== FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (May 31, 2009 - Contact: Larry W. Bryant at 703-931-3341; overtci@cavtel.net ) ==

 Not to be outdone by a federal agency known for its less-than-honorable record in complying with the U. S. Freedom of Information Act (see, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/6mahok ), UFO researcher/writer/activist Larry W. Bryant has filed his complaint in U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

 This action - filed May 20, 2009, as case No. 1:09-cv-00940 under the judgeship of Emmet G. Sullivan (see his bio at http://tinyurl.com/mg2b2v ) - seeks to reverse the Agency's denial of Bryant's FOIA- requester status as a "representative of the news media" (entitling him to full waiver of all records-search/review fees as regards his FOIA request of August 13, 2008).

 "That request," he says, "focuses on the conduct of CIA personnel in pressuring certain Federal Aviation Administration officials to suppress their inquiry into, and conclusions about, a UFO encounter by a Japanese cargo jet in the sky above Alaska on November 17, 1986.

 "I suppose this reprehensible conduct can be expected from such an out-of-control agency, but neither Congress nor the Court of Public Opinion should tolerate it," Bryant asserts. "We're at a crossroads of public policy, where the Obama White House claims to be striving to expand governmental openness while agencies like the CIA are digging in their heels to thwart public-records access. My expected victory in this lawsuit can help restore the public's right-to-know and the Agency's duty-to-tell."

 Bryant's complaint (quoted below) presents the factual basis for his claim before the Agency - that his status as an independent writer focusing on national-security affairs, and as a columnist for the
newsstand periodical "UFO Magazine," amply qualifies him as a "representative of the news media" for FOIA purposes.

 For updates on this challenge, visit Bryant's author's blog at http://ufoview.posterous.com .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 == TEXT OF THE COMPLAINT IN BRYANT v. CIA (as prepared by Jonathan L. Katz, Esq., of http://www.katzjustice.com ):

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [for the] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 LARRY W. BRYANT
3518 Martha Custis Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Washington, D.C. 20505

 and

 LEON E. PANETTA
In his official capacity as
Director of Central Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505

 Defendants.
 Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00940

 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES

   Plaintiff, Larry W. Bryant, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and states as follows:

 I. NATURE OF ACTION

   1. This is an action for violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 against the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") and Leon E. Panetta, in his official capacity as Director of the CIA.

   2. Since September 2008, Defendants have and unlawfully denied the Plaintiff Larry W. Bryant's rights, as a representative of the news media under the FOIA, not to be charged processing fees (other than copying fees) in connection with the Plaintiff's FOIA requests to the CIA for agency records.

 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

 III. PARTIES

 4. Plaintiff Larry W. Bryant is Director of the Washington, D. C., Office of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy. He is a representative of the news media, and, in that capacity, on a not-for-profit basis, he gathers, researches, and publishes documents and information and analysis concerning Unidentified Flying Objects ("UFO's"). Among his UFO publications is his column "Bryant's UFO View" for the monthly newsstand periodical UFO Magazine, examples of which are included in his Internet site entitled Larry W. Bryant's UFOview, at http://ufoview.posterous.com (last visited May 14, 2009). Plaintiff is retired from a 36-year career in writing and editing for United States Army publications, and operates the office of the public-interest group Citizens Against UFO Secrecy from his home in Alexandria, Va.

   5. Defendant CIA is a federal agency. Defendant Leon E. Panetta is the Director of the CIA and is sued in his official capacity as Director. Defendant CIA's website - at https://www.cia.gov/contact-cia/index.html (last visited May 8, 2009) - lists its contact address as Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20505

 IV. ALLEGATIONS

   6. On August 13, 2008, Plaintiff sent the CIA a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request relating to federal government meetings and material concerning evidence of such Unidentified Flying Object ("UFO") activity as an incident on November 17, 1986. He requested to be granted status as a representative of the news media, and, therefore, not to be charged for searching fees, but only for copying fees. See Attachment A hereto.

   7. By letter dated September 30, 2008, the CIA, through CIA Information and Privacy Coordinator Delores M. Nelson, denied Plaintiff status as a representative of the news media. See Attachment B hereto.

   8. On October 3, 2008, Plaintiff delivered to the CIA an appeal of the foregoing denial of news media status. See Attachment C hereto.

