Freedom of Information Act & Privacy Act

The Congress in 1974, severely limited the collection, dissimulation, and maintenance of records, documents, and files by the federal agencies pertaining to private individuals, by enacting over a Presidential veto THE PRIVACY ACT.

Under the Act, the new rules on federal record keeping include:

1. The federal agencies, including the IRS, cannot disclose records about an individual to other persons or another agency except pursuant to some very narrow rules, PA(b). Needless to say, the agencies violate this law, as well as numerous other laws, because few Americans have stood up and forced them to obey the guidelines of the elected representatives of the people.
2. Each agency must maintain an accurate accounting of the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of your records to any other person or agency, PA(c). Further, upon request, the agency must furnish the individual of the listing of disclosures, PA(c)(3).
3. Each agency shall allow an individual access to his own records and information pertaining to him upon request or to his attorney or representative. Access includes the right to review the records or have a copy thereof. PA(d)(1)
4. An individual can demand amendment of his records and the agency must within ten (10) days make the correction or inform the individual of its refusal to amend the records and furnish the reasons thereto. Also, agencies must establish a set procedure for correction of information, and make public the procedure. PA(d)(2)
5. Records not accurate, relevant, timely or complete must be corrected. PA(d)(2)(B)(i)
6. Then, the Privacy Act requires or limits the agencies to maintain in their records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency as required by law. PA(e)(1)
7. The agencies must also insure that all records pertaining to individuals are accurate, relevant, timely, and complete to the extent to be reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual. PA(e)(5)
8. Additionally, the federal agencies must collect information to the greatest extent practicable direct from that individual. PA(e)(2)
9. The agencies, including the IRS, when seeking information either verbally or in writing from you, must inform you:
   1. The legal authority which authorizes the collection of the information.
   2. Whether your cooperation or disclosure of the soughtinformation  is mandatory or voluntary.
   3. The principle purpose for which the information is intended to be used.
   4. The routine government uses of the information.
   5. The harm or effect on you, if any, if you refuse to provide information.
10. You may have already noticed letters from the government which request records or statements from you, will include a small slip call "Privacy Notices. Also, the PA(e)(3) subsection is reprinted generally on the second page of the IRS 1040 Form instruction packet.
    
    The statutory rights of (e)(3) are the principle request utilized in the "Agent Questionnaire distributed by the Carolina Patriots. Send $2.00 and SASE to Patriot Network, P.O. Box 2368, Anderson, S.C. 29622.
11. The Privacy Act specifically provides .n §(e)(7) that the agency shall "maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rig its guaranteed by the First Amendment with certain narrow exceptions as "authorized law enforcement activity. The Legislative History of the Privacy Act of 1974 reported in 4 US Congress ional and Administrative News, 74-36, at page 6994, provides:
    
    The term "investigative information [as to the law enforcement exemption in (e)(7)J has a special and narrow meaning under this bill. It means information associated with an identifiable individual complied by.. .an agency in the course of conducting a criminal investigation of a specific criminal act where such investigation is pursuant to a statutory function of the agency.
    
    This does not include political surveillance of private political groups or churches, or general surveillance.
12. A federal agency must promulgate rules and make them available to the public for establishing procedures whereby an individual can see his records, copy them, amend them. PA(f)
13. If the agency fails to amend records on request, furnish copies of records to a requestor, fails to maintain records accurately and timely, or violates the Act in such a way to adversely effect an individual, you may bring suit in Federal Court by yourself or by an attorney. PA(g)(1) The Court can order the agency to amend the records, PA(g)(2)(A) or produce the records, PA(g)(3)(A). Further, the Court can assess against the government reasonable attorney's fees and costs even to pro se litigants. PA(g)(2)(B); PA(g)(3)(B)
    
    If the agency fails to maintain records properly or fails to comply with provisions of the Privacy Act, you can collect statutory damages of least $1,000.00 and costs. PA(c)(4) You only have to prove the documents are incorrect in order to collect.
14. Criminal penalties: Government and IRS agents who make an improper disclosure. such as, give out information on you to others wrongfully, can be fined and jailed. PA(i)(l)
15. Last, the Privacy Act requires the Office of Management and Budget to develop guidelines and regulations for the agencies. PA §6 These guidelines (0MB Guideline on Privacy of July 1, 1975) provides:
    
