No 99-1569
___________________________________________________________
In the United States Court of Appeals
For the Fourth Circuit
___________________________________________________________
Robert Clarkson
Appellant
Vs
Department of Defense
Appellee
___________________________________________________________
On appeal from the Judgment of the US District Court
For the District of South Carolina
___________________________________________________________
Memorandum in Support of Informal Brief of 24 May 99
___________________________________________________________
Robert Clarkson, pro se
515 Concord Ave
Anderson SC 29621
864-225-3061
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents..........................................i
Statement Regarding Oral Argument..........................i
Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations.......................i
Statement of the Issues....................................i
Statement of the Case......................................i
Statement of the Facts.....................................4
Argument
Issue I: Clarkson Met the Criteria.........................9
Issue II: The Fee was Excessive, Inflated.................13
Issue III: Responsive Records Released....................15
Conclusion................................................17
Certificate of Service....................................17
Exhibits A, B & C
Statement Regarding Oral Argument
Due to the nature of this case and the issues, this Court's understanding of the
issues and facts would be assisted by oral argument. Defendant pro se is a former
practicing attorney and able to present properly an oral presentation.
Disclosure of Corporate Affiliation
Appellant does hereby certify that neither party is a publicly held corporation.
No business or corporation has an interest in this case or the outcome of this appeal.
Statement of the Issues
1. Clarkson Met the Criteria for Fee Waiver
2. The Fee was Excessive, Inflated and False
3. All Responsive Records Should be Released
________________________________________________________________________________________
United States Court of Appeals For the Fourth Circuit
Robert Clarkson ) No 99-1569
Appellant-Plaintiff )
) Memorandum in Support of
Vs ) Informal Brief
)
Department of Defense )
Appellee-Defendants )
On appeal from the Judgment of the US District Court for the District of South Carolina Appellant-Plaintiff Robert Clarkson hereby files his Memorandum to Support his Informal Brief which was filed in this case on 24 May 99.
Statement of the Case
This case began in 1995 when Plaintiff Clarkson filed a series of FOIA request to
defendant Department of Defense (hereafter DoD) and also the US Air Force Special
Operations Command (SOC). Clarkson filed his administrative appeals and met all
procedural requirements. The USAF made a partial disclosure of responsive records
but the DoD refused to disclose any documents to Clarkson because he sought a fee
waiver of the almost $1000 charge for searching.
The complaint in this case was filed on 27 June 97 and properly served, etc. Clarkson
filed ample discovery. Defendants answered the complaint timely.
On 18 Dec 97, the Air Force filed its motion to dismiss; DoD followed and on 14
Jan 98, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the DoD's dispositive motion.
In April 98, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation which dismissed
Clarkson's case on the procedural ground of lack of jurisdiction. Clarkson appealed
the Magistrate' Recommendations to the District Court Judge.
On 22 June 98, the District Judge Sol Blatt, Jr. overruled the Magistrate's Repot
on the issue of jurisdiction and ruled in favor of Clarkson on that issue. Then
in the same order, the District Court made rulings on the substantive issues involving
the two separate defendants. The Honorable Judge Blatt granted summary judgment
to Defendant USAF SOC but remanded the DoD part of the case back to the magistrate.
On 14 July 98, the Assistant US Attorney on behalf of the DoD, filed her Motion
to Amend Caption, to separate the two cases or two defendants now that separate
rulings had been issued. Without objection by Plaintiff, the Magistrate on 28 July
98, granted the DoD wishes, separated the two cases. However, the AUSA has been
denying that order ever since. In any event, the DoD now has its own case, separate
from the USAF SOC case, even though the same docket number is used below.
The Air Force case proceeded separately with motions and orders. On 22 July 98,
the trial court granted summary judgment to the Air Force and promptly Clarkson
appealed to this Court. The Air Force part of the original case, now separate, was
docked in the 4th CCA as No. 98-2289. On 4 Dec 98, Clarkson filed his informal brief
with attached memorandum/brief. On 30 Mar 99, the 4th Circuit issued some type of
order in this case which Clarkson does not understand and the current status of
that case is also not understood.
