Larry W. Bryant’s UFOview

 



November 5, 2009

Item 2.53: Update on Bryant's "Bleak House" Redux (See Items 2.41, 2.32, and 2.31)

Were he alive today, court chronicler Charles Dickens probably couldn't help chuckling over how the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency remains unable to resist playing games with certain FOIA requesters. In my own case of Bryant v. Central Intelligence Agency (filed on May 20, 2009, in U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia), the latest gamesmanship exudes from the hand of CIA FOIA official Delores M. Nelson, who, in late-2008, refused to honor my FOIA requester status as a "representative of the news media" and to conduct the requested records search. Her Oct. 21, 2009, letter to me (quoted below) sets the stage for my eventual legal victory (to include full reimbursement of my attorney's fees).

== TEXT OF MS. NELSON'S 21 OCT 09 LETTER TO LWB ==

Reference: F-2008-01781

Dear Mr. Bryant:

This is a final response to your 23 August 2008 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, and subsequent litigation, for the following CIA-received and CIA-generated records:

(1) As pertain to the convening, attendance roster, briefings, minutes, and all other related documentation of the 1987 special meeting at FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C.;

(2) As pertain to all other similar cases of airborne UFO encounters reportedly occurring since November 17, 1986, to date.

We processed your request in accordance with the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. Section 552, as amended, and the CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C. Section 431, as amended. Our processing included a search for records as described in our 23 June 2009 letter existing through the date of 15 June 2009.

No records responsive to item 1 were located. With respect to item 2, we have located United States Government material that was not originated by CIA. This material appears to be relevant to your request and has been referred to its originating agency for review and direct response to you. Please note that the CIA regulations governing administrative appeals provide that no appeal shall be accepted if the information in question is the subject of a pending litigation in the federal courts.

Sincerely,

Delores M. Nelson
Information and Privacy Coordinator
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
LWB Note: In adhering to the CIA culture of secrecy for secrecy's sake, Nelson's insistence on not identifying the "originating agency" that surfaced during her records search amounts to a needless cat-and-mouse game (at taxpayer expense, of course).

Moving to the legislative side of CIA gamesmanship, we have the below-quoted 29 Oct 09 response to my letter of June 30, 2009, to Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (a member of the U. S. Senate Committees on Armed Services and on Foreign Relations). Webb's public service, by the way, includes a tour as secretary of the Navy (and many of us accept the fact that the Navy department long has had the lion's share of managing the official U. S. cover-up of the UFO-E.T. experience).

== TEXT OF SEN. WEBB'S 29 OCT 09 LETTER TO LWB ==

Dear Mr. Bryant:

I have received the enclosed correspondence from the CIA in response to my inquiry on your behalf.

Again, thank you for writing. As your Senator, I hope that you will contact me anytime you feel that I may be of assistance to you with any problem of a federal nature. Please contact my Northern Virginia Office, at 7309 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 316, Falls Church, VA 22042.

With warm regards, I remain

Sincerely,

Jim Webb
United States Senator
JW:gs
Enclosure

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
LWB Note: Webb's enclosure consists of a printed-out e-mail message of Oct. 28, 2009, from a CIA employee identified by his e-address (timothrr@ucia.gov); it's addressed to Webb staffer Gwen Sigda and contains the following non-commitment:

"Good Afternoon Gwen,

"Per our conversation, this email is in response to your letter dated 15 July 2009, regarding your constituent, Mr. Larry Bryant. My office has forwarded Mr. Bryant's correspondence to the appropriate internal office, who will consider it given this and past correspondence from Mr. Bryant. I unfortunately can't make any guarantees what will happen with Mr. Bryant's request from here, but I wanted to let you know that we have forwarded it to the appropriate office for review.

"I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

"Thanks,
"Tim"

Can we presume that Tim's reference to the "appropriate internal office" means the CIA inspector general's office? -- the very office that, to date, continues to ignore my May 30, 2009, request that it investigate the CIA mistreatment of former FAA official John J. Callahan back in 1987. This gamesmanship poses the question of who's investigating the investigators here --- shouldn't it be the U. S. Senate?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

LAWSUIT Update: In late October 2009, the assistant U. S. attorney defending the CIA in Bryant v. Central Intelligence Agency succeeded in gaining from the judge an additional enlargement of time in order to file an answer (or otherwise respond) to my complaint. Now the court's deadline for the Justice Department's response is set for January 11, 2010. Stay tuned.

http://ufoview.posterous.com

Comments [0]

October 29, 2009

Item 2.52: Why Is the USAF-OSI Lying about Bentwaters? (See Item 2.51)

"Whenever an agency of the U. S. government lies to any citizen, that agency not only betrays the public trust but also merits no further confidence from the body politic." -- Larry W. Bryant (10/30/09)

The agency in question here happens to be the U. S. Air Force's law-enforcement arm, the Office of Special Investigations, headquartered at Andrews Air Force Base, Md.

