This is an ABSOLUTE STUNNER!
The people entrusted with regulating the pharmaceutical (i.e. drug) companies
are getting RICH from royalty payments to them from the VERY SAME companies!
NIH is slow walking release of this information; …
… what we know now is that Fauci himself received 23 separate royalty payments,
but we don't from whom or for how much.
We DO know that Fauci's net worth is over 10 million.
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 3:27:20 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 6:10:40 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
Or is it going to be another primer for Tommy to learn how the
This is an ABSOLUTE STUNNER!
government operates?
The people entrusted with regulating the pharmaceutical (i.e.Mostly it’s the Agency, who’s paying for the research. Would you
drug) companies are getting RICH from royalty payments to them
from the VERY SAME companies!
prefer for taxpayers to *not* get a return on their investment?
NIH is slow walking release of this information; …
Of course, because every line of a FOIA has to be cleared for
multiple criteria.
… what we know now is that Fauci himself received 23 separateOr over how many decades either…right?
royalty payments, but we don't from whom or for how much.
We DO know that Fauci's net worth is over 10 million.So? Jealous much Tommy? Particularly since it isn’t big enough to
support your narrative attempt: a total of $10M really doesn’t
really indicate all that much received I n the way of these royalty
payments adding to his TSP, etc. Plus the cite’s notation of 900
scientists splitting $9M in royalties means just $10,000 each.
-hh
As always, I prefer openness in government. The report is clear: it
covers just 10 years. And the amount IS NOT $9M - it is $350M. And
Fauci was not a scientist at the time - he WAS an administrator. So
WHY was he getting ANY royalty payments at all? After all, he is the
HIGHEST PAID bureaucrat in the government, including Lyin' Biden. The
public deserves to know about potential conflicts of interest, and
the behavior of NIH smells of a cover-up, which doesn't want to
disclose these payments. You SHOULD also want to know this.
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 6:10:40 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
This is an ABSOLUTE STUNNER!Or is it going to be another primer for Tommy to learn how the government operates?
The people entrusted with regulating the pharmaceutical (i.e. drug) companiesMostly it’s the Agency, who’s paying for the research. Would you prefer for taxpayers
are getting RICH from royalty payments to them from the VERY SAME companies!
to *not* get a return on their investment?
NIH is slow walking release of this information; …
Of course, because every line of a FOIA has to be cleared for multiple criteria.
… what we know now is that Fauci himself received 23 separate royalty payments,Or over how many decades either…right?
but we don't from whom or for how much.
We DO know that Fauci's net worth is over 10 million.So? Jealous much Tommy? Particularly since it isn’t big enough to
support your narrative attempt: a total of $10M really doesn’t really indicate all that much received I n the way of these royalty payments
adding to his TSP, etc. Plus the cite’s notation of 900 scientists splitting
$9M in royalties means just $10,000 each.
-hh
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 3:27:20 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 6:10:40 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
This is an ABSOLUTE STUNNER!Or is it going to be another primer for Tommy to learn how the government operates?
The people entrusted with regulating the pharmaceutical (i.e. drug) companiesMostly it’s the Agency, who’s paying for the research. Would you prefer for taxpayers
are getting RICH from royalty payments to them from the VERY SAME companies!
to *not* get a return on their investment?
NIH is slow walking release of this information; …
Of course, because every line of a FOIA has to be cleared for multiple criteria.
… what we know now is that Fauci himself received 23 separate royalty payments,Or over how many decades either…right?
but we don't from whom or for how much.
We DO know that Fauci's net worth is over 10 million.So? Jealous much Tommy? Particularly since it isn’t big enough to support your narrative attempt: a total of $10M really doesn’t really indicate all that much received I n the way of these royalty payments adding to his TSP, etc. Plus the cite’s notation of 900 scientists splitting
$9M in royalties means just $10,000 each.
As always, I prefer openness in government.
The report is clear: it covers just 10 years.
And the amount IS NOT $9M - it is $350M.
And Fauci was not a scientist at the time - he WAS an administrator.
So WHY was he getting ANY royalty payments at all?
After all, he is the HIGHEST PAID bureaucrat in the government, including Lyin' Biden.
The public deserves to know about potential conflicts of interest, and the behavior
of NIH smells of a cover-up, which doesn't want to disclose these payments. You SHOULD also want to know this.
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 7:02:53 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 3:27:20 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 6:10:40 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
This is an ABSOLUTE STUNNER!Or is it going to be another primer for Tommy to learn how the government operates?
The people entrusted with regulating the pharmaceutical (i.e. drug) companiesMostly it’s the Agency, who’s paying for the research. Would you prefer for taxpayers
are getting RICH from royalty payments to them from the VERY SAME companies!
to *not* get a return on their investment?
NIH is slow walking release of this information; …
Of course, because every line of a FOIA has to be cleared for multiple criteria.
… what we know now is that Fauci himself received 23 separate royalty payments,Or over how many decades either…right?
but we don't from whom or for how much.
We DO know that Fauci's net worth is over 10 million.So? Jealous much Tommy? Particularly since it isn’t big enough to support your narrative attempt: a total of $10M really doesn’t really indicate all that much received I n the way of these royalty payments adding to his TSP, etc. Plus the cite’s notation of 900 scientists splitting
$9M in royalties means just $10,000 each.
As always, I prefer openness in government.But the law says that there’s exceptions. For example, I can’t do a FOIA to get your unrecused tax return.
The report is clear: it covers just 10 years.Good point: the $9M divided by 900 is also divided by 10 years, so the royalty is
just $1000 per person per year.
And the amount IS NOT $9M - it is $350M.No, the cite made it quite clear that the amount which went to *individual employees* was just $9M. Logically, that means that the rest ($341M)
went back to the government agency.
And Fauci was not a scientist at the time - he WAS an administrator.Oh, his PhD temporarily disappeared? And just what was his job series
and grade during this time? Because if he was a Factor 4 or an SE, then
he most certainly was still a scientist, even if he also had supervisory responsibilities too.
So WHY was he getting ANY royalty payments at all?Same reason anyone else gets them: material contributions.
After all, he is the HIGHEST PAID bureaucrat in the government, including Lyin' Biden.So? How much does the same level of responsibility get paid in private industry Tommy?
More than merely $400K…usually by a full order of magnitude, if I recall the numbers
I’ve shown you before on this.
The public deserves to know about potential conflicts of interest, and the behaviorOn the contrary: I’ve personally worked on FOIAs and know the process; it’s
of NIH smells of a cover-up, which doesn't want to disclose these payments.
You SHOULD also want to know this.
a balance of competing interests. Here, you have at least three factors to balance, including PII and IP. Plus there often can be others, such as classified,
pre-decisional, and strategic initiatives that are competition sensitive. Not that
you’ve ever run a business to know such things… /s
-hh
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 5:24:50 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 7:02:53 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 3:27:20 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:But the law says that there’s exceptions. For example, I can’t do a
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 6:10:40 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
Or is it going to be another primer for Tommy to learn how the
This is an ABSOLUTE STUNNER!
government operates?