In any event, the DoD case is now separate and involves entirely non-related issue,
i.e. Clarkson's justification of fee waiver in his FOIA request.
On April 5, 1999, Judge Blatt issued his order in this DoD case granting summary
judgment to defendant DoD. Then on April 6, the clerk of the district court issued
his "Judgment in a Civil Case". On 22 April 99, Clarkson filed his Notice of Appeal
and this appeal follows. On 24 May 99, Clarkson filed his Informal Brief in this
case, to which this Memorandum in Support Informal Brief is to be attached.
United States Court of Appeals For the Fourth Circuit
Robert Clarkson ) No 99-1569
Appellant-Plaintiff )
)
Vs ) Memorandum in Support
) of Informal Brief
Department of Defense )
Appellee-Defendant )
Statement of the Facts
Well-known con man and shyster Morris Dees swindled the US
Air Force into buying his fund-raising tract to pass out in Air Force classes. Dees's
political group Southern Poverty Law Center which is famous for providing money
and support to people who murder police officers, used its political connections
to even put one of its agents into a military classroom as an instructor.
Appellant Clarkson investigated this story, mainly by using the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) and publicized it. This is the subject of part of this lawsuit, which
was or is on appeal here as Clarkson vs USAF, #98-2289.
The FOIA Request
Clarkson broadened his investigation to include the US Army Special Operations Command
at Ft Bragg, NC and sent them FOIA request. Unlike the Air Force, the Army tried
to hide its connection with Dees and used various bureaucratic tricks to keep Clarkson
and the other FOIA requestors from the truth.
Clarkson's FOIA request form included the standard words for a request for a waiver
of FOIA search and copying fees. But the army in order to keep its connection with
Dees secret not only refused to grant a fee waiver but dreamed up a $900 bill to
locate and copy one booklet and a few slides.
In his FOIA request for documents dated 31 Jan 97 to the Joint Special Operations
Command (JSOC) at Ft Bragg, Clarkson requested two sets of records:
A. The Commanders Handbook on Extremist Groups with
accompanying slides; and
B. All of the supporting documents, references, evidence,
research material, proofs, etc.
Defendant DoD acknowledged having the Handbook and slides but refused disclosure
of anything until the outrageous fee were paid. Later, the Army released the Handbook
and slides to other requestors without any charges or fees. The research material,
references have not been released to anybody except a few pages.
Info Seeking
The DoD sent Clarkson a series of letters demanding more and more information from
Clarkson, most of which was irrelevant and clearly designed to harass or scare off
the requestor.
Clarkson responded to all these request and furnished the sought information, which
then led only to more requests for information. Clarkson's letters are attached
as exhibits A & B.
Clarkson clearly explained in his initial FOIA request that no commercial use of
the sought records was intended, planned or likely and that the information would
be used to educate the American people about the activities (illegal) of the DoD.
Clarkson repeated this in more detail again and again in his letters. See exhibits
A & B. He explained that he would use the information to write articles; send copies
to elected officials and “think tanks" - public policy foundations; that he would
dissimulate the results to the media, interested persons and political groups. Clarkson
furnished names of newsmagazines that had expressed interest and his credentials
as doctorate degree from University of South Carolina. The DoD and certainly the
DOJ were well aware of Clarkson extensive political activities.
Clarkson had already sent information gathered in the companion suit against the
AF SOC to activist and the US Senate which made an investigation. The Air Force
was already complaining about Clarkson spreading the word about its illegal political
surveillance.
However, mainly the DoD demanded to know what articles Clarkson would write about
the undisclosed documents. Unfortunately, when these demands were made, the JSOC
had not yet released any of the requested documents. Clarkson did not know at that
time what documents the Army had and thusly was unable to explain in detail what
he would do. Clarkson's failure to detail his
future action with the unknown records was the basis of the DoD's final rejection
of the fee waiver request.
