« My Latest LLRX Article -- An Editiorial About Funding FOIA | Main | DHS IG Makes Finding On Political Reviews »

March 29, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

kay sieverding

I sued DOJ under 5 USC 552a for summarily imprisoning me for 5 months on the pretext that I was a vexatious litigant. I was not accused of perjury, intimidation, disrupting a court room, or any other crime. I wasn't arraigned and there was no bail hearing. USMS admitted to having details about my third party civil lawsuits and claimed that is why USMS imprisoned me. (I tried to get a different judge after I had been assigned to former judge Edward Nottingham who dismissed my First Amendment Retaliation claim against the City of Steamboat Springs CO and Kevin and Jane Bennett without a jury trial and without a memorandum opinion.)

DOJ wrote “In Sieverding V, this Court held that PTS records concerning Mrs. Sieverding are exempt from Subsection (e)(7)” “The systems of records the Sieverdings appear to attack in this action – with one exception – are the same ones that featured in Sieverding V and are exempt from Subsection (e)(7)." "The systems of records the Sieverdings appear to attack in this action – with one exception – are the same ones that featured in Sieverding V and are exempt from Subsection (e)(7)”.

The law actually says "(j) General exemptions The head of any agency may promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements (including general notice) of sections 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c), and (e) of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from any part of this section EXCEPT subsections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i) if the system of records ….” (Emphasis added.) http://www.justice.gov/opcl/privstat.htm

“(k) Specific exemptions The head of any agency may promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements (including general notice) of sections 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c), and (e) of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) and (f) of this section if the system of records is—“ http://www.justice.gov/opcl/privstat.htm

So the plain language of the law says that an agency cannot exempt itself or its systems of records from its obligations under 5 USC 552a e(7) but in court this month DOJ said the exact opposite. So whatever senior DOJ says about transparency is obviously just for show. I guess DOJ thinks that winning by lying to a pro se litigant is like taking candy from a baby. See DDC 11-0090 Sieverding v DOJ # 2

Kay Sieverding

In Sieverding v. DOJ # 1, DDC 09-0562, DOJ wrote "Plaintiffs’ Privacy Act claims against the USMS involve records related to investigation, arrest, detention, or transportation of Mrs. Sieverding by the USMS and are ALL contained in and transmitted by the USMS’s Warrant Information System (“WIN”), Prisoner Processing and Population Management System (“PPM”), or Prisoner Transportation System (“PTS”). [emphasis supplied]

However, USMS also had Joint Automated Booking System records about me. JABS was published in the Federal Register as being a system completely exempt from liability lawsuits but when it was put in the Code of Federal Regulation that was modified to allow liability lawsuits when a person had asserted that they were incorrectly identified or not charged with a federal offense, which I did. When I first wrote to USMS FOIA officer Bordley the return package didn't include a list or description of its contents. In December 2010, I wrote again to Mr. Bordley and got a printout, dated Dec 2010, of JABS records for myself created in Colorado when I was taken into custody on a minute order of former judge Nottingham. I wrote again to Bordley and asked if there were JABS documents for me in Western Wisconsin too and they wrote back this week and said that they would not respond to any more records requests for USMS records about myself. That is NOT TRANSPARENCY

Another issue that DOJ has been not forthcoming about has to do with whether warrants for my arrest went through the Warrant Information Network. I think that they did not because they don't have a warrant number and that they were just cut and paste documents designed to obstruct justice and deprive my rights under color of law. Real warrants have numbers. Again USMS doesn't want to answer the question.

DOJ also submitted an affidavit from USMS FOIA counsel William Bordley. He may be a good person but he is blind. Bordley's affidavit did not disclose that Bordley is blind and did not identify a person who read the affidavit to him. The affidavit has a date inconsistency which would be obvious if read aloud. The affidavit implied that there were no JABS records. Bordley would have suspected that because in 2005 95% of all USMS arrests went through JABS. I think that another DOJ lawyer, probably David Rybicki, wrote the document and pasted a tiff of Bordley's signature into it. Again NOT TRANSPARENCY.

I wrote several times to DOJ's USMS component asking for the 2005 USMS JABS user manual which was referenced in the DOJ Office of Inspector General audit of JABS. USMS didn't even acknowledge that request when sent by mail until I was able to use their new on-line request and also sent it to DOJ's special FOIA office for unknown components. So the new system is potentially better because you can prove what you asked for.

One area in which DOJ could improve is to have meetings of its Data Integrity Board. It is required to have the committee by 5 USC 552a (u) but they never meet, or haven't in years. In the meantime, DOJ
is getting involved in a lot of arrests that are not related to federal offenses. I even read about the USMS chasing someone who allegedly stole a car. In 2005, OIG found a 3% error rate in a small sample of JABS records. If the DOJ Data Integrity Board actually had meetings, then there would be an opportunity for the public to bring up the rights of the accused and the rights of those like myself who are summarily imprisoned without a published process.

Over the years I wrote to DOJ many times complaining about summary imprisonment, creation of records about myself that concerned my third party lawsuits, (which DOJ did not file a motion to intervene in), creation of records without a statutory purpose, release of records of imprisonment without a criminal charge for the purpose of stopping me from getting a hearing on the merits in my claims against the City of Steamboat Springs CO etc. With few exceptions, DOJ will not acknowledge these documents.

The Nazi records show that they had detailed records about people they brought to Auschwitz and other concentration camps. We need to handle our records and systems of records so that we can't repeat Auschwitz in this country. As I understand it, one factor in the Holocaust was that the lawyers didn't protect PRO SE rights and then when Jews were not allowed to have law licenses, they had no PRO SE rights to fall back on. Yet in my case, DOJ argues that summary imprisonment is appropriate if a person is PRO SE and a judge orders it. So it seems to me that our government could actually imprison a lot of PRO SES and open concentration camps to keep those who are found in "civil contempt", which is apparently what happened in the Holocaust when Jews resisted signing over their financial assets, as I did.

It is BS to say that the US shouldn't build controls into its computer systems to prevent internment of people without a criminal charge. Even if you think that genocide could never happen in the U.S. because we are better than people in Germany, Poland, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia etc. Our Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act have inspired similar laws in other countries. Now, they are watching how we implement them. We need to implement them in a way that will prevent illegal internment, genocide, and harassment of litigants.

Kevin Davidson

It's not just Homeland security. The Department of State has been dragging it's feet and giving me the runaround for over 2 years, just trying to get a copy of passports issued to Obama's deceased mother.

The comments to this entry are closed.