In her Oct. 22, 2009, letter to me, OSI FOIA official Anne C. Costa falls on her sword of denial by asserting that the OSI headquarters possesses none of the requested records pertaining to the RAF Bentwaters' UFO-E.T. encounters of December 1980. If the UFO-coverup whistleblowers in this matter are telling the truth, then whoever controls the sought-for records is lying -- plain and simple.

At this point, whom would you trust: (a) several highly trained and highly morally fit-to-serve ex-servicemembers; or (b) certain historically untrustworthy bureaucrats committed to deceiving the public as to the reality and persistence of UFO-E.T. encounters? The OSI record of deception goes back to the 1950s and 1960s, when various OSI agents were helping USAF intelligence elements gather hard-core evidence of UFO reality while the USAF public affairs community was studiously down-playing the depth and value of that behind-the-scenes OSI activity (which, incidentally, included clandestine observation/recordation of certain critics' vocal disdain for propagandized USAF policy/practices re the "UFO problem").

Of course, if the OSI hierarchy is NOT lying about its alleged nonpossession of this essential evidence of UFO-E.T. visitation at Bentwaters, then which is the more egregiously unacceptable outcome: (a) the official destruction/loss of critically valuable (and permanent) records that could help solve the UFO-E.T. mystery; or (b) the unaccountability of a federal agency's deceiving the public as to what it knows, and when it knew it, about the content of those records?

As you ponder your choice, you might wish to add Ms. Costa's kiss-off letter to your history files on classic cases of UFO-E.T. intrusion at military bases worldwide:

== TEXT OF MS. COSTA'S 22 OCT 09 LETTER TO LWB ==

Dear Mr. Bryant,

This letter is in response to your 04 October 2009 Freedom of Information Act request for records regarding an "encounter with a landed alien spacecraft during the night of Dec 26, 1980 in the forest near the east gate of RAF Bentwaters, England" and "the separate incident of Dec 28, 1980". We received your request on 16 October 2009.

Since your request is for records that may have originated from RAF Bentwaters, England, your request has been forwarded to USAFE/A6OK (FOIA), Unit 3050 Box 125, APO AE 09094-0125 for a direct reply to your request.

We have conducted an extensive search of our files and ran Defense Clearance and Investigations Index (DCII) checks. It has been determined that the Air Force Office of Special Investigations is not maintaining any information responsive to your request. In addition, we are enclosing an Air Force Fact Sheet regarding UFO related topics for your information. AFOSI FOIA 2010-FOIA-00023 has been administratively closed. AFOSI apologizes that we can be of no further assistance.

If you interpret this "no records" response as an adverse action, you may appeal it to the Secretary of the Air Force within 60 days from the date of this letter. Include in the appeal your reasons for reconsideration, and attach a copy of this letter. 2010-FOIA-00023 has been assigned to this case for correspondence purposes. Address your letter as follows:

Secretary of the Air Force
Thru: AFOSI/XILI
P. O. Box 2218
Waldorf, MD 20604-2218

Sincerely,

ANNE C. COSTA
Chief, Information Release Branch
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
http://ufoview.posterous.com

Comments [0]

October 12, 2009

Item 2.49: Greenewald's Case against the CIA Gains Traction

[LWB Note:  The content of this item supersedes that which appeared here several weeks ago.  You'll recall, from my Item 2.46 (July 22, 2009), that UFO researcher-author John Greenewald, Jr. is waging a David-and-Goliath battle with the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency's recalcitrant FOIA factotums about their continuing to deny his requester status as a "representative of the news media" (RNM).  If he can find the necessary monetary support for a federal lawsuit to compel CIA compliance with his RNM status, then who among us would be surprised at that development?  Stay tuned.  Meanwhile, with his permission, I'm posting here (as a Guest Commentary) his recent request for congressional relief.]

== TEXT OF GREENEWALD'S OCT. 11, 2009, LETTER TO SEN. FEINSTEIN , ET AL. ==

Sunday, October 11, 2009

John Greenewald, Jr.
(Address omitted)

john-at-greenewald.com

Senator Dianne Feinstein
Fax:  (202) 228-3954

Senator Patrick Leahy
Fax: (202) 224-3479

Senator John Cornyn
Fax: (202) 228-2856

Dear Senators Feinstein, Leahy and Cornyn,

I am writing to you today about what I believe is a grave injustice to the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Senator Feinstein, you may not recall, but thirteen years ago, when I began filing FOIA requests at the age of 15, you assisted me with the CIA outright ignoring my requests. Your assistance made them realize I was serious about requesting records, and here, thirteen years later, I am still at it, and have amassed the largest private collection of government documents (which I archive online for free - http://www.theblackvault.com ) anywhere in the world.  But a new, and greater, problem has arisen.