The JSOC also demanded proof of Clarkson ability to dissimulate the information
released- at the same time the AF sac was complaining to Congress about Clarkson's
excessive publicity about the AF SOC's illegal political surveillance.
Clarkson complied with this excessive request (see exhibit A & B) but was of course
unable to do so with the extreme portions of it. For example, Clarkson was unable
to provide copies of his speeches since he made no recordings of them.
Plaintiff did respond to the never-ending request for political information about
him and his letters did fully explain his potential, ability and credentials.
The Excessive Claim
The DoD dreamed up a $900 bill for location one booklet and a few slides. This was
a grossly inflated search fee, unreasonable and only used to harass and to scare
a private citizen from exercising his rights under a federal remedial act.
The real purpose of course was to conceal and hide documents pertaining to the Army
illegal political campaigns, which violate several statues including the Privacy
Act. In the 1970's the prior Army illegal political document gathering program was
exposed and defendant had to payout millions in damages. Plus, the DoD promised
not to do this again. Apparently, the military departments forgot the painful lessons
of the Vietnam era.
The DoD was not only determined not to release any responsive records to Clarkson
even after making a partial disclosure to others, but also to use the unpaid search
cost to prevent Clarkson, a well-known researcher on illegal acts of federal agencies,
from using the FOIA again with the military.
A top Air Force lawyer wrote Clarkson on 7 Nov 97 to inform him that his unpaid
search bill from the army would under the FOIA law foreclose him from any further
FOIA request. This was evidence that the AF SOC was in contact with the Army SOC
and the DoD knew very well that Clarkson would heavily publicize any released records.
After Clarkson filed suit and discovery, the DOJ even sent Clarkson discovery on
the issue of his ability to dissimulate any disclosed information. Clarkson complied
fully and completely with all the interrogatories and proved that he was eligible
for fee waiver. DOJ discovery in an FOIA case is most rare and generally just harassment.
The DoD refused to answer any of Clarkson reasonable and relevant discovery requests.
In his answers to interrogatories, Clarkson furnished the names and addresses of
publications, political groups and writers that had expressed interest in articles
and any information that Clarkson might uncover. Without seeing the records, that
was all that was possible.
The Phony Hours
Clarkson disputes not only the phony denial of fee waiver but also the excessive
number of hours claimed and the failure of the lower court to order answers to Clarkson's
discovery on the search.
The hours of searching listed by the government in their declaration by Meeks (documents
093 thru 099) are clearly fictitious or evidence that some discovery is warranted.
For example, Doc #95 list 40 hours of search time but nothing found. Forty hours
is a full weeks work by an expert in documents. This is obviously false because
if nothing were there, such would have been discovered sooner. When a federal agency
makes such a preposterous claim, discovery should be automatically allowed, or more
so, encouraged. Doc #095 claims 9 hours correspondence but none of this was provided
to Clarkson or the Court. Doc 097 lists 10 hours foe correspondence but no evidence
of such was presented even though discovery requested such. Doc # 099 claimed 52.75
hours of search time, i.e. six 8+ hour days by document specialist but not a single
record found to prove search was actually performed. Then another 12+ hours for
correspondence but no copies of such voluminous work submitted as evidence.
These excessive hours do reveal a serious case of fee inflation in violation of
the spirit and letter of the FOIA, or providing false documents to the court. This
declaration by a federal employee should be investigated.
Discovery
Without discovery, we do not know how much was inflated or false but we do know
that the DoD has a strong incentive to cover-up an illegal political surveillance
campaign of unknown size. Since the army's claim has not been verified, the entire
suspicious claim should be disregarded.
A little discovery would have solved this entire problem. As everybody knows, when
discovery is allowed, all those non-existent records are quickly produced and the
dispute ended. If the claims on expended hours were truthful, the government would
have been glad to answer a few questions.
In conclusion, the Army has been caught once again collecting records and spying
on private citizens who have no connect with any legal function of the military.
Once the facts are disclosed and the media and political groups have made enough
noise, then the political leaders can make the necessary decisions. Of course, before
this familiar political process can take place, the truth must be known. That is
the purpose of this action.