The people entrusted with regulating the pharmaceutical (i.e.Mostly it’s the Agency, who’s paying for the research. Would
drug) companies are getting RICH from royalty payments to
them from the VERY SAME companies!
you prefer for taxpayers to *not* get a return on their
investment?
NIH is slow walking release of this information; …
Of course, because every line of a FOIA has to be cleared for
multiple criteria.
… what we know now is that Fauci himself received 23 separateOr over how many decades either…right?
royalty payments, but we don't from whom or for how much.
We DO know that Fauci's net worth is over 10 million.So? Jealous much Tommy? Particularly since it isn’t big enough
to support your narrative attempt: a total of $10M really
doesn’t really indicate all that much received I n the way of
these royalty payments adding to his TSP, etc. Plus the cite’s
notation of 900 scientists splitting $9M in royalties means
just $10,000 each.
As always, I prefer openness in government.
FOIA to get your unrecused tax return.
The report is clear: it covers just 10 years.Good point: the $9M divided by 900 is also divided by 10 years, so
the royalty is just $1000 per person per year.
And the amount IS NOT $9M - it is $350M.No, the cite made it quite clear that the amount which went to
*individual employees* was just $9M. Logically, that means that the
rest ($341M) went back to the government agency.
And Fauci was not a scientist at the time - he WAS anOh, his PhD temporarily disappeared? And just what was his job
administrator.
series and grade during this time? Because if he was a Factor 4 or
an SE, then he most certainly was still a scientist, even if he
also had supervisory responsibilities too.
So WHY was he getting ANY royalty payments at all?Same reason anyone else gets them: material contributions.
After all, he is the HIGHEST PAID bureaucrat in the government,So? How much does the same level of responsibility get paid in
including Lyin' Biden.
private industry Tommy? More than merely $400K…usually by a full
order of magnitude, if I recall the numbers I’ve shown you before
on this.
If these scientists, including Fauci, want to work in private
industry they are free to quit the government and go to work there.
While they ARE employed by the US taxpayer they are held to higher
ethical standards REQUIRING them to work on the behalf of the public
and not company shareholders. Getting secret payments from the
companies they are regulating doesn't even pass the laugh test - even
for YOU!
The public deserves to know about potential conflicts ofOn the contrary: I’ve personally worked on FOIAs and know the
interest, and the behavior of NIH smells of a cover-up, which
doesn't want to disclose these payments. You SHOULD also want to
know this.
process; it’s a balance of competing interests. Here, you have at
least three factors to balance, including PII and IP. Plus there
often can be others, such as classified, pre-decisional, and
strategic initiatives that are competition sensitive. Not that
you’ve ever run a business to know such things… /s
-hh
Have you EVER had to answer to a judge, because that is where this
one is headed. Thank God for Judicial Watch, one organization I
contribute to.
On 2022-05-15 2:23 p.m., TomS wrote:
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 5:24:50 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 7:02:53 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 3:27:20 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 6:10:40 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
Or is it going to be another primer for Tommy to learn how the
This is an ABSOLUTE STUNNER!
government operates?
The people entrusted with regulating the pharmaceutical (i.e.Mostly it’s the Agency, who’s paying for the research. Would
drug) companies are getting RICH from royalty payments to
them from the VERY SAME companies!
you prefer for taxpayers to *not* get a return on their
investment?
NIH is slow walking release of this information; …
Of course, because every line of a FOIA has to be cleared for
multiple criteria.
… what we know now is that Fauci himself received 23 separateOr over how many decades either…right?
royalty payments, but we don't from whom or for how much.
We DO know that Fauci's net worth is over 10 million.So? Jealous much Tommy? Particularly since it isn’t big enough
to support your narrative attempt: a total of $10M really
doesn’t really indicate all that much received I n the way of
these royalty payments adding to his TSP, etc. Plus the cite’s
notation of 900 scientists splitting $9M in royalties means
just $10,000 each.
As always, I prefer openness in government.
But the law says that there’s exceptions. For example, I can’t do a >> FOIA to get your unrecused tax return.
The report is clear: it covers just 10 years.
Good point: the $9M divided by 900 is also divided by 10 years, so
the royalty is just $1000 per person per year.
And the amount IS NOT $9M - it is $350M.No, the cite made it quite clear that the amount which went to
*individual employees* was just $9M. Logically, that means that the
rest ($341M) went back to the government agency.
And Fauci was not a scientist at the time - he WAS an
administrator.
Oh, his PhD temporarily disappeared? And just what was his job
series and grade during this time? Because if he was a Factor 4 or
an SE, then he most certainly was still a scientist, even if he
also had supervisory responsibilities too.
So WHY was he getting ANY royalty payments at all?
Same reason anyone else gets them: material contributions.
After all, he is the HIGHEST PAID bureaucrat in the government,
including Lyin' Biden.
So? How much does the same level of responsibility get paid in
private industry Tommy? More than merely $400K…usually by a full
order of magnitude, if I recall the numbers I’ve shown you before
on this.
If these scientists, including Fauci, want to work in private
industry they are free to quit the government and go to work there.
While they ARE employed by the US taxpayer they are held to higher
ethical standards REQUIRING them to work on the behalf of the public
and not company shareholders. Getting secret payments from the
companies they are regulating doesn't even pass the laugh test - even
for YOU!
The payments aren't secret, Sunshine.
The public deserves to know about potential conflicts of
interest, and the behavior of NIH smells of a cover-up, which
doesn't want to disclose these payments. You SHOULD also want to
know this.
On the contrary: I’ve personally worked on FOIAs and know the
process; it’s a balance of competing interests. Here, you have at
least three factors to balance, including PII and IP. Plus there
often can be others, such as classified, pre-decisional, and
strategic initiatives that are competition sensitive. Not that
you’ve ever run a business to know such things… /s
Have you EVER had to answer to a judge, because that is where this
one is headed. Thank God for Judicial Watch, one organization I
contribute to.
I'll bet you $1,000 that this never gets in front of a judge.
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauci
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauciAnd it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950), as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that $150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c> <https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
-hh
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist
who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauciAnd it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950),
as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that
$150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c> <https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
If this is SO innocent, WHY is the CDC being SO SECRETIVE about it?
This just raises more questions.
Also, $150k x 23 is $3.45 MILLION, not exactly chump change..
- especially so if it was undeserved.
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist
who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauciAnd it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back
much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950),
as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that
$150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c> <https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
If this is SO innocent, WHY is the CDC being SO SECRETIVE about it?Read the regulations for what is *required* to be protected in FOIA’s.
This just raises more questions.
Also, $150k x 23 is $3.45 MILLION, not exactly chump change..
Out of $30B, it’s just 0.0115%. Tim Cook got much more.