    RECORDS ON RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
    
    Whereas subsection (e)(1) generally enjoins agencies from collecting information not "relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency. This provision PA (e)(7) establishes an even more rigorous standard of governing the maintenance of records regarding the exercise of First Amendment rights. These include, but are not limited to religious and political beliefs, freedom of speech and of the press, and freedom of assembly and petition. In determining whether or not a particular activity constitutes the exercise of a right "guaranteed by the First Amendment , agencies will apply the broadest reasonable interpretation.
16. Additionally, the elected representative of the people in passing the Privacy Act (over a Presidential veto) enacted as a prologue to serve as a guide for the courts in settling disputes between a citizen and his government, the following findings:
    1. The Congress finds that:
       1. the privacy of an individual is directly affected by the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by federal agencies;
       2. the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United States and,
       3. in order to protect the privacy of individuals identified in information systems maintained by federal agencies, it is necessary and proper for the Congress to regulate the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information by such agencies.
17. Further, the Congress provided as an introduction to the Privacy Act some statements to clear up any misunderstanding of its intent and purposes in passing the Privacy Act by providing that "the purpose of this act is to provide certain safeguards for an individual against an invasion of personal privacy by requiring federal agencies, except as otherwise provided by law, to:
    1. permit an individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by such agencies.
    2. permit an individual to gain access to information pertaining to him in federal agency records, to have a copy made of all or any portion thereof, and to correct or amend such records.
    3. collect, maintain, use or disseminate any record of identifiable personal information in a manner that assures that such action is for a necessary and lawful purpose, that the information is current and accurate for its intended use.
18. A simple reading of the Privacy Act itself will reveal the overwhelming purpose, intent, and meaning of this enactment by the Congress which was to halt certain types of record keeping and collecting by the federal agencies, and secondly, to provide for the most effective method of halting the same: providing for citizens to bring individual action in federal court. The drafters of this Act realize that the federal agencies could not be expected to police themselves and, the only effective way to ensure realistic enforcement of this remedial legislation was to allow American citizens to act as "private attorney generals , and to provide for ample attorney fees for those who so protected the public interest. Finally, for the purpose of encouraging citizens law suits, and, therefore, enforcing the mandate of the Congress, the framers of this Act provided for minimum statutory damages against government agencies caught in their wrong doing.

FOIA-PA lawsuits are special under the law and service of process is different and much simpler.

First, when you win, the Court will order the federal agency to reimburse you for fees and costs. Therefore, run the costs up. Have a friend or relative who is not a party or spouse, serve as process server, and give you a large bill, contingent, of course.

As in any lawsuit against the federal government, under Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you must effect service of process on (1) the agency involved or named as a party, (2) the United States District Attorney in the district where the suit is filed, (3) the Attorney General at Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. 20530.

Also, for FOIA-PA suits, you can serve process by certified or registered mail, not by usual process of a process server. You need the green signature card from the Post Office to prove you sent it and file in the clerk's office if they demand it as some clerk of courts do.

Here is what you do:

• Take a pile of complaints with exhibits and summons to the Clerk of Court.
• File the original and have the Clerk stamp the others.
• Next go to the United States District Attorney's office, generally in the same building.
• Hand a copy to someone who works there.
  It is best that person designated for this to accept service.
• Ask person if they work in that office and get their name and write it down.
  Some will not give their name.
  Anyone can service in FOIA cases, even a party to suit.
  However, a non-party can be paid when you win.
• Have the process server fill out the Return of Service form on back of summons and charge a fee.
• Next go by federal agency, generally in same building and do same as for United States Attorney.
• After this go to Post Office and send a copy to Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530 by registered mail.
  If federal agency and District Attorney have not been carried a copy, then send by registered mail.
• Have process server, if not a party, give you a bill for $100 or thereabouts for service on each.
  You can use the return of service form on back of summons form.
  Summons forms are free from Clerk of Court office.
• Save affidavits of service forms and bills.
• If Clerk of Court requests, file in court.
• When you win, submit Bill of Cost and the Judge will order the Department of Justice to pay you.

HOW TO FILE YOUR REQUEST

The Congress gave Patriots and Constitutionally-minded Americans great weapons to combat tyranny and slow the New World Order by passing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 USC 552 and the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552a.

These acts are basically the same but have some differences. The FOIA states you are entitled to all records, documents, books, regulations, and orders of the federal agencies, upon request, with certain exceptions as national defense secrets and personnel files on other people.

The Privacy Act states you are entitled to copies of records and documents the federal agencies have on you. Big difference. Again, certain exceptions apply as in active, legal law enforcement records, and military secrets.

Also, the Privacy Act goes on to provide dozens of other statutory rights for you against powerful government. See Clarkson's Your Rights Under The Privacy Act.

The Privacy Act is an extremely powerful and effective tool for freedom seekers but, unfortunately seldom used. The protections for you in this important act are in the nature of the hallowed Bill of Rights. Used effectively, the Privacy Act can actually halt some of the federal lawbreaking and wrongdoing. Using the FOIA-PA, you can expose to the public and uncontrolled media, the illegal activities of federal agencies. As fresh air and sunshine kill harmful bacteria, exposure and revelations harm the numerous unConstitutional and wrongful activities of the law-violating federal agencies.

1. The Request. You start your FOIA-PA battle with your FOIA request for documents. You can request and receive the records, written material and now under the 1996 amendments the computer disc of federal record keepers. All governments operate with lots of paperwork, which once revealed, tells you what activities are undertaken.
   