Issue I: Clarkson Met the Criteria for Fee Waiver
The lower Court erred by granting summary judgment for defendant when the facts
were hotly disputed and the law was against the government's position. The purpose
of the FOIA law is disclosure, especially when the Army's gathering and publication
of information on civilians was doubtful legality.
The purpose was simply to delay release of documents it knew it would eventually
disclose (and did), keep Clarkson from investigating illegal acts, and use the overwhelming
resources of the government against a private citizen with limited resources.
The issue here is whether Clarkson is eligible for fee waiver, or more specific,
whether Clarkson's request for fee waiver was adequate or rather Clarkson's proof
of his eligibility for fee waiver.
Clarkson clearly meets the criteria for fee waiver, has submitted adequate information
to prove such and the defendant was wrongful in denying his request for fee waiver.
This court should order the DoD to release all responsive records and grant the
fee waiver to which law entitles to Plaintiff, or remand to the lower court for
a ruling to that effect.
Clarkson clearly stated that a public purpose was behind his request, which the
request itself clearly showed. The nature of the FOIA request meant to any observer
that this request was in the public interest and that no commercial interest was
obviously involved. What was Clarkson going to do with the booklet? Resell it? Use
it for firewood? Obviously the nature of the requested records was such that no
commercial interest could exist and that the only possible purpose of Clarkson gaining
access to these records was to distribute them to the mass media, to certain political
groups and their specialized media, to elected officials, etc.
Clarkson ask this court to rule that the government record keepers use common sense
and recognize that certain records could not have any commercial use.
Also, Clarkson replies to the army (exhibits A & B) were all the information that
was available at that time and Clarkson should not be compelled to submit articles
about DoD illegal activities before Clarkson has the information in front of him.
The DoD's information hunt from Clarkson was a crude attempt to harass him and require
him to produce articles and books which he did not have, were no use to the DoD
and an excessive burden for a simple request for a small booklet, which was made
public by others.
Clarkson fully explained his media contacts, his credentials, purposes, etc. What
else could he do? Clarkson has published already some of the information released
by the AF SOC on the Internet, political magazines, etc. The books that the JSOC
wants to see are only in preparation stages now.
Clarkson meets the test or criteria for fee waiver under this open-government statute's
1986 amendments, in that the info would benefit the public (i.e. exposing and thereby
halting illegal activities), would be widely distributed, lead to beneficial results
(i.e. save taxpayers money from DoD's foolish witch hunts), etc. The government
has just shown their normal foot-dragging, intransigence and cheep tricks so to
never make public evidence of official wrongdoing and will continue such until stopped
by the courts.
The DoD denial of fee waiver was arbitrary, capricious and an effort to conceal
evidence of illegal acts; plus violating the spirit and purpose of the freedom of
information statute.
Clarkson has met his burden to justify fee waiver in his letters and responses to
DoD discovery. Instant requestor provided sufficient details for the agency to make
an informed decision but was unable to produce articles which were not yet written.
Clarkson also submitted proof that others received the book and slides by filing
in the lower court copies of pages from the book (attached here as exhibit C).
That seems to be the principle ground of the trial court for granting summary judgment.
However, all the FOIA request forms were the same and all written by Clarkson which
everybody knows.
The leading case of Mess V Carlucci 835 F2d 1282 (9th 87), the CCA footnoted: "public
interest may be peak precisely when there is potential for private lawsuits against
the government". The DOJ knows that Clarkson advocates that citizens defamed in
government publications exercise their rights under the Privacy Act. Plaintiff meets
these criteria.
Further, the MESS case noted that DoD regs identify elements a court should consider:
1) "the operation or activities of the government sought" to be exposed. Here, Clarkson
seeks to expose another illegal COINTELPRO surveillance campaign, which violates
several federal laws.
In Carney v DOJ 19 F3d 807 (2d 94), the appeals court provided the test: "In determining
whether disclosure of records will contribute significantly to the public's understanding
of the operations or activities of the government, it is relevant to consider the
subject matter of the request and the ability of the requester to disseminate the
information." Pg 814. The Air Force is already complaining about Clarkson's wide
distribution of info on these type requests.
