Information Review Task Force (Defense Intelligence Agency)
Multi Request | Information Review Task Force |
Submitted | Oct. 8, 2018 |
Due | June 21, 2019 |
Est. Completion | None |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Emma North-Best
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:
Files, memos, emails and reports mentioning or produced by the Information Review Task Force.
I am a member of the news media and request classification as such. I have previously written about the government and its activities, with some reaching over 100,000 readers in outlets such as MuckRock, Motherboard, Property of the People, AND Magazine, Unicorn Riot, and more. As such, as I have a reasonable expectation of publication and my editorial and writing skills are well established. In addition, I discuss and comment on the files online and make them available through non-profits such as the library Internet Archive and and the journalist non-profit, MuckRock, disseminating them to a large audience. While my research is not limited to this, a great deal of it, including this, focuses on the activities and attitudes of the government itself. As such, it is not necessary for me to demonstrate the relevance of this particular subject in advance.
Additionally, case law states that “proof of the ability to disseminate the released information to a broad cross- section of the public is not required.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 365 F.3d 1108, 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 814-15 (2d Cir. 1994). Further, courts have held that "qualified because it also had “firm” plans to “publish a number of . . . ‘document sets’” concerning United States foreign and national security policy." Under this criteria, as well, I qualify as a member of the news media.
Additionally, courts have held that the news media status "focuses on the nature of the requester, not its request. The provision requires that the request be “made by” a representative of the news media. Id. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II). A newspaper reporter, for example, is a representative of the news media regardless of how much interest there is in the story for which he or she is requesting information." As such, the details of the request itself are moot for the purposes of determining the appropriate fee category.
As my primary purpose is to inform about government activities by reporting on it and making the raw data available, I request that fees be waived.
The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.
In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
Emma Best
From: Defense Intelligence Agency
Please advise which Information Review Task Force you are referring to (i.e., IRTF-1 or IRTF-2). We await your reply.
V/r
DIA, FOIA Document Review & Analysis Branch
FOIA and Declassification Services
-
~WRD000
From: Emma North-Best
IRTF-1.
From: Defense Intelligence Agency
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Emma Best,
Back in 2018 DIA created a case for your FOIA request FOIA-00016-2019 in which you asked for
"All Files, memos, emails and reports mentioning or produced by the Information Review Task Force"
is too broad. Please provide criteria (dates, topics, countries, people, etc) to narrow down the documents you are looking for. Please refer to your case number FOIA-00016-2019 in all future correspondence.
With Warm regards,
FOIA Services Center
(301) 394-6253
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
-
image001
From: Emma North-Best
I specified in 2019 the topic, IRTF-1, when you asked for and received clarification over three years ago. That also gives a natural date range, etc. Please perform the search for FOIA-00016-2019.
From: Defense Intelligence Agency
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Greetings,
On January 10th we sent you an email asking for clarification on your FOIA request FOIA-00016-2019. We have not to date received your response. Are you still interested in this case? Please respond within 30 business days or we will be forced to close your case.
In your reply make sure to reference your FOIA case number # FOIA-00016-2019.
Thank you,
With Warm regards,
FOIA Services Center
(301) 394-6253
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
-
image001
From: Emma North-Best
Yes I am still interested in this and all other FOIAs.
"or we will be forced to close your case." Forced? FORCED? You're not even supposed to use Still Interested letters!!! lmao
From: Defense Intelligence Agency
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Emma Best,
Back in 2018 DIA created a case for your FOIA request FOIA-00016-2019 in which you asked for
"All Files, memos, emails and reports mentioning or produced by the Information Review Task Force"
is too broad. Please provide criteria (dates, topics, countries, people, etc) to narrow down the documents you are looking for. Please refer to your case number FOIA-00016-2019 in all future correspondence.
With Warm regards,
FOIA Services Center
(301) 394-6253
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
-
image001
From: Emma North-Best
We've been through this multiple times, the exchanges are all published at https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/information-review-task-force-defense-intelligence-agency-62145/ and visible for anyone to see.
As I said three months ago, "I specified in 2019 the topic, IRTF-1, when you asked for and received clarification over three years ago. That also gives a natural date range, etc. Please perform the search for FOIA-00016-2019." This was after I provided specifications about which IRTF-1 in response to your initial request for clarification, which was sufficient at the time.
Can you please explain how and why it's suddenly no longer sufficient, almost five years after I filed the request? The dates that the IRTF-1 was active provide a natural date range. You have had the topic all along, and even received clarification about it.