Larry W. Bryant's UFOview

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

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.
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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

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

Item 2.43: LWB Response to Harvard Law Review's Article re Bryant v. Rumsfeld/Gates

[LWB Note:  Here's the text of my July 9, 2009, response to the Harvard Law Review (Volume 122, No. 8 (June 2009)) article titled "D. C. Circuit Upholds Access Restriction to Military-run Newspapers on Forum Analysis Grounds -- Bryant v. Gates, 532 F. 3d 888 (D.C. Cir. 2008)."  You can find the article's text at http://tinyurl.com/lbv9eb .  It probably will take several weeks for the HLR staff to decide whether to publish my response upon the HLR web site's forum.]

== Jumping through the Government's First Amendment Hoops ==

By Larry W. Bryant (Plaintiff in Bryant v. Gates)

   As the plaintiff in Bryant v. Gates, I take this opportunity to clarify the record as to how the district court and the appellate court dropped the ball on honoring relevant precedent and acknowledging historical evidence in my case.

       Before the mid-eighties, the Defense Department's various military post/base weekly newspapers used to publish political advertisements (including full-page display ads from electoral candidates).  One of the more active advertisers in the Army-headquarters Pentagram newspaper was perennial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche.  Eventually, Army officials at the Pentagon got fed up with LaRouche's brash presence in the Pentagram's pages, so they convinced the Defense Department to ban all political ads henceforth.  In effect, though, by having accepted several of LaRouche's ads, the Army public affairs community in Washington, D. C., had created a forum for expressive activity by those members of the public willing to pay the printer's ad-placement fee.  Then the PA officialdom abruptly decided that the content of that forum henceforth should be politically censorable.  Alas, I failed to emphasize this key chain of events in the argument phase of my litigation.


I also miscalculated the effect of my joining a government-accepted stipulation that my own few dozen published whistleblower-solicitation classified ads since 1984 (and my several rejected ads) constituted "political" ads; I should've insisted to my attorney that the government prove those ads had any "political" content at all.  What's more, I failed to emphasize that the governing DoD instruction has a provision for accepting (and labeling as "Paid Advertisement") a category of classified ads called advertorials.  All my published ads were placed within the category of "announcements."

Both the lower and higher court found it convenient to gloss over the 1994 opinion of Judge Charles R. Richey in Bryant v. Secretary of the Army -- whereby he ruled that, yes, a given military-owned civilian-enterprise newspaper constitutes a nonpublic forum but that its letters-to-editor section hardly consists of government speech; therefore, he said, the Army's regulatory provision prohibiting publication of letters "not in consonance with" Army policy was invalid.  (See:  Bryant v. Sec. of Army, 862 F. Supp. 574 (D.D.C.1994.)

In so ruling , Richey affirmed the legal doctrine that official discrimination against a speaker's viewpoint, even within a nonpublic forum, is impermissible.  I wanted my argument to center on Richey's finding so that:  if the letters section within the paper's editorial pages can have its various viewpoints protected from arbitrary censorship, then why shouldn't that protection certainly be extended to the viewpoints expressed by my paid-ad submissions (regardless of their "political" content)?  (Note:  on at least two occasions, the installation's public affairs officer had expressly invoked his viewpoint-based dislike for my ad submissions, one of these rejecters characterizing the ad as being "anti-military" via its very title.)

How ironic that privately funded political speech, the very category most deserving of First Amendment protection, now must occupy a subservient niche in the culture of our nation's military community.  These servicemembers who voluntarily have put themselves at risk in order to help preserve and protect other citizens' constitutional rights now are being treated as second-class citizens by, of all things, our judicial system.

Upon receiving the appellate court's decision, I certainly wanted to file an appeal with the U. S. Supreme Court, but for financial reasons I'm unable to do so.  Thus, the courts have handed the executive branch more of a victory than it originally had sought, while depriving a large segment of government personnel the opportunity to receive, on their own turf, the expressive material created by some of their fellow citizens.

Item 2.42: Some of These UFO-coverup Ads Can Take on a Life of Their Own

On occasion, one's questioning of authority about the purpose, scope, and leadership of official UFO secrecy can be a bit risky for the questioner - especially if (s)he happens to be a federal employee. My own experience, as alluded to below, certainly (and amply) illustrates this painful fact of life.

 With the passage of almost 25 years, though, my having dared to mount this citizens' inquisition of officialdom may now seem quaint to some observers. But for me, the passion of that moment in UFOlogical history has an echo to this very day, rekindling itself in this renewed, online ad campaign - its latest installment being the following advertisement now posted (for 30 days hence) at the ad-placement service of inetgiant.com (see http://tinyurl.com/m4ygg3 ).

 If you happen to collect key quotes about UFO secrecy, here's one that never seems to get out of date:

 "The government prevents [its] employees from discussing UFO sightings except to the 'proper' authorities." - Journalist Mort Young, in his 1967 book UFO: TOP SECRET.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 == Blow the Whistle on the Dix-McGuire UFO Coverup! ==

 [Larry W. Bryant's note: the below-quoted ad originally was published on March 1, 1985, in two military-base weekly newspapers in the Washington, D. C., area: the Bolling Air Force Base's BEAM; and the Walter Reed Army Medical Center's STRIPE. Its submission to, and March 8th publication in, the Fort Dix, N. J., POST incurred the wrath of the Dix public affairs officer, who tracked me down to my employer (who happened to be the office of the Army chief of public affairs at the Pentagon). That action not only brought my UFO-coverup-whistleblower-solicitation ad campaign to a temporary halt but also ignited a First Amendment lawsuit (Bryant v. Weinberger) whose Count No. 2 (re my employer's on-the-job retaliation against me) won me some favorable relief upon appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. I reiterate the ad's content here in hopes that some retired/former Army/USAF official might be moved to tender a deathbed confession about his role in the Dix-McGuire incident.]

 WHERE IS HE NOW? - Army "Sgt. Anon.," the military policeman who, back in 1978, pursued (and shot dead) a disembarked occupant of a nighttime UFO seen maneuvering near Fort Dix and McGuire AFB, N. J. Where are the autopsy report and other records of this incident? If you, or someone you know, can furnish us answers to those questions, contact us immediately so that we can use your evidence/testimony in compelling the Government's full accountability under the U. S. Freedom of Information Act. Now's your chance to add your evidence to the whistleblower testimony we're gathering in this case. Write: Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS); 3518 Martha Custis Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302 [e-mail: overtci@cavtel.net ]. http://ufoview.posterous.com