- especially so if it was undeserved.Except that it is your unfounded… and paranoid … speculation
that every payment was the maximum, despite Fauchi not
having a net worth which supports your nonsense.
-hh
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist
who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauciAnd it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back
much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950),
as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that
$150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c> <https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
If this is SO innocent, WHY is the CDC being SO SECRETIVE about it?Read the regulations for what is *required* to be protected in FOIA’s.
This just raises more questions.
Also, $150k x 23 is $3.45 MILLION, not exactly chump change..
Out of $30B, it’s just 0.0115%. Tim Cook got much more.
- especially so if it was undeserved.
Except that it is your unfounded… and paranoid … speculation
that every payment was the maximum, despite Fauchi not
having a net worth which supports your nonsense.
LOL! You could say the same thing about bank robbers, but they
get arrested anyway. It's not a matter about being paranoid - it's
about FULL DISCLOSURE! Kind of like Trump's tax returns, right?
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:00:55 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist
who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauciAnd it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back
much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950),
as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that
$150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c> <https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
If this is SO innocent, WHY is the CDC being SO SECRETIVE about it?Read the regulations for what is *required* to be protected in FOIA’s.
This just raises more questions.
Also, $150k x 23 is $3.45 MILLION, not exactly chump change..
Out of $30B, it’s just 0.0115%. Tim Cook got much more.
- especially so if it was undeserved.
Except that it is your unfounded… and paranoid … speculation
that every payment was the maximum, despite Fauchi not
having a net worth which supports your nonsense.
LOL! You could say the same thing about bank robbers, but theyNope. The FOIA regulations actually prohibit this 'full' disclosure that you're trying to demand. The law requires that any FOIA release be
get arrested anyway. It's not a matter about being paranoid - it's
about FULL DISCLOSURE! Kind of like Trump's tax returns, right?
vetted against competing interests (and laws) in nine categories:
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1): Classified national security information.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2): Information related solely to the internal personnel rules
and practices of an agency.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3): Information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4): Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained
from a person that is privileged or confidential.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5): Inter- or intra- agency memoranda protected by a privilege, such
as the attorney work-product, attorney client, or deliberative process privileges, except
that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or
more before the date on which the records were requested.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6): Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the
extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(b)(7)(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(b)(7)(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of and/or information provided
by a confidential source;
(b)(7)(E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions; or,
(b)(7)(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8): Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(9): Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells."
<https://www.archives.gov/foia/foia-guide>
For more, see also:
<https://pavilion.dinfos.edu/Article/Article/2144140/what-you-need-to-know-about-foia-and-the-privacy-act/>
<https://declassification.blogs.archives.gov/2019/03/08/classified-records-national-security-declassification-and-the-freedom-of-information-act/>
FYI, if you actually have reviewed the FOIA response, it is required list which specific exemption
was the basis for the information that wasn't released. Provide that code and cross-compare it
to the above list to gain insight on why it wasn't released. FYI, category B6 is one of the stronger
ones and much less likely to be able to appeal, as per principles of 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
-hh
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 4:58:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:00:55 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist
who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauciAnd it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back
much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950),
as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that
$150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c> <https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
If this is SO innocent, WHY is the CDC being SO SECRETIVE about it?Read the regulations for what is *required* to be protected in FOIA’s.
This just raises more questions.
Also, $150k x 23 is $3.45 MILLION, not exactly chump change..
Out of $30B, it’s just 0.0115%. Tim Cook got much more.
- especially so if it was undeserved.
Except that it is your unfounded… and paranoid … speculation
that every payment was the maximum, despite Fauchi not
having a net worth which supports your nonsense.
LOL! You could say the same thing about bank robbers, but theyNope. The FOIA regulations actually prohibit this 'full' disclosure that you're trying to demand. The law requires that any FOIA release be
get arrested anyway. It's not a matter about being paranoid - it's
about FULL DISCLOSURE! Kind of like Trump's tax returns, right?
vetted against competing interests (and laws) in nine categories:
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1): Classified national security information.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2): Information related solely to the internal personnel rules
and practices of an agency.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3): Information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4): Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained
from a person that is privileged or confidential.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5): Inter- or intra- agency memoranda protected by a privilege, such
as the attorney work-product, attorney client, or deliberative process privileges, except
that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or
more before the date on which the records were requested.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6): Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the
extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(b)(7)(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(b)(7)(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of and/or information provided
by a confidential source;
(b)(7)(E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions; or,
(b)(7)(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8): Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(9): Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells."
<https://www.archives.gov/foia/foia-guide>
For more, see also:
<https://pavilion.dinfos.edu/Article/Article/2144140/what-you-need-to-know-about-foia-and-the-privacy-act/>
<https://declassification.blogs.archives.gov/2019/03/08/classified-records-national-security-declassification-and-the-freedom-of-information-act/>
FYI, if you actually have reviewed the FOIA response, it is required list which specific exemption
was the basis for the information that wasn't released. Provide that code and cross-compare it
to the above list to gain insight on why it wasn't released. FYI, category B6 is one of the stronger
ones and much less likely to be able to appeal, as per principles of 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
LOL! Did you actually READ these?
Take, for example:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
So, you apparently expect Fauci to be INDICTED over this!
NONE of these subparagraphs can be REASONABLY interpreted to apply to the release
of these payments.
And a judge WILL determine reasonableness, NOT YOU,
but the CDC WILL have to make the case for which ones do - that should be fascinating reading!
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 4:58:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:00:55 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist
who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauciAnd it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back
much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950),
as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that
$150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c> <https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
If this is SO innocent, WHY is the CDC being SO SECRETIVE about it?Read the regulations for what is *required* to be protected in FOIA’s.
This just raises more questions.
Also, $150k x 23 is $3.45 MILLION, not exactly chump change..
Out of $30B, it’s just 0.0115%. Tim Cook got much more.
- especially so if it was undeserved.
Except that it is your unfounded… and paranoid … speculation that every payment was the maximum, despite Fauchi not
having a net worth which supports your nonsense.
LOL! You could say the same thing about bank robbers, but theyNope. The FOIA regulations actually prohibit this 'full' disclosure that you're trying to demand. The law requires that any FOIA release be vetted against competing interests (and laws) in nine categories:
get arrested anyway. It's not a matter about being paranoid - it's about FULL DISCLOSURE! Kind of like Trump's tax returns, right?
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1): Classified national security information.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2): Information related solely to the internal personnel rules
and practices of an agency.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3): Information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4): Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained
from a person that is privileged or confidential.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5): Inter- or intra- agency memoranda protected by a privilege, such
as the attorney work-product, attorney client, or deliberative process privileges, except
that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or
more before the date on which the records were requested.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6): Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the
extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(b)(7)(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(b)(7)(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of and/or information provided
by a confidential source;
(b)(7)(E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions; or,
(b)(7)(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8): Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(9): Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells."