In these request Clarkson hopes to expose to the public that taxpayer funds are
being used to collect and maintain records by the military of innocent civilians.
Why else would he bother to make these requests? The DoD should be required to use
common sense. Clarkson has furnished ample proof to satisfy the second Carney test:
that he can and has a history of publishing info from FOIA request to embarrass
federal agents engaged in wrongful conduct. Clarkson has published a newsletter
for 25 years, as he clearly explained to the DoD.
Further, Carney at 814: “Information may not actually reach a broad cross-section
of the public in order to benefit the public at large. “The DoD denied Clarkson's
fee waiver request because Clarkson was writing for small conservative magazines
and the DoD only accepts the mass media, which supports of course the people in
power. Clarkson furnished the name of two magazines which were not accepted by defendants
even though they are popular with many Patriotic Americans.
Carney, again at pg 815 U we reject the DOJ's contention that (the requester) was
required to prove that his articles and book be published. -- An impossible standard
anyway.
In NTEU v Griffin 811 F2d 644 (1987), the DC Circuit reasoned: “Society undoubtedly
has an interest in discovering and subjecting unlawful agency action to public scrutiny
U which is what Clarkson is doing. Exposing unlawful acts is definitely in the public
interest, which is the key to fee waiver.
Clarkson's position from the beginning has been that the public, media, elected
officials, private policy foundations, etc should be informed about the DoD political
surveillance
operation so the proper authorities can decide after proper public debate, whether
this record keeping on private citizens is a proper function of the Army. Who should
make the determination on what Americans are to be labeled "international terrorist"?
A politically unaware army captain in secret or the court thru a fair and open process?
Well, the Commander's Handbook on Extremist Groups, the slides and the vast amount
of unreleased records are filled with inaccuracies, misstatements, slander and the
type of mistakes you would expect the military to make. Writing books about American
Politics is the last task one would assign to the army anyway.
The case of NTEU v Griffin, supra at pg 648 also points out: “Such request... must
also indicate that a fee waiver or reduction will PRIMARILY benefit the public."
This Clarkson emphasized. Since Clarkson was not mentioned in the released records,
he had no direct benefit and thusly, only the public at large would receive the
benefit.
Everybody would benefit from complete exposure of the army's new assignment, especially
the military which is particularly unsuited for this type work.
The NTEU case further supports Clarkson, at pg 649: “the legislative history of
the fee waiver provision indicates special solicitude for journalist, along with
scholars and public interest groups." Plaintiff's activities in publishing newsletters,
books, articles are well known; he is the leader of several public interest groups
and is a known authority of the illegal political activities of the federal agencies.
Issue II: The Fee was Excessive, Inflated and False
Clarkson explained in the Statement of Facts above that the fees for searching and
correspondence did not make sense, were suspicious to say the least and probably
false. Even though long hours were claimed for correspondence, no letters were produced
and if Clarkson's reasonable discovery had been allowed, these figures would have
been greatly reduced.
The trial court erred in believing such long hours could have taken place and for
halting discovery. In cases of suspicious hours where the agency has reason to conceal
records, the courts should order full discovery.
Other courts have recognized this problem. In NTEU vs. Griffin 811 F2d 644 (DC 87)
the CCA at pg 650 held: “Indeed, the 1974 amendments to FOIA adding the language
on fee waivers and reasonable standard charges were clearly aimed at preventing
agencies from using high fees to discourage request." Here the DC Circuit condemned
fee inflation and unreasonable charges.
Clarkson's request was clear, definite and pointed directly to the booklet that
sat on the desk of the involved people. In a few seconds, the officials dealing
with this subject knew exactly what Clarkson requested and where it was located.
The majority of the cost came from agencies that were not mentioned in the request
and would not have had the material anyway.