   9. By letter dated October 28, 2008, the CIA, through CIA Information and Privacy Coordinator Delores M. Nelson, again denied news media representative status to Plaintiff. See Attachment D hereto.

   10. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies, in that his original request for news media representative status was denied by the CIA, and the CIA denied his appeal thereof.

 COUNT I
NEWS MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE STATUS [re SEARCH]

   11. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 10 as if fully restated herein.

   12. Defendants did not use the level of diligence and good faith to conduct a search for the documents requested in Plaintiff's FOIA Request. Instead, Defendants merely replied that documents relating to the FOIA Request had been made available prior to the date of Plaintiff's FOIA Request, and that Plaintiff was free to seek said documents online or to pay to obtain them. Other than what is stated in the foregoing sentence, Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's FOIA Request reveal that Defendants conducted no search to respond to Plaintiff's FOIA Request.

 COUNT II
NEWS MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE STATUS [re FEE WAIVER]

   13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully restated herein.

   14. The FOIA provides that "fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by Š a representative of the news media." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).

   15. Plaintiff's FOIA request states, in pertinent part: "Since I submit this request as a representative of the news media (principally as a columnist for the newsstand periodical 'UFO Magazine'), I ask that you waive all records-search/review fees incident to your fulfilling this request. For a sampling of my freelance publication credits, see the author's blog at http://ufoview.posterous.com ."

   16. The website for UFO Magazine, discussed in ¶ 13 supra, confirms that Plaintiff is a columnist for said magazine. See, e.g., http://www.ufomag.com/front/about.html (last visited May 14, 2009).

   17. At the time he submitted his FOIA request described in ¶ 13 supra ("FOIA Request"), and for the purpose of said FOIA Request, Plaintiff was a representative of the news media entitled to only be charged photocopying fees under the FOIA.

   18. The CIA's denial of Plaintiff's FOIA Request (at Exhibit B herein) states that Plaintiff's news media representative fee waiver request is denied "because your [FOIA Request] does not meet [CIA FOIA regulations] because disclosing the information you seek is already in the public domain and its re-release would not likely contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the United States Government. I therefore deny your request for a fee waiver."

   19. The CIA's denial of news media representative status to Plaintiff was erroneous and without statutory foundation. First, the records Plaintiff sought would indeed contribute to public understanding of the operations and understanding of activities of the United States government as it pertains to the government's UFO-related investigations. Second, the definition of "representative of the news media" is more narrow and crabbed against those claiming such status than the definition of news media representative in the FOIA itself. Compare: 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A) and 32 C.F.R. § 1900.02(h)(3). Nowhere in the FOIA nor in any other statute is authority given to agencies to narrow the FOIA's definition of news media representative.

   20. Consequently, Defendants failed to grant Plaintiff news media representative status, when he in fact so qualifies for such status with his FOIA Request and in general.

   21. Consequently, Defendants failed to grant Plaintiff a fee waiver so as only to have to pay photocopying and reproduction fees and not to have to pay a records search fee.

 COUNT III
ATTORNEY'S FEE DEMAND

   22. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 21 as if fully restated herein.

   23. In his legitimate desire to pursue the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws of the United States, Plaintiff has employed the undersigned attorney to prosecute this action and has agreed to pay his attorney a reasonable fee for same.

   24. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney's fees from Defendants as provided for by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E), and by all other applicable provisions of law, due to Defendants' denial of his fee waiver request to the CIA.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court GRANT the following relief:

 a) A declaration that Defendants have improperly denied Plaintiff status as a news media representative entitled to a fee waiver under the FOIA.

 b) An immediate hearing on this Complaint;

 c) An Order that the Defendants forthwith affirm and give Plaintiff news media representative status, grant him his requested fee waiver, and refrain from denying him that status so long as he maintains it in the future, and conduct a reasonable and prompt records-search for the records sought in Plaintiff's FOIA Request.

 d) An award of any and all attorney's fees and costs as authorized by law;

 e) An award of all appropriate damages established by Plaintiff; and

 f) Such other and further relief as this Court deems fit, just, and equitable.

 Dated: May 20, 2009

 Respectfully submitted,

 JON KATZ, P.C.