Senators Leahy and Cornyn, I am writing you as well on this with your introduction to the Senate floor of the Open FOIA Act of 2009.   Although I understand this has not passed yet, I believe your dedication to the spirit of the FOIA should hear about how I, and many others, are being treated by some of these agencies.

Since I know you all have busy schedules, I will try to be as quick as I can.  

When I first began filing FOIA requests, I was considered a "non-commercial/all other" requester. As you know, this entitled me to 100 free pages and 2 hours search/review time. I was liable for any additional costs.  However, with the passing of the Open Government Act of 2007, I believe my status changed to a "representative of the news media."

As such, I began filing my requests as a "representative of the news media."  Agencies such as the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the U.S. Army, Malmstrom Air Force Base, and many others processed my requests with this status.  There was no problem.

But other agencies began fighting my status.  Of course, confusing to me, they all follow the same rules and guidelines set forth by the FOIA, yet they all had different decisions on my fee status.
Agencies like the National Security Agency (NSA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) denied me my status.  In fact, the CIA now are requiring me to agree to pay ALL FEES associated with the request.  ALL OTHER agencies only require you set an amount, like fees up to $25, etc., but they are trying to put me on the line for hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars if I agree to "all fees."  I have a letter from the NSA stating one estimate for search fees was $8,000, and I was not even guaranteed a single page in return.  How could I agree to pay all fees for my requests to the CIA if they won't even give me an estimate?  This is definitely not Freedom of Information.

But the situation worsens.  After appealing the fee determination with the NSA, the appeal has taken more than six months, and I am still not estimated to receive a response until approximately December.  And this isn't even guaranteed.  In the meantime, many of my requests are put into different categories, and receive high fee estimations.  It is simply a waiting gameĀŠ and my research is on hold.
As outlined by the FOIA, I submit to you the reasoning for my "news media" status (quoted statements come from the Open Government Act of 2007, signed by President Bush followed by my reaction):

"[T]he term 'a representative of the news media' means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. In this clause, the term 'news' means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public."
My FOIA requests, and the topics of them, are wide-ranging.  However, as evident by the traffic I receive on TheBlackVault.com, and download statistics of the documents (which I am more than happy to send to any Senator or agency that wants them), the evidence speaks for itself.  Roughly a quarter of a million people come to my site every month, which is free, to download tens of THOUSANDS of pages of government material  on topics ranging from World War II, to current events of this year. It becomes one's interpretation on "current interest to the public," and agencies are ignoring the fact that these documents are circulated around, not even just on my site, but to sites like Wikipedia, online news sites, etc.

I believe this displays not only the public's interest in the material, but also my ability to disseminate to the public via the worldwide web.

When I first began The Black Vault web site in 1996, I hand-typed in the government documents I received, because I could not afford a scanner.  As time passed, I was able to get one, and the rest is history.  The Black Vault was one of the first sites that carried declassified government documents in the world.  Agencies did not even have an "electronic reading room" as some do now that publishes records.

"Examples of news-media entities are television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large and publishers of periodicals (but only if such entities qualify as disseminators of 'news') who make their products available for purchase by or subscription by or free distribution to the general public. These examples are not all-inclusive. Moreover, as methods of news delivery evolve (for example, the adoption of the electronic dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications services), such alternative media shall be considered to be news-media entities."
Yet another example of my appropriate status as a "representative of the news media":

I host a weekly radio show that interviews experts from around the globe on various topics. But the opening segment to this show is all about the new documents that were declassified and obtained by The Black Vault. I offer my critique (if needed) and point people where to go. 
Away from the radio show, it is also widely ignored [by officialdom] that my written articles are published in multiple online news agencies (as the Open Government Act 2007 even stipulates: "alternative media shall be considered to be news media entities").  I have been published multiple times on popular news sites OpEdNews.com, Examiner.com; and have had my material in countless newspapers across the country, such as the L.A. Daily News, the Baltimore Sun, and many others.

I also bring up the fact that I am a television producer and director for companies like The History Channel, Discovery Channel, and National Geographic.  With this fact, the documents that I have received that are sometimes decades old, according to some agencies, "not in the public interest," were profiled in programs on these networks, many of which received phenomenal ratings. Again, how can one agency determine "public interest?" It seems that if it isn't in the "public interest" of the FOIA officer, then it wouldn't be for the public at large.  As a writer of many of these programs, [I feel] they could not be more wrong.

The bottom line on this fact, however, is it is another example of how I have turned the documents I receive into an original, "editorialized" work for the public.  All of this, is of course, ignored by the agencies.

And lastly, I bring up my first published book (more are being worked on) called Beyond UFO Secrecy, republished in 2008 as an expanded second edition.  This, obviously, profiled the UFO records I received which have been of great interest to the public, and I offer examples of the documents along with the story and struggle of obtaining them.

