government pointing out the similarity between Hum sufferers in the USA and the UK asking if it would be possible for an exchange of information, I received no answer to this. I believe something important was discovered during the investigation but it will be difficult to find out exactly what this was.
On Apr 6, 10:27 am, dboots <[email protected]> wrote: > Is their any place on the web we can find this document that is > copied and pasted here??? Did Greg Long give up after these > denial's back in 1995? Has anyone else attempted to get the document > released using FOIA??? > > Not all FOIA's appeal's go to this length in explaining exactly > what the denial reasoning behind it is based on Thanks for posting > this, but is their a web link > to this document ??? > > On Apr 5, 1:37 am, John Dawes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Greg Long, Case No. VFA-0060, August 15, 1995 > > > Case No. VFA-0060, 25 DOE ¶ 80,129 > > August 15, 1995 > > DECISION AND ORDER > > OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY > > Appeal > > Name of Petitioner:Greg Long > > Date of Filing:July 14, 1995 > > Case Number: VFA-0060 > > On July 14, 1995, Greg Long of Philomath, Oregon filed an Appeal > > from a > > determination issued on June 29, 1995 by the Albuquerque Operations > > Office > > (Albuquerque Operations) of the Department of Energy (DOE). That > > determination > > denied in part Mr. Long's request for information submitted pursuant > > to the > > Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by > > the DOE > > in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. This Appeal, if granted, would require the > > DOE to > > release the withheld information. > > The FOIA requires that agency records which are held by federal > > agencies, and > > which have not been made public in an authorized fashion by a > > covered branch > > of the federal government, generally be released to the public upon > > request. 5 > > U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). In addition to this requirement, the FOIA lists > > nine > > exemptions that set forth the types of information which may be > > withheld at > > the discretion of the agency. 5 U.S.C. § 5552(b)(1)-(b)(9). See also > > 10 C.F.R. > > § 1004. 10(b)(1)-(b)(9). The DOE regulations further provide that > > documents > > which may be exempt from mandatory disclosure will nonetheless be > > released to > > the public if the DOE determines that disclosure is not contrary to > > federal > > law and is in the public interest. 10 C.F.R. § 1004.1. > > I. Background > > In a letter dated March 23, 1995, Mr. Long filed a FOIA request > > with > > Albuquerque Operations seeking two related categories of > > information. The > > first category concerns the investigation of a mysterious and > > unexplained > > "hum" reported by many people in and around Taos, New Mexico. In > > particular, > > Mr. Long noted that Sandia National Laboratory had been involved in > > exploring > > this phenomenon starting in > > 1991. The second category asks for documents in which Sandia > > personnel > > explored similar "hums" elsewhere in New Mexico. > > Albuquerque Operations reported to Mr. Long on June 29, 1995 that > > Sandia > > National Laboratory had provided one responsive record for each > > category. The > > first, the "Electromagnetic Test Report, Electromagnetic > > Investigation of the > > Taos Hum, Test Report, dated September 27, 1994," was released in > > its > > entirety. The second document, a draft report on "other possible > > sources of > > the Taos 'Hum.'" was withheld in its entirety. Albuquerque > > Operations > > explained that the report was never finalized because funding for > > the project > > had been terminated. Accordingly, Albuquerque Operations withheld > > the document > > under the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5 of the FOIA > > on the > > grounds that the document contained preliminary opinions and > > findings which > > were never finalized. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); 10 C.F.R. § 1004.10(b) > > (5). > > Albuquerque Operations did provide Mr. Long with findings done by a > > team at > > the University of New Mexico who were working in conjunction with > > the Sandia > > National Laboratory team. Mr. Long has appealed the withholding of > > the draft > > report. > > II. Analysis > > Exemption 5 of the FOIA exempts from mandatory disclosure documents > > which are > > "[i]nter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would > > not be > > available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with > > the > > agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); 10 C.F.R. § 1004.10(b)(5). The > > Supreme Court > > has held that this section exempts "those documents, and only those > > documents, > > normally privileged in the civil discovery context." National Labor > > Relations > > Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975). Among these > > privileges > > is the "executive" or "deliberative process" privilege. This is the > > privilege > > that Albuquerque Operations relied upon in withholding information > > in this > > case under Exemption 5. > > The "executive" privilege shields from mandatory disclosure > > documents, > > advisory