TO: Inspector General
    U. S. Central Intelligence Agency
    Washington, DC 20505

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

 DATE: May 30, 2009

 On Oct. 28, 2008, when CIA FOIA coordinator Delores M. Nelson denied my appeal letter of Oct. 3, 2008, she also chose not to comply with my request as excerpted here:

 "As you process and grant this appeal, I also ask that you forward a copy of all its related correspondence to the CIA inspector general for him to investigate the circumstances, principals, and activities related to former FAA official John J. Callahan's revelation that one or more CIA personnel have unlawfully applied official pressure upon Callahan's right not to engage in any CIA-directed/supported cover-up of the 1986 Alaskan case. Your complying with this IG-referral request not only would contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency; it also would help secure accountability for any CIA policy/practice that interferes with the public's stakeholdership in pursuit of UFOtruth."

 Accordingly, I hereby submit this letter as a reiteration of my request that your office mount, as soon as possible, a comprehensive investigation into the CIA personnel's interference with whistleblower Callahan's right to protect/manage FAA-derived evidence of UFO-E.T. reality. Upon your completion of that investigation (to include determining whether the reported interference constitutes standard CIA practice, today, as regards its UFO-related dealings with other agencies), I ask that you furnish me a written report of your findings, conclusions, and recommendations. To help you in this process, I'm enclosing the text of Callahan's formal statement delivered to the Nov. 12, 2007, UFO-E.T. International Disclosure Conference held at the National Press Club in Washington, D. C.

 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:

 Chair, U. S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Editor, UFO Magazine
Blogmaster of http://ufoview.posterous.com
Lewis Kannon
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 == TEXT OF JOHN J. CALLAHAN'S DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (12 NOV 2007) ==

 What I am about to tell you now, is about an event that never happened.

 I am John Callahan, and I was Division Chief of the Accidents, Evaluations and Investigations Division of the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] in Washington, for 6 years during the 1980's.

 In early January of 1987, I received a call from the Air Traffic Quality Control Branch in FAA's Alaskan regional office, requesting guidance on what to tell the media personnel who were overflowing their office. The media was requesting information about the UFO that chased a Japanese 747 across the Alaskan sky for some 31 minutes at flight levels between 31,000 and 35,000 feet on November 7, 1986. Somehow, the word had got out.

 "What UFO; when did this take place; why wasn't Washington Headquarters informed?" I asked.

 "Hey," he replied, "who believes in UFO's? I just need to know what to tell the media to get them out of here."

 The answer to that question was easy: "Tell them it's under investigation. Then, collect all the data - the voice tapes and data disc for both the facility and the military. Send them overnight to the FAA Tech Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey."

 Japan Air Lines flight 1628, a cargo jet with a pilot, co-pilot, and one crew member, was just north of Anchorage, and it was 11 p.m. when the pilot first reported the UFO. He described it as a huge ball with lights running around it. He said it was about 4 times bigger than a 747, and he saw it with his own eyes. So did the other two crew members.

 Over the course of 31 minutes, the UFO jumped miles in a few seconds, changing places to different spots around the 747, in one sweep of the radar scope.

 After receiving the data from Alaska almost two months later, I briefed my boss Harvey Safer and the FAA Administrator, Admiral Engen; and Safer and I went to the FAA Tech Center to observe the playback.

 The FAA had developed a program capable of recreating the traffic on the controller's scope, or Plan View Display. I instructed the FAA specialist to synchronize the voice tapes with the radar data so we could hear everything the controller and pilot said. I videotaped the radar display.

 Later that day, I requested that the FAA automation specialists plot the radar targets along the route of flight and explain what each target was doing. I videotaped the resulting chart.

 The printout and radar playback displayed primary targets in the vicinity of the 747. These target returns were displayed about the same time and place as the pilot advised viewing the UFO.

 Both the radar and manual controller observed the primary target. The military controllers also viewed the primary target on their radar and identified it as a "double primary." The pilot and crew viewed the target on their radar and were able to see the huge UFO at the same time as it approached their aircraft.

 If this craft had been a Lear jet or military aircraft at the wrong altitude, that would have been clear. The FAA has procedures that cover tracking unidentified aircraft violating another's airspace - but it has no procedures for UFO's.

 Back at FAA headquarters, I gave Administrator Engen a quick briefing and showed him the video. He set up a briefing with President Reagan's scientific staff, and told me my function was to give them a dog-and-pony show and hand this event off to them, "since the FAA does not deal with UFO's."