So with authoring books, hosting a radio show, being a freelance journalist with verifiable publications in reputable and arguably "alternative media" sources,  I plead for your assistance in helping me with these agencies.  What can I do?

My next step, since my first denial from the DoD has come in, is to take them to court. As this is something I would love to do, the financial crisis in the states doesn't allow me to pursue such actions, at least for now.

I ask for your help in what I can do. Is it your professional opinions that I do not fit into the "representative of the news media" status, or is it that agencies want persistent requesters such as myself to just "go away"?  With high price tags and unbelievable wait times, it seems the latter is more probable.  As evidence of the wait times, I received one document in the mail 11 years after I filed the request.  How can that be?  Is this all in the spirit of the FOIA?

I appreciate any and all help and guidance you can give me.  I hope the above, although a bit detailed, has given you an inside look into how some of these agencies are treating the public. 
As of the writing of this letter, I know firsthand of lawsuits already filed with the U.S. District Courts to fight the CIA and other agencies.  One, specifically, is about the exact same issue I raise above. An online freelance journalist, showing an extensive track record of publications, is denied his rightful place as a "representative of the news media." 

This has to stop, and I need your help.  The agencies are ignoring the facts.

Very sincerely,

John Greenewald, Jr.

Cc:

The White House
ATTN: President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

FAX: 202-456-2461

 

Comments [0]

October 4, 2009

Item 2.51: FOIA Request to USAF Office of Special Investigations (re Bentwaters)

TO: Director
U. S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations
P. O. Box 2218
Waldorf, MD 20604-2218

FROM: Larry W. Bryant
3518 Martha Custis Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302

DATE: October 4, 2009

1. Reference: The below-quoted text of my classified advertisement now posted at http://www.interking.com/ads/osi.htm , titled "BLOW THE WHISTLE ON RAF BENTWATERS's UFO PHOTOGRAPHY!"

2. Under terms of the U. S. Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request that you provide me a copy of all photographic negatives and prints secured by former USAF security officer James Penniston (as well as all other related photo products produced by any other government personnel) in his official encounter with a landed alien spacecraft during the night of Dec. 26, 1980, in the forest near the east gate of RAF Bentwaters, England. I also request a copy of all USAF-OSI-generated/received incident reports, investigatory reports, after-action reports, intelligence analyses, documentary correspondence (including memoranda for record, memos of telephone conversations, and briefing papers/charts), audio-tape recordings (plus their transcripts), and telex messages pertaining to Penniston's encounter and to the separate incident of Dec. 28, 1980, as documented by Bentwaters's then-deputy commander, Col. Charles I. Halt.

3. Since I submit this request as a representative of the news media (chiefly as a columnist for the newsstand monthly periodical UFO Magazine), I ask that you waive all records-search/review fees incident to your fulfilling this request. If you determine that one or more OSI Districts possess any of the requested records, please forward this letter to them for FOIA processing.

4. By snail-mail, I'm sending to you a signed printout of this e-formatted letter.


LARRY W. BRYANT
http://ufoview.posterous.com

Copies furnished to:

Editor, UFO Magazine
Chairwoman, U. S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Chairman, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives - U. S. House of Representatives

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

=== TEXT OF LWB's CLASSIFIED AD BEING CARRIED BY THE INTERKING SERVICE ( http://www.interking.com/ads/osi.htm ===

== BLOW THE WHISTLE ON RAF BENTWATERS's UFO PHOTOGRAPHY! ==

Whatever landed on Dec. 26, 1980, in Rendlesham Forest near the U. S.-U.K-operated RAF Bentwaters caught the attention of a security team that included former USAF Sgt. James Penniston. By his whistleblower account, he managed not only to touch the black, triangular craft but also to capture it on black-and-white, 35-mm film for the roll's entire 36 exposures. Today, where lies that film (and any other related official documentary evidence); and why does the U. S. government insist on denying public access to it? If you (or someone you know) possess verifiable evidence leading to the film's whereabouts and to its public release, you may qualify for a $1,000 reward from me. The recently revealed conclusion of Bentwaters retired USAF deputy commander Col. Charles I. Halt that the craft encountered on Dec. 26 and 28, 1980, "was of extraterrestrial origin" elevates this case to the ultimate smoking gun of UFO reality. Your coming forward now can help compel Congress to demand full accountability for those two visitations. Contact: Larry W. Bryant at 3518 Martha Custis Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302; e-mail: overtci@cavtel.net; see my blog at http://ufoview.posterous.com .

Comments [0]

August 23, 2009

Item 2.50: FOIA Request to CIA (re the Late Richard H. Hall)

TO: Ms. Delores M. Nelson
     Information and Privacy Coordinator
     U. S. Central Intelligence Agency
     Washington, DC 20505

 FROM: Larry W. Bryant
      3518 Martha Custis Drive
      Alexandria, VA 22302

 DATE: August 23, 2009

 1. Reference: the enclosed photocopy of the Washington Post's Aug. 23, 2009, obituary of UFO researcher Richard Harris Hall.

