Actually, the Department of Justice states in instructions to agencies that the administrative task of filling out the affidavit is the single most important requirement for an agency to defend against an FOIA lawsuit. In the 1987 Struth v. FBI case the Court specifically stated "courts have consistently held that a requester's opinion disputing the risk created by disclosure is not sufficient to preclude summary judgment for the agency when the agency possessing the relevant expertise has provided sufficiently detailed affidavits." (See 673 F. Supp. 949, 954, E.D. Wis.) This clear statement adds strength to the argument that the current legal method of review does not meet the required level of a Constitutional judicial review. Does an affidavit from one party fulfill the judicial review requirement? It is important to understand that the affidavit is a document that contains information relevant to the case and is sworn to by an agency employee. It is documentation provided by the agency stating that they complied with the FOIA requirements. It is a one sided statement from an agency and it is not a presentation of legal arguments or legal conclusions. It can not be challenged in a trial by the requester, and therefore does not receive a full legal review. The result is that the government almost always prevails in FOIA national security litigation. (See: Holding the Spymasters Accountable: A Proposed Model for CIA Disclosure Requirements under the Freedom of Information Act, by Martin Halstuk, Pennsylvania State University, 27).

Take the case of the CIA, which derivatively classifies more documents than any other government body and may hold the most information on UFOs. They have proven especially invulnerable to FOIA review. The Ninth Circuit conceded in 1992 that "we are now only a short step away [from] exempting all CIA records from FOIA." (See: Hunt v. CIA, 981 F.2d 1116, 1120, 9th Cir.). This sad state of affairs means that over 99% of all FOIA law suites end before the trial ever begins. An agency affidavit is filed, to support a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court makes its judgment with no trial. The summary judgment is based upon a motion by the agency that contends that all necessary factual issues are settled and the case is not tried. Essentially, if an agency employee signs the required affidavits and states that the information, if publicly disclosed, would harm national security, then that is generally good enough.

It is especially worthy of note, that the administrative agencies are responsible for processing initial requests for access to their records and for adjudicating any appeals from those actions. However, when an agency is taken to court by a requester in a FOIA lawsuit, the Department of Justice almost always represents the defendant agency on behalf of the government. FOIA cases are defended either by the local U.S. Attorney's office or by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, with agency legal and FOIA staffs playing a supporting role. In FOIA litigation, the defendant agencies are the clients of the Department of Justice. During the past two decades, as FOIA case law has developed in the courts, this attorney-client relationship has developed as well. This means that a select, well-trained cadre of government lawyers are used to defend these cases and is often the same group representing all the agencies of the U.S. government. They have become very effective at winning.

It is also clear from the cases that a degree of judicial deference is routinely granted to agencies defending against FOIA requesters. This trend is directly opposite the clear congressional objectives defined when Congress was drafting the FOIA. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically stated in its 1976 ruling, Department of the Air Force v. Rose, (See 425 U.S. 352, 361) that the intention of the FOIA was "to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny". However, from the start the FOIA was compromised, secretive government agencies and court deference shunted its underlying principles of openness and accountability. It can not be more apparent; FOIA national security claims deserve additional judicial scrutiny. The judicial record of FOIA case law shows that the inappropriate bias has caused uncontrolled government secrecy. According to the Information Security Oversight Office (part the National Archives) the number of documents classified in the last six years has almost quadrupled. Going from 5.8 million in 1996 to more than 20 million last year. The government bureaucrat´s huge advantage is preventing vital information from getting into the hands of our country's real rulers, you and your fellow citizens.

Share this article with:

More Articles of Interest: • Great Sacandaga Lake UFO • UFO over Kaneohe Marine Base, Hawaii • Yuma Arizona Video - UFO or Planet? • The Alien's Backbone • Recent Proof About Poles Reversal in Connection with Planet X • The Art of WW III: Unifying Archetypes of Apocalypse • OCTOBER CONTACT • The Mekeer: Preparatory - Part II • Forever Grateful!