 I brought along a copy of the video and all the data printouts available at the time.

 One of the scientists asked a number of questions, such as, what is the range of the radar, what is the frequency of the radar, what is the bandwidth, what is the formula for the height equipment, etc.

 I was impressed with the response from the FAA experts. At the end, one of the three people from the CIA said, "This event never happened; we were never here; we're confiscating all this data and you are all sworn to secrecy."

 "What do you think it was?" I asked the CIA person.

 "A UFO and now they have over 30 minutes of radar to go over," he responded.

 "Well, let's get a twix [aka telegram] out and advise the American public that we were visited by a UFO," I suggested.

 "No way; if we were to tell the American public there are UFO's, they would panic," he informed me.

 Sometime after the briefing, the detailed FAA report which included extensive interviews with the pilot and crew, the chart prepared at the Tech Center, and facility voice tapes arrived at my office and were placed on a small table waiting for the CIA to request more data. The material stayed there until I retired 2 years later, and I've had it ever since.

 Most people, including FAA controllers, really aren't familiar with how the FAA radar system works and why all aircraft traveling through our airspace are not caught on radar or displayed on the controller's PVD. But I am.

 The system and organization of the FAA is not configured to identify and track these types of performances.

"It is my earnest hope that there will prove to be no danger behind the UFO surveillance of our world. But as long as such a possibility remains, the facts should be frankly revealed. The public has a right to know - and to be prepared for whatever is to come." - Maj. (Ret. - USMC) Donald E. Keyhole (in the epilogue to his 1960 book "Flying Saucers: Top Secret")

 In the nearly 50 years since publication of Keyhoe's fourth UFO book, not much has changed to narrow the gulf between what the public knows about UFO reality and what certain federal agencies know about it. Back in the fifties and sixties, Keyhoe, especially during his directorship of the now-defunct, Washington, D.C.-based National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, focused his efforts on exposing and countering what he termed "the silence group," an officially undeclared (and presumably Air Force-housed) cabal of managers determined to keep denying the public the full story on the worldwide intervention of "flying saucers."

 Perhaps chief among the pro-UFO-secrecy agencies during Keyhoe's era was the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency. Does it maintain that secrecy policy to this very day? Why, of course it does - to varying degrees, depending on the extent of political expediency chosen by it managers.

 As evidence of this informational status quo, I cite a package of documents sent to me on May 6, 2009, by CIA freedom-of-information coordinator Delores M. Nelson, who was responding to my Dec. 28, 2007, FOIA request for "a copy of all those FBIS [Foreign Broadcast Information Service]-translated UFO-related articles covering the period January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007."

 Each of the 28 enclosed articles has an origination heading called "Open Source Center" (OSC). And on the front page of each article appears a rectangular blank space measuring, on average, 2.5- by-6.5 inches. Above the top edge of the box appears the typewritten exemption code "(b)(3)," which "exempts from disclosure information that another federal statute protects." In the case of a 14-page document (marked "UNCLASSIFIED/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY"; bearing the title "View from Russia's Regions of Current Talking Points"; sourced as "Russia - OSC Report in Russian 02 Aug 07"; and subtitled "Russian Regional Hot Topics 2 August"), some redaction-happy CIA-FOIA factotums have invoked exemption (b)(3) to white-out the report's entire text (leaving, however, a column heading that reads, "Submit Review"). Do these blank rectangular boxes and/or whited-out pages constitute various CIA analysts' reviews of the published text? And: shouldn't some members of, say, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence be examining these redactions as part of their oversight schedule?

 The countries from which this selection of articles originates range from Russia and Georgia to Turkey and Japan to Somalia and Colombia to Ecuador and Guatemala to Taiwan and China to Iran.

 In the latter case, we have three separate articles, all originating from the Tehran Fars News Agency "Internet Version - WWW) in English."

 The first piece, dated January 10, 2007, recounts that an "Unidentified Flying Object crashed in Barez Mounts in the central province of Kerman Wednesday morning." The resultant explosion and thick spiral of smoke induced local authorities to begin investigating the incident. An "informed source" "said that people in the city of Rafsanjan also reported to have witnessed a similar incident several days ago." The article's last paragraph notes: "Similar crash incidents have been witnessed frequently during the last year all across Iran, and officials believe that the objects could be spy planes or a hi-tech espionage device."