 2. During Mr. Hall's leadership at the now-defunct National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), he encountered the official desire of certain CIA personnel to share with them a selection of key UFO-incident cases from NICAP files. For the ensuing arrangement, no confidentiality agreement applied.

 3. Accordingly, I hereby submit this freedom-of-information request for a photocopy of all CIA-generated and CIA-received records pertaining to this UFO-related files-sharing arrangement (said records to include the Agency's analysis/disposition of the NICAP cases received) -- plus any and all CIA records pertaining to Mr. Hall's subsequent career as a UFO researcher-author.

 4. Please process this request under my FOIA-requester status as a representative of the news media.

 5. By snail-mail, I'm sending to you a signed printout of this e-formatted letter.

  
LARRY W. BRYANT
Columnist for UFO Magazine

 Copy furnished to: Editor, UFO Magazine
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
http://ufoview.posterous.com

Comments [1]

July 31, 2009

Item 2.48: Request for CIA's Mandatory Declassification Review of All MJ-12 Records

TO: Ms. Delores M. Nelson
    Information and Privacy Coordinator
    U. S. Central Intelligence Agency
    Washington, DC 20515

 FROM: Larry W. Bryant
     3518 Martha Custis Drive
     Alexandria, VA 22302

 DATE: July 31, 2009

 1. References:

   a. CIA FOIA case file No. F92-2401 as pertains to Timothy S. Cooper's Nov. 12, 1992, request for access to all CIA-generated records from the World War II-era Project Paperclip files.

   b. From the above-released records, the one-page CIA memorandum dated April 12, 1949, addressed to the Director, Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency - Joint Chiefs of Staff; Subject: Project 63 (UF-103-M) [re Project Paperclip]; signed by Rear Admiral R. H. Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence (and an MJ-12 member).

 2. At the bottom-left corner of Reference 1b appears the typed notation:

 "FILE DIST: [i.e., File Distribution]
CIA Top Secret
MJ-12"

 3. Of course, the "MJ-12" entry refers to the supersecret panel of UFO-crash/retrieval experts assembled in the 1940s to collect, analyze, and exploit various UFO-E.T.-related intelligence. Certain leaked 1980s-era documentary evidence of the Majestic-Twelve's deliberations/operations continues to undergo intense forensic examination/evaluation by privately funded researchers.

 4. In the interests of helping preserve and publicly disseminate the contents of all CIA-generated MJ-12 records, I ask that your office subject all extant original copies of those records to mandatory declassification review (MDR) in accordance with any applicable presidential executive order. As you search for, identify, locate, and process this historically valuable material, please make sure you account for any of the records' transfer to externally-sited records-holding areas and to permanent retention by the U. S. National Archives and Records Administration. If you determine that any of the sought-for records have undergone destruction, please provide me with a copy of that destruction's authorization-and-execution record.

 5. Upon completion of your MDR task in this matter, please promptly inform me of the results - so that I may request a copy of all releasable records therefrom (in my FOIA-requester status as a representative of the news media).

 6. By snail-mail, I'm sending to you a signed printout of this e-formatted letter.

  
LARRY W. BRYANT
Director, Washington, D. C., office of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy

 Copies furnished to:

 Editor, UFO Magazine
Chairwoman, Select Committee on Intelligence - U. S. Senate
Chairman, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives - U. S. House of Representatives
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
http://ufoview.posterous.com

Comments [0]

July 28, 2009

Item 2.47: . . . [TEXT DELETED ON 2 AUG 09 BY LARRY W. BRYANT]

http://ufoview.posterous.com

Comments [0]

July 22, 2009

Item 2.46: Declaration of Larry W. Bryant in Support of John Greenewald, Jr.'s FOIA-requester Status at CIA

TO:  Agency Release Panel
       U. S. Central Intelligence Agency
       Washington, DC  20505

FROM:  Larry W. Bryant
            3518 Martha Custis Drive
            Alexandria, VA  22302

DATE:  July 22, 2009

Word has come to me that California resident John Greenewald, Jr., a prolific user of the U. S. Freedom of Information Act to ferret out, evaluate, and publicize various government agencies' holdings of UFO-related records and other material of critical public interest, has encountered arbitrary CIA denial of his FOIA-requester status as a "representative of the news media" (RNM).

As Greenewald duly and comprehensively has explained to CIA FOIA coordinator Delores M. Nelson, his fully documented RNM claim would leave no doubt in any juror's mind that he amply has made the case for your agency's immediate cessation of rejecting his record of RNM identity, purpose, scope, and action.