The other requestors were not charged a cent to locate or receive copies of the
book. The fruitless searches only accomplished what they intended: to run up the
cost to dissuade
Clarkson from pursuing these records. And, if these cost stand uncorrected by this
court, Clarkson under the FOIA will be prevented from ever requesting records from
the military. This constitutes incentive for the DoD to falsify cost. In cases like
this, the courts should order discovery/not stop it.
The Commanders Handbook is a crude attempt of politically unaware Army officers
to be (as they claim)”politically correct"; labels many pro-American citizens as
"un-American"; uses guilt by association; open the military and its naďve officers
to damage suits; waste the taxpayers money; violates remedial laws; makes the military
look foolish.
The sooner the courts stop this foolishness, the better off we will all be.
The purpose of the government's recalcitrance in this case is to hobble the FOIA
act. Clarkson's past activities and capacity is much greater than that of most requestors,
which the SOC knew from the format of the request and his many letters. A ruling
for the Appellee would halt the expose of wrongful conduct by powerful federal agents
unless a big business interest with deep pockets was involved. This was hardly the
purpose of the Congress which passed the initial FOIA and the 1986 amendments which
were suppose to lessen the requirements for fee waiver.
This court should order discovery on these unreasonable charges or remand for the
lower court to do so.
Issue II: The Fee was Excessive and Inflated
[Ed. Note: This portion of the brief was impossible to recover due to technical difficulties. We recommend looking up this appeal in the court's records if this information is desired.]
Issue III: All Responsive Record Should Be Released
Clarkson not only requested the Commanders Handbook and slides but also, all supporting
documents, references, research material, etc. The JSOC admitted having the handbook
and slides but denied having any documents that prove the serious allegation about
innocent civilians mentioned in the book. Appellant submits to the courts the proposition
that a book of this magnitude which accuses so many of being extremist, terrorist
and un-American would not be published and distributed without some evidence that
the allegation are true, correct and timely.
Actually, most of the information came from the 60's era, probably was not accurate
then and labels many groups that we then led by current members of the Clinton Administration.
Appellant recommends that somebody at the Fourth Circuit look at these books distributed
by the military. At least the Air Force slander sheet was current. Neither book
though had any mention of any foreign group or people.
Clarkson had attached hereto Exhibit C, the Preface to the Commanders Handbook that
shows this was a project of some defense agency (which normally would have many
records) and based upon the research of Captain Poppert, who undoubtedly had some
research records, notes. Commonsense is that somewhere many more records exist.
Either the search charges are false or a very sloppy investigation was carried out,
neither of which was intended by the authors of the open government laws.
Eventually the individuals falsely labeled in the SOC books will sue for damages
under the Privacy Act (unless the SOC can prove the accusations are true) and then
the DoD will have to produce the records they claim do not exist. Why not make the
revelations now and start the clean up. If history is any guide, the SOC unless
stopped now, will continue this outrage until the cover-up explodes. Better now
than later.
Clarkson main objection to this vast SOC project of labeling conservatives and 60's
radicals as terrorist and dangerous is that it diverts limited defense funds from
needed and worthwhile defense needs. The Air Force and Army SOC books are more foolish
and silly than dangerous and threatening but unless stopped these projects like
the COINTELPRO will grow and grow to falsely accuse more Americans, many of whom
will sue and cost the taxpayers millions.
In 1969, Clarkson was a 2nd Lt. at Ft Jackson. As a local resident, he was called
in by Army Intelligence to identify pictures of local anti-war protestors and their
literature. Clarkson saw pictures of his high school and college classmates who
liked to party and attend demonstrations. This Army undertaking (part of COINTPRO)
was ridiculous and a waste of money. And, they did not learn from past mistakes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we all know the facts of life: The federal agencies only do what
the federal courts allow. Also, the FOIA is, as the authors intended, more than
a release of records.
A court order to release documents is a court order in all effects to stop certain
activities of the federals. Certain actions as domestic spying cannot withstand
exposure.