 The lead paragraph of the January 16 article reads: "A radiant unidentified flying object was observed in the sky of Central Sepidar in the vicinity of Bouyer Ahmad in western Iran at 1900 hours local time (15:30 GMT) Monday. Witnesses told FNA that the object has been observed for one complete hour while moving southwards." The article concludes by repeating the crashed-UFO account published on January 10.

 Finally, the third article (January 18) - essentially a redux of the earlier two - leads off by saying: "A radiant Unidentified Flying Object was again observed in the sky of Central Sepidar in the vicinity of Bouyer Ahmad in Western Iran from 19:10 to 20:30 hours local time . . .. In a similar incident last Monday, an Unidentified Flying Object was witnessed in the same area and at the same time.

 "Witnesses also said that the UFO has been as big as a ball, with a yellow ray and a bright reddish color in the center. They also stated that the object has been flying at a very low altitude.

 "Officials declined to comment on the event."

 Given the occasionally renewed CIA protestation that it has no intel-operations interest in tracking/investigating UFO encounters, are we to conclude that the Agency has concluded that no danger lies behind any of the reported encounters (or any future ones, for that matter)? Were he alive today, would the canny, assertive Maj. Keyhoe buy that official insouciance?

 Meantime, I suppose it's time for me to dispatch another FOIA request to the Agency - this time for a copy of all FBIS-produced UFO-article translations for the entire year of 2008.

 Better yet: why doesn't the Agency, for efficiency's sake and in the spirit of FOIA glasnost recently announced by Pres. Obama, simply begin posting all these translation reports on - duh! - its very own official web site? Your letters to your congresscritters in support of this proposal might see it to fruition.

 http://ufoview.posterous.com

In her processing letter to me of May 6, 2009, CIA FOIA chief Delores M. Nelson invokes the agency's multitude of exemptions to sanitize her release of their entire case file on the processing of my Nov. 8, 2008, request (their case No. F-2009-00200) re the activities/associations/goals of the late researcher W. Todd Zechel. Her deletions derive from the alleged need to protect the privacy of CIA personnel and to shield from public view certain data based on "internal personnel rules and practices."

 The released documents include this e-mail message from an unidentified staffer (probably Nelson) to another (deleted-identity) staffer:

 "This requester [Larry W. Bryant] has submitted a large number of earlier requests on topics concerning UFOs. The current one is part of a dual FOIA and is for information on an 'independent investigative journalist.' I found two earlier cases that list his [Zechel's] name in Subject, from 1977 and 1978, and there is no information but the grant code. One was NRL [no records located] and other was GIF [granted in full]. Neither case, however, was for records about him; one was for records we provided to him (GIF), and the other was for correspondence between Subject and CIA (NRL). CADRE document searches were negative. There are many Internet sites that talk about him, and he is listed on the SSDI [Social Security Death Index]. Here is his info: Name: W. (Walter) Todd Zechel; DOB: 2 October 1943 [etc.] . . .. I will prepare a draft based on the outcome of your searches."

 Indeed, a multipage document titled "Requester History" (protectively marked "For Official Use Only") traces my record of more than a dozen UFO-related FOIA requests to the agency, dating back to 1977. (One of these - re retired FAA official John Callahan's whistleblowing against the Central Intelligence Agency (see Item 2.9) - is headed for litigation within the next several days in U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia.)

 Besides doing a Google-search on Zechel's name (and printing out the results for the case file's content), Nelson's staff also printed out my own author's profile from this blog ( http://posterous.com/people/j1S7vtCZA ). What's more: in that staff's cover-all-bases diligence, they also printed out the biography of another Larry W. Bryant, totally unrelated to me. He currently serves as director of Academic Computing at the U. S. Air Force Academy. As you digest HIS profile (from http://www.educause.edu/Community/MemDir/profiles/LarryWBryant/40274 ), you can't help concluding that he's bound to know more about UFO reality than I ever will.

 Back to the agency's alleged disinterest in Zechelian affairs: keep in mind this telling insight scribbled upon their blank form titled "FOIA Accelerated Person-Search Request": "Reminder: Ops [Operations] files exempt from search since this is a FOIA request. Did not do cover check."

 http://ufoview.posterous.com