DOJ Tells Me It Can't Find Any Internal Guidelines For When It Seeks Gag Orders For Subpoenas
from the difficult-to-believe dept
Earlier, I wrote about how I sent two FOIA requests over the bogus gag order that Assistant US Attorney Niketh Velamoor obtained to silence Reason.com about the bogus subpoena he sent to identify some rowdy commenters. The two FOIA requests were for: (1) the original application for the gag order and (2) any DOJ guidelines on when to apply for a gag order.As we noted, I just received a response to the first FOIA request, in that I was told the DOJ could find no responsive documents. That seemed quite bizarre, given that just a few weeks earlier, the DOJ itself had released exactly that document and it appears to match up exactly with what I asked for in my FOIA request.
The DOJ also responded to my second request and -- guess what? -- it's the same damn thing. Yup, the DOJ says it has no responsive documents for any guidelines on when to seek a gag order on a subpoena.
If the first is the case, and we have evidence of that based on the other FOIA response, then the DOJ needs to overhaul its FOIA efforts to actually align with the law itself, which requires them to provide responsive documents. The fact that it's bad at its job (again, on purpose or not) runs counter to the letter and spirit of the law and should be fixed.
If the latter is the case, then that's also a serious problem. A gag order in a legal proceeding should only be used in very rare circumstances, and given the fact that this particular gag order was granted based on almost nothing, rubber-stamped by a judge who didn't seem to care about the details, the DOJ really ought to have some fairly detailed guidelines that need to be followed before some kid working in the US Attorneys' office can try to hide what he's doing out of embarrassment (as appeared to be the case here). I will be asking the DOJ to explain this lack of guidelines and will continue to report on what it has to say.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, foia, gag order, guidelines
Companies: reason
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Make It Up As You Go Along(tm FBI)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There may not be any. Gag orders are rare and extra-ordinary as you remark, can't be rigidly defined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There may not be any. Gag orders are rare and extra-ordinary as you remark, can't be rigidly defined.
If you don't like TD's policies, you're welcome to go elsewhere, or start your own.
Governments don't work that way. They claim and enforce an monopoly on power. The level of scrutiny required is different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There may not be any. Gag orders are rare and extra-ordinary as you remark, can't be rigidly defined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There may not be any. Gag orders are rare and extra-ordinary as you remark, can't be rigidly defined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There may not be any. Gag orders are rare and extra-ordinary as you remark, can't be rigidly defined.
Why, so you can find a way to game it? WTF do you care? If it's so offensive to you, go somewhere else, somewhere that appreciates your timeless wisdom and deep insight.
Or, be like the rest of us and try to learn from what others offer. Nobody's forced to agree with anything here, other than be civil, respect the views of others even when you disagree with them, and try not to look like someone's paying you to astroturf and bludgeon others into agreeing with your viewpoint. That doesn't actually work, you know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There may not be any. Gag orders are rare and extra-ordinary as you remark, can't be rigidly defined.
It's very cute how you proclaim this to be the reason for reports rather than the actual reasons of being abusive, offtopic, or spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transparency is anathema.
My first thought was, "Ha, hahahahahaha!"
However, based on other articles I've read (including here), they've apparently been intentionally doing the opposite of what you suggest. It's not uncommon for FOIA filers to have to file multiple times, specifying exactly which database the info would be found in, none of which are named or advertised outside the agency in question.
The DoD hates the 1st Amendment & Freedom of the Press, most agencies despise FOIA, and the president himself has nothing but contempt for whistleblowing.
I see a pattern at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transparency is anathema.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whenever we gd feel like it.
Yours,
DOJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read between the lines
Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General records. and no records responsive to your
request were located...
That means the requested information is not in the electronic database, or is not within the named departments, or is not being maintained.
(I'm sure others can come up with better excuses than I can.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guidelines would only interfere with the freewheeling DOJ culture we've come to know and love post 9/11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Post 9/11? Awfully optomistic there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ain't "National Security" a grand thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guidelines? Guidelines?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new here
Some of the staff members would spend all day rummaging through the vaults looking for exciting films (those of Col. Stapp taking rocket sled rides were particularly prized). Fifteen minutes before the bus was to leave they would go to their desks, take everything in the "IN" box, write "No record" on the request, and drop the forms in the "OUT" box.
So she told me then, anytime you write a government office and ask for something, if it comes back "no record" always ask again, and hope that this time it lands on the desk of someone who is actually doing his job.
My guess is that the odds of finding a conscientious government worker at the US Attorney's office of Southern District of New York in 2015 are substantially lower than the odds of finding one at a DoD film archive in southern California in 1955. So the fact that you got a "no record" for something that obviously exists is not particularly surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]