in nature, which are created during agency consideration of > > proposed > > action, and which are part of the decision-making process. Coastal > > States Gas > > Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980). > > Thus, > > application of the privilege "under (b)(5) depends not only on the > > intrinsic > > character of the document itself, but also on the role it played in > > the > > administrative process." Lead Industries Assoc., Inc. v. > > Occupational Safety > > and Health Admin., 610 F.2d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 1979) (Lead > > Industries). > > As a result, to withhold an intra- or inter-agency document under > > the > > "executive" privilege of Exemption 5, it must be both predecisional, > > i.e., > > "antecedent to the adoption of agency policy," and deliberative, > > i.e., "it > > must actually be related to the process by which policies are > > formulated." > > Jordan v. Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 773 (D.C. Cir. 1978). > > See also > > Assembly of California v. Department of Commerce, 968 F.2d 916, > > 920-21 (9th > > Cir. 1992); Formaldehyde Inst. v. Department of Health and Human > > Services, 889 > > F.2d 1118, 1122 (D.C. Cir. 1989). That is to say, a document must > > not only be > > prepared as part of agency consideration of some matter, it must > > also "bear on > > the formulation or exercise of policy-oriented judgment." Ethyl > > Corp. v. > > Environmental Protection Agency, 25 F.3d 1241, 1248 (4th Cir. 1994); > > Petroleum > > Info. Corp. v. Department of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1435 (D.C. > > Cir. 1992); > > Playboy Enterprises v. Department of Justice, 677 F.2d 931, 935 > > (D.C. Cir. > > 1982). While the Albuquerque Operations determination in this case > > explains > > the first prong of this test, it does not address the second. > > Therefore, the > > determination does not adequately explain its basis for withholding > > and, we > > will remand this matter to Albuquerque Operations for a new, more > > detailed > > determination. > > In making a further determination in this case, Albuquerque > > Operations should > > also consider the fact that even if a document meets the criteria > > set forth > > above, the document may not be simply withheld in its entirety. The > > FOIA, as > > implemented by 10 C.F.R. § 1004.10, requires that "[a]ny reasonably > > segregable > > portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such > > record > > after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this > > subsection." 5 > > U.S.C. § 552(b). See The Oak Ridger, 21 DOE ¶ 80,120 at 80,564-65 > > (1991) (and > > cases cited therein); Boulder Scientific Co., 19 DOE ¶ 80,126 at > > 80,577 (1989) > > (and cases cited therein). In the context of the "executive" > > privilege of > > Exemption 5, this means that non-deliberative material ordinarily > > should be > > released to the requester. Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink, > > 410 U.S. > > 73, 87-91 (1972). The only exceptions to the command of segregation > > are where > > exempt and non-exempt material are so "inextricably intertwined" > > that release > > of the non-exempt material would compromise the exempt material, > > Lead > > Industries, 610 F.2d at 85, or where non-exempt material is so small > > and > > interspersed with exempt material that it would pose "an inordinate > > burden" to > > segregate it. Id. <1>In this case, it appears that no attempt was > > made to > > segregate and release non-exempt material. In addition, we note that > > the > > withheld document contains factual statements and graphs that do not > > appear to > > be deliberative. This non-exempt material should be released to Mr. > > Long. > > On remand, Albuquerque Operations should also consider whether > > Exemption 5 can > > be applied to this draft in a manner which is consistent with the > > guidance > > contained in the Memorandum from Janet Reno, Attorney General of the > > United > > States, to Heads of Departments and Agencies (October 4, 1993) > > (Reno > > Memorandum). See also Memorandum from William Jefferson Clinton, > > President of > > the United States, to Heads of Departments and Agencies, 29 Weekly > > Comp. Pres. > > Doc. (No. 40) 1999, 2000 (Oct. 11, 1993) (noting the importance of > > FOIA and > > its centrality to the Reinventing Government initiative). That > > memorandum > > indicates that whether or not there is a legally correct application > > of an > > exemption, it is the policy of the Department of Justice to defend > > the > > assertion of a FOIA exemption only in those cases where the agency > > reasonably > > foresees that disclosure would be harmful to an interest protected > > by that > > exemption. See Reno Memorandum, at 1, 2 (Oct. 4, 1993). As the > > Attorney > > General stated, an agency should withhold information "only in those > > cases > > where the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would be > > harmful to an > > interest protected by that exemption. Where an item of information > > might > > technically or arguably > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hum Sufferers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hum-sufferers?hl=en.