Now in this case, the Fourth Circuit has an opportunity to halt the political surveillance
of the several sacs, or even better, force them to reform, stop the silliness and
do what they are supposed to do which is to protect the borders. The FBI etc are
designed and able to combat domestic terrorism. The sac books are really very poor
quality and could never withstand public scrutiny.
The question finally is what does the Fourth Circuit approve or disapprove on the
issue of domestic surveillance by the military? Or, should the informed public decide?
Date 3, June 1999
Robert Clarkson
515 Concord Ave
Anderson, SC 29621
864-225-3061
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify that on this date this I sent properly
a copy of memorandum to the US Attorney in South Carolina.
Robert Clarkson
________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit A
Robert Clarkson
00108-177-camp
PO Box 150160
Atlanta, GA 30315
Ms Kathryn Meeks
Command FOIA Officer
US Special Operations Command
7701 Tampa Point Blvd
MacDill AFB, Fl 33621-5323
Re: US SOC Command FOIA # 97-08
Dear Ms Meeks:
I received your letter dated 18 Mar 97. My request is to further public understanding
of the activities of the Department of Defense, in particular, USAF SOC and no commercial
use is intended or expected.
My request is in the public interest as the information will be distributed to elected
officials, public policy foundation or "think tanks" and to the news media. Several
newsletters and magazines have already expressed interest to me about the material
and are expected to publish the information which I request.
I plan to make the records released, available to any interested parties and contribute
to media articles. I have written for nonpaying, public interest media before.
If you examine the requested material, you can see that it is political information,
not related to defense, and the type that the news media would be very interested
in examining. Nothing that I requested is related to national defense. I can send
you more information if you desire.
As to my qualifications, I have a doctorate degree from the University of South
Carolina and have many contacts with the media, public officials and political groups.
I have written books and articles.
As you can tell by the type of documents requested, this information will be of
great interest to many people. Attached is an expanded FOIA form. Please comply
with my new request. (Assigned USSO Com FOIA Control #97-13)
25 Mar 97
Yours,
Robert Clarkson
________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit B
Re: USSOCOM FOIA control number 97-08
ROBERT CLARKSON 001 07-177-cmp
P.O. BOX 150160
ATLANTA, GA 30315
To: Capt. Kathy Galinger,
USN for John Meyer, Col,
USA Command Information Management Branch
MacDill AFB, FL
Dear Capt. Galinger:
In regards to your letter of 17 Aug 97, many newsletters and magazines have published
my article before and have expressed interest in any information about political
activities of the USAF, including The Free American and Americas Bulletin.
I do not have with me any articles that I have published before but your files mention
me several times and I am sure. your political surveillance operations have information
on me.
In any event, your request for information on my political activities is unwarranted,
a violation of my rights under the First Amendment and considered by me to be harassment.
The political activities of free Americans including myself, is of no interest to
the military.
Since you asked about my free speech activities, under the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552a
subsections e3 & e7, I hereby ask you to tell me what statute authorizes you to
request this information, what you plan to do with it and inform me whether my answer
is mandatory or voluntary.
I meet the criteria for a fee waiver and I have furnished you the necessary information.
Your continued request for information about me and roadblocks or refusal to release
the information is in violation of the spirit and the letter of the FOIA law.
I requested a fee waiver; I am entitled to it, so please grant it and send me the
documents I requested. The $925 made-up fee is incorrect, unlawful and a cheep attempt
to prevent me from exercising my rights under the law.
Please send me your book Commanders Handbook on Extremists and other political literature
that you have collected on American Citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights
to be active in free speech actions. Also, send me a copy of your rules and regulation
that allow the military to keep records on the political beliefs and activities
of free American citizens.
Date: 2, Sept 1997
For Freedom,
Robert Clarkson
________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit C
PREFACE
Captain Patrick E. Poppert, USAF, served as a participant in the Topical Research
Intern Program at the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) during
the month of January 1994. He conducted the necessary research and prepared this
report. The Institute thanks Captain Poppert for his contributions to the research
efforts of DEOMI.
February 1994
LOCAL REPRODUCTION IS AUTHORIZED AND ENCOURAGED