<https://www.archives.gov/foia/foia-guide>
For more, see also:
<https://pavilion.dinfos.edu/Article/Article/2144140/what-you-need-to-know-about-foia-and-the-privacy-act/>
<https://declassification.blogs.archives.gov/2019/03/08/classified-records-national-security-declassification-and-the-freedom-of-information-act/>
FYI, if you actually have reviewed the FOIA response, it is required list which specific exemption
was the basis for the information that wasn't released. Provide that code and cross-compare it
to the above list to gain insight on why it wasn't released. FYI, category B6 is one of the stronger
ones and much less likely to be able to appeal, as per principles of 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
LOL! Did you actually READ these?Of course, because I've had to professionally apply them to FOIA requests. >Take, for example:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;Sure: the first thing to do is to actually read the full requirement in context:
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,
to the extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;"
In other words, "don't violate the 6th Amendment".
So, you apparently expect Fauci to be INDICTED over this!No, not at all. You were expressing surprise that anything could be excluded in a FOIA,
and I've explained to you that the law doesn't say that and provided its exemptions list.
Furthermore, I had mentioned B6 ("...unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.") as
what's more likely applicable, as it is the exemption invoking the Privacy Act.
NONE of these subparagraphs can be REASONABLY interpreted to apply to the releaseMerely your opinion, speaking from the ignorant & untrained position where you didn't
of these payments.
even know yesterday that specific FOIA exemptions exist, let alone their categories.
Plus the evidence is against you, since the Agency did exclude that information, and
that hasn't been struck down at any level yet...right?
And a judge WILL determine reasonableness, NOT YOU,Of course! I'm merely providing general regulatory guidance: its not my case that I'm responsible for.
but the CDC WILL have to make the case for which ones do - that should be fascinating reading!Best Practices typically call for the ID# of the specific exemption that's being applied
to be listed with the recused text, so as to aid in the internal legal reviews as well as
for parties who seek to contest the decisions. Reading precisely what your document
has listed is informative to understand why it was recused and if you have any realistic
chance of contesting it. So what are the specific codes being contested?
-hh
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 10:52:01 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 4:58:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:00:55 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist
who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauciAnd it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back
much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950),
as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that
$150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c> <https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
If this is SO innocent, WHY is the CDC being SO SECRETIVE about it?Read the regulations for what is *required* to be protected in FOIA’s.
This just raises more questions.
Also, $150k x 23 is $3.45 MILLION, not exactly chump change..
Out of $30B, it’s just 0.0115%. Tim Cook got much more.
- especially so if it was undeserved.
Except that it is your unfounded… and paranoid … speculation that every payment was the maximum, despite Fauchi not
having a net worth which supports your nonsense.
LOL! You could say the same thing about bank robbers, but theyNope. The FOIA regulations actually prohibit this 'full' disclosure that
get arrested anyway. It's not a matter about being paranoid - it's about FULL DISCLOSURE! Kind of like Trump's tax returns, right?
you're trying to demand. The law requires that any FOIA release be vetted against competing interests (and laws) in nine categories:
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1): Classified national security information.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2): Information related solely to the internal personnel rules
and practices of an agency.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3): Information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4): Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained
from a person that is privileged or confidential.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5): Inter- or intra- agency memoranda protected by a privilege, such
as the attorney work-product, attorney client, or deliberative process privileges, except
that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or
more before the date on which the records were requested.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6): Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the
extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(b)(7)(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(b)(7)(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of and/or information provided
by a confidential source;
(b)(7)(E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions; or,
(b)(7)(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8): Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(9): Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells."
<https://www.archives.gov/foia/foia-guide>
For more, see also:
<https://pavilion.dinfos.edu/Article/Article/2144140/what-you-need-to-know-about-foia-and-the-privacy-act/>
<https://declassification.blogs.archives.gov/2019/03/08/classified-records-national-security-declassification-and-the-freedom-of-information-act/>
FYI, if you actually have reviewed the FOIA response, it is required list which specific exemption
was the basis for the information that wasn't released. Provide that code and cross-compare it
to the above list to gain insight on why it wasn't released. FYI, category B6 is one of the stronger
ones and much less likely to be able to appeal, as per principles of 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
LOL! Did you actually READ these?
Of course, because I've had to professionally apply them to FOIA requests.
Take, for example:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
Sure: the first thing to do is to actually read the full requirement in context:
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,
to the extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;"
In other words, "don't violate the 6th Amendment".
So, you apparently expect Fauci to be INDICTED over this!
No, not at all. You were expressing surprise that anything could be excluded in a FOIA,
and I've explained to you that the law doesn't say that and provided its exemptions list.
You stated it - not me. So you must have thought it was a possibility.
Furthermore, I had mentioned B6 ("...unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.") as
what's more likely applicable, as it is the exemption invoking the Privacy Act.
Poppycock - what people are paid IS NOT an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" and is the LEAST applicable section.
NONE of these subparagraphs can be REASONABLY interpreted to apply to the release
of these payments.
Merely your opinion, speaking from the ignorant & untrained position where you didn't
even know yesterday that specific FOIA exemptions exist, let alone their categories.
My opinion is as VALID as yours.
Plus the evidence is against you, since the Agency did exclude that information, and
that hasn't been struck down at any level yet...right?
Wrong - they have already made a half-hearted attempt at complying.
And a judge WILL determine reasonableness, NOT YOU,
Of course! I'm merely providing general regulatory guidance: its not
my case that I'm responsible for.
And that was the original topic. The CDC is has been withholding data
from the public for a LONG TIME ...
... and the courts are necessary to force them to act in the PUBLIC INTEREST, which they haven't been doing.
but the CDC WILL have to make the case for which ones do - that should be fascinating reading!
Best Practices typically call for the ID# of the specific exemption that's being applied
to be listed with the recused text, so as to aid in the internal legal reviews as well as
for parties who seek to contest the decisions. Reading precisely what your document
has listed is informative to understand why it was recused and if you have any realistic
chance of contesting it. So what are the specific codes being contested?
Refer to the lawsuit.
On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 10:52:01 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 4:58:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:00:55 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist
who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauciAnd it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back
much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950),
as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that
$150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c> <https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
If this is SO innocent, WHY is the CDC being SO SECRETIVE about it?Read the regulations for what is *required* to be protected in FOIA’s.
This just raises more questions.
Also, $150k x 23 is $3.45 MILLION, not exactly chump change..
Out of $30B, it’s just 0.0115%. Tim Cook got much more.
- especially so if it was undeserved.
Except that it is your unfounded… and paranoid … speculation that every payment was the maximum, despite Fauchi not
having a net worth which supports your nonsense.