Accordingly, I'm transmitting herewith the text of his July 20, 2009, letter to Ms. Nelson, along with my request that you promptly reverse her decision not to honor his RNM status.  If you choose not to take this requested action, Greenewald would have to seek judicial remedy.  To inform your decisionmaking in this matter, I refer you to the ongoing FOIA lawsuit of Larry W. Bryant v. Central Intelligence Agency, filed May 20, 2009, in U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  The issues in that case mirror those in Greenewald's, the result being that current FOIA case law leans heavily in his favor, not yours.  Please refrain from any more expenditure of taxpayer funds in fending off his claim.


I further declare that Greenewald has my express permission to apply this document toward any litigation aimed at enjoining your agency's improper and illegal denial of his RNM-requester status.

By snail-mail, I'm sending to you a signed printout of this e-formatted letter.


LARRY W. BRYANT
Director, Washington, D. C., office of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy

Copies furnished to:

Mr. Greenewald
Editor, UFO Magazine
Chairwoman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U. S. Senate

Chairman, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives - U. S. House of Representatives
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
== TEXT OF MR. GREENEWALD's JULY 20, 2009, LETTER TO MS. NELSON ==

Monday, July 20, 2009

Information and Privacy Coordinator 
Central Intelligence Agency 
Washington, D.C. 20505 
Fax: (703) 613-3007

To whom it may concern,

Currently, I will not file this as an official appeal, as I wish to a) save of the extraordinary amount of time it takes to get a response to an appeal, and b) clarify my "news media" status so my requests can be processed as such.  It is frustrating to say the least that my requests are "on hold" until I agree to pay all fees relating to the request.  Never in my 13 years of filing FOIA requests has such a response been given to me, except by the CIA. 

I clearly stated, and nearly every agency but yours files my requests appropriately as a "representative of the news media," and examples are cited below.  I will not agree to ALL fees, as I am not sure how many people would.  I am not sure if this means $25 or $8,000, a fee I have been estimated in the past under the FOIA.  As stipulated by the FOIA, I placed my agreement to pay fees "up to" a certain amount, and I fulfilled this requirement on my original FOIAs. 

First and foremost, I consider this a grave injustice made in light of the true intent of the FOIA.  From President Clinton signing the Electronic FOIA and multiple executive directives regarding declassification; President Bush signing the U.S. Open Government Act of 2007; and President Obama on the day he entered office, signing legislation improving agency disclosure, openness and transparency in regards to document declassification; the FOIA has been an important tool in American democracy and public awareness.  To simply put my requests "on hold" when not recognizing my true fee status, is an unfortunate contradiction to the Commander in Chiefs mentioned above.

The CIA, in my opinion, will not recognize the true meaning of a "representative of the news media," and will not acknowledge my established ability to disseminate this information to the public. 
I submit the below evidence to my established category of "representative of the news media."

1.  Multiple agencies have considered my request to become a "representative of the news media," and have granted that request.  Only a select few are referenced below for your perusal:

a.  In a letter dated 10 April 2009, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in case F09-0036, states, "Based upon the information provided, you have been placed in the 'educational/scientific/media' category of requesters?."

b.  In a letter dated 14 May 2009, from the Department of the Air Force, Malmstrom Air Force Base, in FOIA case number 2009-00743F, it states, "You have been placed in the 'Media' category.'"

c.  In a letter dated March 16, 2009, in FOIA case number 09-006, it states, "Additionally, the U.S. Army Center of Military History's Initial Denial Authority for FOIA requests has declared you to be a member of the media?."

d.  MULTIPLE letters from MULTIPLE agencies can be cited and referenced.  But are too lengthy to name them all.  I hope the above sampling shows you this is a status recognized throughout the federal agencies and military branches - except yours.

2.  Further, you state that the FOIA stipulates I must show how I will turn raw materials into a distinct work, and distribute that to an audience.  I outline the following for your consideration:

a.  NEWS/EDITORIAL EXAMPLES - TELEVISION:

i.  The History Channel - The Universe - In this episode of The Universe on History Channel entitled, "Alien Faces," which I directed and wrote, I utilized multiple documents obtained from the FOIA from NASA on the topic of Astrobiology.  The material was used in the research/development phase of the program, and the information was interpreted and disseminated to the public throughout the show.

ii.  The History Channel - UFO Hunters, Season 3 - Multiple Episodes: From December 2008 - June 2009, I served as a producer of the popular UFO Hunters program.  Throughout multiple episodes, the research/FOIA documents I have collected over the last decade were used in the research/development phase, shown on screen, and opinions were offered on select documents.
As an example, one episode dealing with a secret underground installation, underground digging technology was discussed at length.  To source this information in the show, multiple documents were obtained under the FOIA as reference, including, "Use of the Subterrene for Military Drilling Applications" located at: http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/subt.pdf

iii.  The History Channel - UFO Files: Hangar 18 - Multiple documents obtained from the FOIA were used in this special, which dealt with the top secret work on military technology by Wright-Patterson Air Force Base throughout the past 5-6 decades.  Documents were obtained from the Air Force and Army that were used in this special, which I was credited as the producer.