LOL! You could say the same thing about bank robbers, but theyNope. The FOIA regulations actually prohibit this 'full' disclosure that
get arrested anyway. It's not a matter about being paranoid - it's about FULL DISCLOSURE! Kind of like Trump's tax returns, right?
you're trying to demand. The law requires that any FOIA release be vetted against competing interests (and laws) in nine categories:
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1): Classified national security information.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2): Information related solely to the internal personnel rules
and practices of an agency.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3): Information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4): Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained
from a person that is privileged or confidential.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5): Inter- or intra- agency memoranda protected by a privilege, such
as the attorney work-product, attorney client, or deliberative process privileges, except
that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or
more before the date on which the records were requested.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6): Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the
extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(b)(7)(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(b)(7)(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of and/or information provided
by a confidential source;
(b)(7)(E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions; or,
(b)(7)(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8): Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(9): Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells."
<https://www.archives.gov/foia/foia-guide>
For more, see also:
<https://pavilion.dinfos.edu/Article/Article/2144140/what-you-need-to-know-about-foia-and-the-privacy-act/>
<https://declassification.blogs.archives.gov/2019/03/08/classified-records-national-security-declassification-and-the-freedom-of-information-act/>
FYI, if you actually have reviewed the FOIA response, it is required list which specific exemption
was the basis for the information that wasn't released. Provide that code and cross-compare it
to the above list to gain insight on why it wasn't released. FYI, category B6 is one of the stronger
ones and much less likely to be able to appeal, as per principles of 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
LOL! Did you actually READ these?
Of course, because I've had to professionally apply them to FOIA requests.
Take, for example:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
Sure: the first thing to do is to actually read the full requirement in context:
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,
to the extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;"
In other words, "don't violate the 6th Amendment".
So, you apparently expect Fauci to be INDICTED over this!
No, not at all. You were expressing surprise that anything could be excluded in a FOIA,
and I've explained to you that the law doesn't say that and provided its exemptions list.
You stated it - not me. So you must have thought it was a possibility.Incorrect. Your mental faculties are failing you:
First, you started by tried to claim that 'full disclosure' was required on FOIA.
You were shown that that claim was false. The full exemptions list was provided.
Next, you tried to claim the existence of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(B) within the full
exemptions list as proof that I was "...expect[ing] Fauci to be INDICTED...".
This was incorrect because it was the complete list: you were told to look for the specific code justifying the recusal for insight, plus you were shown
how you were trying to read subpart (B) out of context.
Furthermore, I had mentioned B6 ("...unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.") as
what's more likely applicable, as it is the exemption invoking the Privacy Act.
Poppycock - what people are paid IS NOT an "unwarranted invasion of personalDid a Judge say that...or are you also trying to pretend that you're a Judge?
privacy" and is the LEAST applicable section.
NONE of these subparagraphs can be REASONABLY interpreted to apply to the release
of these payments.
Merely your opinion, speaking from the ignorant & untrained position where you didn't
even know yesterday that specific FOIA exemptions exist, let alone their categories.
My opinion is as VALID as yours.If that were true, then you could provide the URL cite to where my salary is disclosed to the public. Have at it ... I know that mine is excluded.
Plus the evidence is against you, since the Agency did exclude that information, and
that hasn't been struck down at any level yet...right?
Wrong - they have already made a half-hearted attempt at complying.Merely your uninformed opinion, based mostly on the claims being made
by an organization that has questionable funding sources, and whose own founder, Adam Andrzejewski, doesn't allow himself to be held to the same standards of full & open disclosure as those who he's challenging...yeah, that makes him a hypocrite.
And a judge WILL determine reasonableness, NOT YOU,
Of course! I'm merely providing general regulatory guidance: its not
my case that I'm responsible for.
And that was the original topic. The CDC is has been withholding data
from the public for a LONG TIME ...
In accordance with the law, specifically 5 U.S.C. 552
... and the courts are necessary to force them to act in the PUBLIC INTEREST, which they haven't been doing.Merely the claims being pushed by Andrzejewski ... and isn't something that's equally of public interest is where his revenue stream is coming from?
By any chance, is it from Russian sources? /s
but the CDC WILL have to make the case for which ones do - that should be fascinating reading!
Best Practices typically call for the ID# of the specific exemption that's being applied
to be listed with the recused text, so as to aid in the internal legal reviews as well as
for parties who seek to contest the decisions. Reading precisely what your document
has listed is informative to understand why it was recused and if you have any realistic
chance of contesting it. So what are the specific codes being contested?
Refer to the lawsuit.Not my job to do so. It is what you have raised, so it is your responsibility.
I've already spoonfed you the basics of how to track down the legal basis and justification for specific information recusals, but you've not even lifted
a finger to bother to check. If your hero does the same inaction, they're going
to lose their legal appeal ... and hopefully also required to reimburse the government legal fees too - - since that would potentially constitute a frivolous lawsuit, so it is in the public's interest to recoup taxpayer money spent
on defense against.
-hh
On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 6:06:10 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 10:52:01 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 4:58:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:00:55 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist
who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauciAnd it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back
much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950),
as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that
$150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c> <https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
If this is SO innocent, WHY is the CDC being SO SECRETIVE about it?Read the regulations for what is *required* to be protected in FOIA’s.
This just raises more questions.
Also, $150k x 23 is $3.45 MILLION, not exactly chump change..
Out of $30B, it’s just 0.0115%. Tim Cook got much more.
- especially so if it was undeserved.
Except that it is your unfounded… and paranoid … speculation
that every payment was the maximum, despite Fauchi not
having a net worth which supports your nonsense.
LOL! You could say the same thing about bank robbers, but they get arrested anyway. It's not a matter about being paranoid - it'sNope. The FOIA regulations actually prohibit this 'full' disclosure that
about FULL DISCLOSURE! Kind of like Trump's tax returns, right?
you're trying to demand. The law requires that any FOIA release be vetted against competing interests (and laws) in nine categories:
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1): Classified national security information.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2): Information related solely to the internal personnel rules
and practices of an agency.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3): Information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4): Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained
from a person that is privileged or confidential.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5): Inter- or intra- agency memoranda protected by a privilege, such
as the attorney work-product, attorney client, or deliberative process privileges, except
that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or
more before the date on which the records were requested.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6): Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the
extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(b)(7)(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(b)(7)(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of and/or information provided
by a confidential source;
(b)(7)(E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions; or,
(b)(7)(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8): Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(9): Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells."
<https://www.archives.gov/foia/foia-guide>
For more, see also:
<https://pavilion.dinfos.edu/Article/Article/2144140/what-you-need-to-know-about-foia-and-the-privacy-act/>
<https://declassification.blogs.archives.gov/2019/03/08/classified-records-national-security-declassification-and-the-freedom-of-information-act/>
FYI, if you actually have reviewed the FOIA response, it is required list which specific exemption
was the basis for the information that wasn't released. Provide that code and cross-compare it
to the above list to gain insight on why it wasn't released. FYI, category B6 is one of the stronger
ones and much less likely to be able to appeal, as per principles of 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
LOL! Did you actually READ these?
Of course, because I've had to professionally apply them to FOIA requests.
Take, for example:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
Sure: the first thing to do is to actually read the full requirement in context:
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,
to the extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;"
In other words, "don't violate the 6th Amendment".
So, you apparently expect Fauci to be INDICTED over this!
No, not at all. You were expressing surprise that anything could be excluded in a FOIA,
and I've explained to you that the law doesn't say that and provided its exemptions list.
You stated it - not me. So you must have thought it was a possibility.Incorrect. Your mental faculties are failing you:
First, you started by tried to claim that 'full disclosure' was required on FOIA.
You were shown that that claim was false. The full exemptions list was provided.
Next, you tried to claim the existence of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(B) within the full
exemptions list as proof that I was "...expect[ing] Fauci to be INDICTED...".
This was incorrect because it was the complete list: you were told to look for the specific code justifying the recusal for insight, plus you were shown
how you were trying to read subpart (B) out of context.
Furthermore, I had mentioned B6 ("...unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.") as
what's more likely applicable, as it is the exemption invoking the Privacy Act.
Poppycock - what people are paid IS NOT an "unwarranted invasion of personalDid a Judge say that...or are you also trying to pretend that you're a Judge?
privacy" and is the LEAST applicable section.
NONE of these subparagraphs can be REASONABLY interpreted to apply to the release
of these payments.
Merely your opinion, speaking from the ignorant & untrained position where you didn't
even know yesterday that specific FOIA exemptions exist, let alone their categories.
My opinion is as VALID as yours.If that were true, then you could provide the URL cite to where my salary is
disclosed to the public. Have at it ... I know that mine is excluded.
Plus the evidence is against you, since the Agency did exclude that information, and
that hasn't been struck down at any level yet...right?
Wrong - they have already made a half-hearted attempt at complying.Merely your uninformed opinion, based mostly on the claims being made
by an organization that has questionable funding sources, and whose own founder, Adam Andrzejewski, doesn't allow himself to be held to the same standards of full & open disclosure as those who he's challenging...yeah, that makes him a hypocrite.
And a judge WILL determine reasonableness, NOT YOU,
Of course! I'm merely providing general regulatory guidance: its not my case that I'm responsible for.
And that was the original topic. The CDC is has been withholding data from the public for a LONG TIME ...
In accordance with the law, specifically 5 U.S.C. 552
... and the courts are necessary to force them to act in the PUBLIC INTEREST, which they haven't been doing.Merely the claims being pushed by Andrzejewski ... and isn't something that's equally of public interest is where his revenue stream is coming from?
By any chance, is it from Russian sources? /s
but the CDC WILL have to make the case for which ones do - that should
be fascinating reading!
Best Practices typically call for the ID# of the specific exemption that's being applied
to be listed with the recused text, so as to aid in the internal legal reviews as well as
for parties who seek to contest the decisions. Reading precisely what your document
has listed is informative to understand why it was recused and if you have any realistic
chance of contesting it. So what are the specific codes being contested?
Refer to the lawsuit.
Not my job to do so. It is what you have raised, so it is your responsibility.
I've already spoonfed you the basics of how to track down the legal basis and justification for specific information recusals, but you've not even lifted
a finger to bother to check. If your hero does the same inaction, they're going
to lose their legal appeal ... and hopefully also required to reimburse the
government legal fees too - - since that would potentially constitute a frivolous lawsuit, so it is in the public's interest to recoup taxpayer money spent
on defense against.
No, that's just ANOTHER lie that I can add to your long list of lies. I have absolutely
NO RESPONSIBILITY to bow to your demands.
I have pointed out potential corruption in our government that is being covered up
by Lyin' Biden (along with all of the Hunter BooBoo bullshit).
Here is what the lawsuit is all about, and it is MORE than just disclosing the payments to
government employees by private companies: <https://www.openthebooks.com/judicial-watch-sues-on-behalf-of-openthebookscom-for-fauci-financial-disclosure-records-and-royalties-paid-to-nih-employees/>
On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 6:06:10 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Hunter BooBoo bullshit). Here is what the lawsuit is all about, and it is MORE than just disclosing the payments to government employees by private companies:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 10:52:01 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Incorrect. Your mental faculties are failing you:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 4:58:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:00:55 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:LOL! Did you actually READ these?
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Nope. The FOIA regulations actually prohibit this 'full' disclosure that >>>>>> you're trying to demand. The law requires that any FOIA release be >>>>>> vetted against competing interests (and laws) in nine categories:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Out of $30B, it’s just 0.0115%. Tim Cook got much more.
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
And it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist
who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauci
much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950),
as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that
$150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c>
<https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
If this is SO innocent, WHY is the CDC being SO SECRETIVE about it? >>>>>>>> Read the regulations for what is *required* to be protected in FOIA’s.
This just raises more questions.
Also, $150k x 23 is $3.45 MILLION, not exactly chump change.. >>>>>>>>
- especially so if it was undeserved.
Except that it is your unfounded… and paranoid … speculation >>>>>>>> that every payment was the maximum, despite Fauchi not
having a net worth which supports your nonsense.
LOL! You could say the same thing about bank robbers, but they
get arrested anyway. It's not a matter about being paranoid - it's >>>>>>> about FULL DISCLOSURE! Kind of like Trump's tax returns, right?
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1): Classified national security information.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2): Information related solely to the internal personnel rules
and practices of an agency.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3): Information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4): Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained
from a person that is privileged or confidential.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5): Inter- or intra- agency memoranda protected by a privilege, such
as the attorney work-product, attorney client, or deliberative process privileges, except
that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or
more before the date on which the records were requested.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6): Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. >>>>>> 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the
extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(b)(7)(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(b)(7)(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of and/or information provided
by a confidential source;
(b)(7)(E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions; or,
(b)(7)(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8): Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(9): Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells."
<https://www.archives.gov/foia/foia-guide>
For more, see also:
<https://pavilion.dinfos.edu/Article/Article/2144140/what-you-need-to-know-about-foia-and-the-privacy-act/>
<https://declassification.blogs.archives.gov/2019/03/08/classified-records-national-security-declassification-and-the-freedom-of-information-act/>
FYI, if you actually have reviewed the FOIA response, it is required list which specific exemption
was the basis for the information that wasn't released. Provide that code and cross-compare it
to the above list to gain insight on why it wasn't released. FYI, category B6 is one of the stronger
ones and much less likely to be able to appeal, as per principles of 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
Of course, because I've had to professionally apply them to FOIA requests. >>>>
Take, for example:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
Sure: the first thing to do is to actually read the full requirement in context:
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,
to the extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;"
In other words, "don't violate the 6th Amendment".
So, you apparently expect Fauci to be INDICTED over this!
No, not at all. You were expressing surprise that anything could be excluded in a FOIA,
and I've explained to you that the law doesn't say that and provided its exemptions list.
You stated it - not me. So you must have thought it was a possibility.
First, you started by tried to claim that 'full disclosure' was required on FOIA.
You were shown that that claim was false. The full exemptions list was provided.