iv.  The History Channel - UFO Files: UFOs and the White House - Multiple documents obtained from the FOIA were used in this special, which I also produced for The History Channel, which were used as source material, used in the research/development phase, and were interpreted for the public in the show's writing phase.

v.  With the details above, I feel this clearly shows interpretation and dissemination to the public the information obtained under the FOIA.

b.  NEWS/EDITORIAL EXAMPLES - NEWSPRINT:

i.  "Inadvertent Nuclear War - The India/Pakistan Armageddon," which was published on the popular online news site OpEdNews, located at, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Inadvertent-Nuclear-War--by-John-Greenewald-081202-496.html

ii.  "Dr. J. Allen Hynek: The UFO Scientist's 'Other life,'" which was published on the popular online news site OpEdNews, and is archived at, http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/Dr._J._Allen_Hynek:_The_UFO_Scientist's_%22Other_life%22_(by_John_Greenewald,_Jr.,_3-13-2008)

iii.  "How 'Bruno' Gains Access - Documents Reveal Inside Look at Tactics" - which was published on the popular online news site OpEdNews, and is archived at, http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-Bruno-Gains-Access--by-John-Greenewald-090714-70.html

iv.  Fate Magazine - Multiple articles in print throughout the past 13 years - one example as a cover story entitled "Mysteries of The Black Vault" can be seen enclosed.

v.  With the articles sourced above, I feel this clearly shows interpretation and dissemination to the public the information obtained under the FOIA.

c.  EDITORIAL EXAMPLES - PUBLISHED PRINT:

i.  Beyond UFO Secrecy, by John Greenewald, Jr. -- Publisher: Galde Press; 2nd edition (January 1, 2008) -- ISBN-13: 978-1931942607.  This book, in it's second, expanded edition, details years' worth of work and FOIA documents collected.  Documents are interpreted for the reader, explained in editorial form, then some are displayed for the reader's interpretation. The book can be seen/ordered on Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-UFO-Secrecy-John-Greenewald/dp/1931942609

ii.  With the details above, I feel this clearly shows interpretation and dissemination to the public the information obtained under the FOIA.

d.  EDITORIAL EXAMPLES - RADIO:

i.  I currently own and operate The Black Vault Radio Network, which syndicates nearly 40 shows from around the globe.  The top show on the network, The Black Vault Radio, hosted by myself, interviews experts, authors, Hollywood celebrities, etc., dealing with the topics researched by my FOIAs.  In many of the episodes, I offer my interpretation of documents received under the FOIA, inform the public of the documents' availability, then tell the public where they can download the information, for free.

ii. These shows are then archived online, and have been since the shows first aired.  All are available 24/7.

iii.  Throughout the past 13 years, I have done HUNDREDS of radio interviews on many networks other than my own show, in which I am asked about my FOIA research.  In these interviews, ranging from 5 minutes in length, to more than four hours in length, I am asked my interpretation of the information.  I am asked to dissect the meaning of many of the documents, and offer my opinion of what they mean.  Lastly, I clearly define where the documents can be obtained.

iv.  With the details above, I feel this clearly shows interpretation and dissemination to the public the information obtained under the FOIA.

3.  Lastly, you state to fit into this fee status category that the information must be of "potential interest to a segment of the public?."  In response, I offer the following:

a.  The Black Vault website, which houses 500,000 pages of declassified documents, serves thousands of people a day on average which download, peruse, and read the documents.  Further, they can browse the online archive of news articles which I have written, and read the editorial pieces outlining many of the FOIA documents.  Although you clearly state that me simply posting the documents does not make me worthy of a "representative of the news media" status, I believe that the multiple articles, page descriptions, document summaries, etc., do offer an editorialized piece that paves the way for public perusal of the archive.

b.  Alexa Internet rates The Black Vault within the top 280,000 sites in the world. (Online traffic fluctuates, and this number has been as high as the top 60,000 depending on the traffic cycle.)  
Given that an online research agency Netcraft calculates that there are more than 182 million (182,000,000) websites currently on the internet, this clearly states the information within The Black Vault is clearly in the public interest, and remains one of the internet's top destinations for FOIA documents.

For all of the reasons above, I feel I have fully and completely outlined my appeal to your determination.  My unique set of circumstances, I feel, fits into the category "representative of the news media" and additionally feel the CIA should overturn their decision and promptly update the status of my requests to avoid further delays and unworthy charges of in some cases, astronomical proportions.
I believe I am not the only one who has fallen victim to this misidentification of fee status, and hope in the future, this will not be a problem for so many legitimate requesters, journalists and authors.