Next, you tried to claim the existence of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(B) within the full
exemptions list as proof that I was "...expect[ing] Fauci to be INDICTED...".
This was incorrect because it was the complete list: you were told to look >> for the specific code justifying the recusal for insight, plus you were shown
how you were trying to read subpart (B) out of context.
Did a Judge say that...or are you also trying to pretend that you're a Judge?Furthermore, I had mentioned B6 ("...unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.") as
what's more likely applicable, as it is the exemption invoking the Privacy Act.
Poppycock - what people are paid IS NOT an "unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy" and is the LEAST applicable section.
If that were true, then you could provide the URL cite to where my salary is >> disclosed to the public. Have at it ... I know that mine is excluded.NONE of these subparagraphs can be REASONABLY interpreted to apply to the release
of these payments.
Merely your opinion, speaking from the ignorant & untrained position where you didn't
even know yesterday that specific FOIA exemptions exist, let alone their categories.
My opinion is as VALID as yours.
Merely your uninformed opinion, based mostly on the claims being madePlus the evidence is against you, since the Agency did exclude that information, and
that hasn't been struck down at any level yet...right?
Wrong - they have already made a half-hearted attempt at complying.
by an organization that has questionable funding sources, and whose own
founder, Adam Andrzejewski, doesn't allow himself to be held to the same
standards of full & open disclosure as those who he's challenging...yeah,
that makes him a hypocrite.
And a judge WILL determine reasonableness, NOT YOU,
Of course! I'm merely providing general regulatory guidance: its not
my case that I'm responsible for.
And that was the original topic. The CDC is has been withholding data
from the public for a LONG TIME ...
In accordance with the law, specifically 5 U.S.C. 552
... and the courts are necessary to force them to act in the PUBLICMerely the claims being pushed by Andrzejewski ... and isn't something
INTEREST, which they haven't been doing.
that's equally of public interest is where his revenue stream is coming from?
By any chance, is it from Russian sources? /s
Not my job to do so. It is what you have raised, so it is your responsibility.Refer to the lawsuit.but the CDC WILL have to make the case for which ones do - that should >>>>> be fascinating reading!
Best Practices typically call for the ID# of the specific exemption that's being applied
to be listed with the recused text, so as to aid in the internal legal reviews as well as
for parties who seek to contest the decisions. Reading precisely what your document
has listed is informative to understand why it was recused and if you have any realistic
chance of contesting it. So what are the specific codes being contested? >>>
I've already spoonfed you the basics of how to track down the legal basis
and justification for specific information recusals, but you've not even lifted
a finger to bother to check. If your hero does the same inaction, they're going
to lose their legal appeal ... and hopefully also required to reimburse the >> government legal fees too - - since that would potentially constitute a
frivolous lawsuit, so it is in the public's interest to recoup taxpayer money spent
on defense against.
-hh
No, that's just ANOTHER lie that I can add to your long list of lies. I have absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY to bow to your demands. I have pointed out potential corruption in our government that is being covered up by Lyin' Biden (along with all of the
https://www.openthebooks.com/judicial-watch-sues-on-behalf-of-openthebookscom-for-fauci-financial-disclosure-records-and-royalties-paid-to-nih-employees/
On 2022-05-18 12:08 p.m., TomS wrote:Hunter BooBoo bullshit). Here is what the lawsuit is all about, and it is MORE than just disclosing the payments to government employees by private companies:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 6:06:10 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 10:52:01 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 4:58:16 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:00:55 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:LOL! Did you actually READ these?
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:you're trying to demand. The law requires that any FOIA release be >>>>>> vetted against competing interests (and laws) in nine categories: >>>>>>
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:28:25 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 4:46:58 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Read the regulations for what is *required* to be protected in FOIA’s.
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:59:58 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Fauci appointed by RONALD REAGAN.
And it looks like the royalty issue that Tommy has grief about dates back
"Appointed the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) under Reagan in 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci is an immunologist
who advised that and all subsequent administrations on HIV/AIDS as well
as other health crises."
-- https://rantt.com/who-is-dr-fauci
much earlier than that. For patents, looks like Executive Order 10096 (1950),
as amended by Executive Order 10930 (1961).
Likewise, for the above it looks like employees get 15% of the royalties, with
a max per year of $150K ... and while the latter sounds like a lot, note that
$150K/15% = $1M, of which ~85% of the royalty is going to the Government.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c>
<https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents>
If this is SO innocent, WHY is the CDC being SO SECRETIVE about it?
This just raises more questions.Out of $30B, it’s just 0.0115%. Tim Cook got much more.
Also, $150k x 23 is $3.45 MILLION, not exactly chump change.. >>>>>>>>
- especially so if it was undeserved.
Except that it is your unfounded… and paranoid … speculation >>>>>>>> that every payment was the maximum, despite Fauchi not
having a net worth which supports your nonsense.
LOL! You could say the same thing about bank robbers, but they >>>>>>> get arrested anyway. It's not a matter about being paranoid - it's >>>>>>> about FULL DISCLOSURE! Kind of like Trump's tax returns, right? >>>>>> Nope. The FOIA regulations actually prohibit this 'full' disclosure that
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1): Classified national security information.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2): Information related solely to the internal personnel rules
and practices of an agency.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3): Information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4): Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained
from a person that is privileged or confidential.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5): Inter- or intra- agency memoranda protected by a privilege, such
as the attorney work-product, attorney client, or deliberative process privileges, except
that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or
more before the date on which the records were requested.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6): Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. >>>>>> 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the
extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(b)(7)(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(b)(7)(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of and/or information provided
by a confidential source;
(b)(7)(E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions; or,
(b)(7)(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8): Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(9): Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells."
<https://www.archives.gov/foia/foia-guide>
For more, see also:
<https://pavilion.dinfos.edu/Article/Article/2144140/what-you-need-to-know-about-foia-and-the-privacy-act/>
<https://declassification.blogs.archives.gov/2019/03/08/classified-records-national-security-declassification-and-the-freedom-of-information-act/>
FYI, if you actually have reviewed the FOIA response, it is required list which specific exemption
was the basis for the information that wasn't released. Provide that code and cross-compare it
to the above list to gain insight on why it wasn't released. FYI, category B6 is one of the stronger
ones and much less likely to be able to appeal, as per principles of 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
Of course, because I've had to professionally apply them to FOIA requests.
Take, for example:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
Sure: the first thing to do is to actually read the full requirement in context:
"5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7): Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,
to the extent that the production of these records could:
(b)(7)(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;"
In other words, "don't violate the 6th Amendment".
So, you apparently expect Fauci to be INDICTED over this!
No, not at all. You were expressing surprise that anything could be excluded in a FOIA,
and I've explained to you that the law doesn't say that and provided its exemptions list.
You stated it - not me. So you must have thought it was a possibility. >> Incorrect. Your mental faculties are failing you:
First, you started by tried to claim that 'full disclosure' was required on FOIA.