Sincerely, 

John Greenewald, Jr.
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Comments [1]

July 19, 2009

Item 2.45: "Caller Bob" Redux -- CIA Style (See Item 2.25)

LWB note: By her response quoted below, CIA freedom-of-information chief Delores M. Nelson cranks up her formletterese machine to let me know that the Agency is going through the motions to process my FOIA request dispatched as Item 2.25 of this blog. But, dear reader: hold not thy breath over the prospect that her records search will produce even an iota of "Bob"-related evidence of the Eisenhower-Hughes's introduction to extraterrestrial mortality. At least Nelson's response confirms that the CIA hierarchy has abandoned its fight to deny my requester status as a "representative of the news media." Meanwhile, as of this writing, our mysterious "Caller Bob" remains incommunicative - the likelihood of his coming further forward being less probable than the Agency's producing the requested records.
 
== TEXT OF MS. NELSON'S LETTER OF JULY 15, 2009, TO LWB ==
 
Reference: F-2009-00693
 
Dear Mr. Bryant:
 
On 12 March 2009, the office of the Information and Privacy Coordinator received your 1 March 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for "a copy of all CIA-generated and CIA-received records pertaining to the film footage revealed by 'Bob's' account." We have assigned your request the reference number above. Please use this number when corresponding so that we can identify it easily.
 
The CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 431, as amended, exempts CIA operational files from the search, review, publication, and disclosure requirements of the FOIA. To the extent your request seeks information that is subject to the FOIA, we accept your request and will process it in accordance with the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552, as amended, and the CIA Information Act. We will search for records existing through the date of this acceptance letter.
 
Based on the information provided in your letter, we determined that your request falls into the "news media" fee category. You must pay only for the cost of reproducing released records, which is ten cents per page after the first 100 copies, which you receive free.
 
The large number of FOIA requests CIA receives has created unavoidable delays making it unlikely that we can respond within the 20 working days the FOIA requires. You have the right to consider our honest appraisal as a denial of your request and you may appeal to the Agency Release Panel. A more practical approach would permit us to continue processing your request and respond to you as soon as we can. You will retain your appeal rights and, once you receive the results of our search, can appeal at that time if you wish. We will proceed on that basis unless you object.
 
Sincerely,
 
Delores M. Nelson
Information and Privacy Coordinator
[U. S. Central Intelligence Agency]
 
http://ufoview.posterous.com

Comments [0]

July 17, 2009

Item 2.44: A Tribute to Richard H. Hall (Dec. 25, 1930 - July 17, 2009)

A phone call to me this afternoon (July 17, 2009) from UFO researcher Dan Pinchas of Germantown, Md., brought news of the death of one of ufology's giants: Richard H. Hall, 78, of Brentwood, Md.

 For at least a year, I'd known that Dick had been recovering from colon-cancer surgery, but he counseled me not to spread that knowledge. By e-mail several months ago, he'd told me he was doing okay. Now, I learn that he'd been undergoing chemotherapy. He apparently died in his sleep this morning.

 Seemingly right up to his last moments, Dick was pursuing his ufological calling, for it's been only several weeks since my receipt of the latest issue of his bimonthly newsletter Journal of UFO History.

 My association and friendship with this consummate scholar date back to November 1957, when I met him for the first time at the Washington, D. C., headquarters of the now-defunct National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). There, as I sauntered into the front office, I spied him with his head down and eyes focused on a piece of correspondence he intently was typing upon a manual typewriter.

 Eventually, Dick became a role model for my own baby steps as a UFO researcher-activist. He not only wrote well and fluently; he also had a keen hand at line drawing. Noted mostly for his seminal two-volume work The UFO Evidence, he also had edited the NICAP newsletter (The UFO Investigator) and some of the organization's special reports. His two books on the subject matter (The Challenge of Unidentified Flying Objects (with Prof. Charles A. Maney - 1961); and Uninvited Guests (1988)) remain collector's items.

 His other major contributions to the field derived from his service on the board of directors for the Fund for UFO Research, Inc. At separate periods, he also served as editor of the monthly journal of the Mutual UFO Network, Inc., and as a columnist for the monthly newsstand periodical UFO Magazine. (See my essay about his career at this blog's Item 3.2.)

 Besides his UFOlit products, Dick managed to publish a small handbook on raising house plants, plus an overview of the role of women in America's civil war.

 Dick Hall's commitment to serious UFO research and his high standard of personal achievement in the field began during his student days at Tulane University, where he majored in philosophy. I take delight in possessing copies of his self-published newsletter from that early period - the UFO Critical Bulletin. Critical thinking (and action), you see, became the hallmark of his scholarship. If anyone deserved an honorary doctorate in ufology, it certainly was he.

 I never could've asked for a better mentor, friend, and colleague in this field. Thank you, again, Sir Richard, for the enriching part you played in this long journey of inquiry, networking, and enlightenment.

 Note: At this writing, Dick's blog remains accessible at http://www.hallrichard.com .

 http://ufoview.posterous.com

Comments [2]