You were shown that that claim was false. The full exemptions list was provided.
Next, you tried to claim the existence of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(B) within the full
exemptions list as proof that I was "...expect[ing] Fauci to be INDICTED...".
This was incorrect because it was the complete list: you were told to look
for the specific code justifying the recusal for insight, plus you were shown
how you were trying to read subpart (B) out of context.
Did a Judge say that...or are you also trying to pretend that you're a Judge?Furthermore, I had mentioned B6 ("...unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.") as
what's more likely applicable, as it is the exemption invoking the Privacy Act.
Poppycock - what people are paid IS NOT an "unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy" and is the LEAST applicable section.
If that were true, then you could provide the URL cite to where my salary isNONE of these subparagraphs can be REASONABLY interpreted to apply to the release
of these payments.
Merely your opinion, speaking from the ignorant & untrained position where you didn't
even know yesterday that specific FOIA exemptions exist, let alone their categories.
My opinion is as VALID as yours.
disclosed to the public. Have at it ... I know that mine is excluded. >>>> Plus the evidence is against you, since the Agency did exclude that information, and
Merely your uninformed opinion, based mostly on the claims being madethat hasn't been struck down at any level yet...right?
Wrong - they have already made a half-hearted attempt at complying.
by an organization that has questionable funding sources, and whose own >> founder, Adam Andrzejewski, doesn't allow himself to be held to the same >> standards of full & open disclosure as those who he's challenging...yeah, >> that makes him a hypocrite.
And a judge WILL determine reasonableness, NOT YOU,
Of course! I'm merely providing general regulatory guidance: its not >>>> my case that I'm responsible for.
And that was the original topic. The CDC is has been withholding data >>> from the public for a LONG TIME ...
In accordance with the law, specifically 5 U.S.C. 552
... and the courts are necessary to force them to act in the PUBLICMerely the claims being pushed by Andrzejewski ... and isn't something
INTEREST, which they haven't been doing.
that's equally of public interest is where his revenue stream is coming from?
By any chance, is it from Russian sources? /s
Not my job to do so. It is what you have raised, so it is your responsibility.but the CDC WILL have to make the case for which ones do - that should >>>>> be fascinating reading!
Best Practices typically call for the ID# of the specific exemption that's being applied
to be listed with the recused text, so as to aid in the internal legal reviews as well as
for parties who seek to contest the decisions. Reading precisely what your document
has listed is informative to understand why it was recused and if you have any realistic
chance of contesting it. So what are the specific codes being contested?
Refer to the lawsuit.
I've already spoonfed you the basics of how to track down the legal basis >> and justification for specific information recusals, but you've not even lifted
a finger to bother to check. If your hero does the same inaction, they're going
to lose their legal appeal ... and hopefully also required to reimburse the
government legal fees too - - since that would potentially constitute a >> frivolous lawsuit, so it is in the public's interest to recoup taxpayer money spent
on defense against.
-hh
No, that's just ANOTHER lie that I can add to your long list of lies. I have absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY to bow to your demands. I have pointed out potential corruption in our government that is being covered up by Lyin' Biden (along with all of the
https://www.openthebooks.com/judicial-watch-sues-on-behalf-of-openthebookscom-for-fauci-financial-disclosure-records-and-royalties-paid-to-nih-employees/Sunshine...
...you should quit while you're behind.
Hunter BooBoo bullshit). Here is what the lawsuit is all about, and it is MORE than just disclosing the payments to government employees by private companies:Not my job to do so. It is what you have raised, so it is your responsibility.No, that's just ANOTHER lie that I can add to your long list of lies. I have absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY to bow to your demands. I have pointed out potential corruption in our government that is being covered up by Lyin' Biden (along with all of the
I've already spoonfed you the basics of how to track down the legal basis >>>> and justification for specific information recusals, but you've not even lifted
a finger to bother to check. If your hero does the same inaction, they're going
to lose their legal appeal ... and hopefully also required to reimburse the
government legal fees too - - since that would potentially constitute a >>>> frivolous lawsuit, so it is in the public's interest to recoup taxpayer money spent
on defense against.
-hh
You should have quit YEARS AGO if that were the criteria.https://www.openthebooks.com/judicial-watch-sues-on-behalf-of-openthebookscom-for-fauci-financial-disclosure-records-and-royalties-paid-to-nih-employees/Sunshine...
...you should quit while you're behind.
On 2022-05-18 7:25 p.m., TomS wrote:the Hunter BooBoo bullshit). Here is what the lawsuit is all about, and it is MORE than just disclosing the payments to government employees by private companies:
Not my job to do so. It is what you have raised, so it is your responsibility.No, that's just ANOTHER lie that I can add to your long list of lies. I have absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY to bow to your demands. I have pointed out potential corruption in our government that is being covered up by Lyin' Biden (along with all of
I've already spoonfed you the basics of how to track down the legal basis
and justification for specific information recusals, but you've not even lifted
a finger to bother to check. If your hero does the same inaction, they're going
to lose their legal appeal ... and hopefully also required to reimburse the
government legal fees too - - since that would potentially constitute a >>>> frivolous lawsuit, so it is in the public's interest to recoup taxpayer money spent
on defense against.
-hh
Interesting that you make no denial that you're not way behind on this thread.You should have quit YEARS AGO if that were the criteria.https://www.openthebooks.com/judicial-watch-sues-on-behalf-of-openthebookscom-for-fauci-financial-disclosure-records-and-royalties-paid-to-nih-employees/Sunshine...
...you should quit while you're behind.
:-)
On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 7:32:35 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:the Hunter BooBoo bullshit). Here is what the lawsuit is all about, and it is MORE than just disclosing the payments to government employees by private companies:
On 2022-05-18 7:25 p.m., TomS wrote:
Not my job to do so. It is what you have raised, so it is your responsibility.No, that's just ANOTHER lie that I can add to your long list of lies. I have absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY to bow to your demands. I have pointed out potential corruption in our government that is being covered up by Lyin' Biden (along with all of
I've already spoonfed you the basics of how to track down the legal basis
and justification for specific information recusals, but you've not even lifted
a finger to bother to check. If your hero does the same inaction, they're going
to lose their legal appeal ... and hopefully also required to reimburse the
government legal fees too - - since that would potentially constitute a >>>>>> frivolous lawsuit, so it is in the public's interest to recoup taxpayer money spent
on defense against.
-hh
Interesting that you make no denial that you're not way behind on thisYou should have quit YEARS AGO if that were the criteria.https://www.openthebooks.com/judicial-watch-sues-on-behalf-of-openthebookscom-for-fauci-financial-disclosure-records-and-royalties-paid-to-nih-employees/Sunshine...
...you should quit while you're behind.
thread.
:-)
Interesting in how you libtards avoid the issue and engage in FULL ON WHATABOUTISM!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 165:54:14 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,528 |