   It is best to use Clarkson's FOIA-Privacy Act forms. These are refined after many years of use. Certain parts or words are mandatory by law. Just fill in the blanks. Add a second sheet as needed. Privacy Act Request for Documents must be notarized. Address your request for documents to the agency or subpart thereof, if known. Send to specific person or office, if known. Make your request both general and then specific, if the particulars are known, ie. "I request each and every document on illegal IRS spying, in particular, the records on surveillance on Robert B. Clarkson on April 1,1997, in Anderson, South Carolina. The general request covers all, especially since you may omit some particulars, or you may not know some specific details. List in detail the specific documents as much as you can. You can list types or categories of documents. The broad net catches the most information but clearly describe what you want.
2. Multiple Request. If you want to be successful, send out dozens of requests for the same type of documents. Send duplicate requests to all related departments of the agency, especially to regional and national officers. Then reword your request, and send out another wave of requests.
   
   When your requested documents start to come in, go through them and see what else is available and then send in another bundle of requests. You can expect the federal agencies to disobey the law and shift records to other offices so they can then claim not to have possession of the requested records.
3. The Fees. Under the FOIA-PA law, the government can charge fees but this is rare except for business-seeking commercial records. However, to scare you from exercising your legal rights, the agencies occasionally demand fees. Appeal that phony threat, and they will not harass you on that issue any more. Under the law, you are entitled to waiver of fees if you meet the criteria: (a) No commercial use, (b) Not paid media, and (c) The intended use is to help Americans understand their government, which is always the purpose of Patriot request. Almost always, the fee waiver is granted. If not, you can make an administrative appeal and also sue them.
4. The TRASH Letter; The federal agencies discovered long ago that the average citizens and most lawyers will abandon their rightful request if the government official shows resistance. Consequently, unless you have sued them in the past, the bureauRats will respond to your lawful request with a silly, non-sensical, petty excuse to deny your request or find fault with your request form. This trick of government employees is very effective as the "trash letter" will cause so many Patriots to give up and not pursue their records hunt. Respond to the trash letter or appeal or do both. Do not give up. Press on and you will succeed. The powerful public servants will back down and send you the requested records if you persist.
5. The Administrative Appeal. The FOIA seems to require that you "exhaust administrative remedies' and take your case to a higher authority within the agency. Actually, this is fairly useful as the higher ups will often order the release of the records, especially since your further action indicates a likelihood of litigation. Privacy Act requests do not need an administrative appeal but Dr. Clarkson recommends doing one anyway.
6. Clearly Label. Your request letter, your appeal form and even your envelope must clearly state in bold letters what you want. You must print in large letters on top of your request forms and your envelope "FOIA-Privacy Act Request for Documents" or "FOIA Appeal." This way, the lower level public servant who opens the envelope cannot deny seeing your letter and routing it to the correct official. Certified and registered letters are a waste of time and effort. Regular first class mail is fine. Like all legal matters, procedures must be followed exactly. Carefully go over the forms provided by Dr. Clarkson. Also, listen carefully to Dr. Clarkson's audio tape "Effective Use of the FOIA-PA." These are available from the Patriot Bookstore.
7. The Time Limits. The federal agencies are to comply with your FOIA request within 10 days, which is seldom done, needed or possible. The Privacy Act gives them 30 days to comply, which they frequently do. If they do not respond within the statutory period you can then appeal, but Dr. Clarkson recommends that you give them an extra 30 days, then appeal. Administrative appeals should be filed by 30 days after they respond pr should have responded. After the appeal is denied or ignored, you have 6 years to sue.
8. Sue 'em. Litigation is necessary for federal agents to obey the law. Furthermore, the FOIA-PA are private attorney general statutes, easy to use and will pay your attorney's fees, costs, expenses, and mandatory damages.

Order now: Dr. Clarkson's FOIA-PA Suit, Forms and Packet from the Bookstore, P.O. Box 2368, Anderson, South Carolina 29622.

The ACLU litigation manual on the FOIA-PA is very useful and costs about $50. PH: 864-225-3061 Call ACLU at 1-800-775-2258.

From Robert B. Clarkson
515 Concord Ave.
Anderson, S.C. 29621

To: W.E. Wolf
IRS Disclosure Officer
IRS District Office
Columbia, S.C.

Dear Tax Collector:

I just received your nonsensical response to my FOIA-PA request. Your response letter failed to list legitimate reason for your failure to comply with the law and my request.

You have failed to make a good faith response to my legal request; but answered with phony excuses, bewildering bureaucratic double talk and stilted legal-ese.

Your style responses is clear evidence that you and your agency will not obey the spirit and intent of an act of Congress but seek to dissuade American citizens from exercising their legal rights by stonewalling and blatant disregard of the clear wordage of these statues.

You merely send me a form letter, which incidentally was not even filled out correctly.

The FOIA-PA law does not require that I furnish any reason for seeking copies of your records. Your phony disclaimer was simply a device to frighten me away and delay access to the documents to which I an entitled under law.

However, I do not want to allow you to delay my request further, therefore, I will answer your form request, even though I am not so obligated.

The reasons for my desire to have access to certain documents include:

1. To allow me to exercise my legal rights.
2. To pass to the public copies of records dealing with illegal actions of the IRS, including illegal political surveillance to the general public.
3. To send copies to the news media to expose government lawlessness and, as sunshine and clear air kill harmful bacteria, stop frequent illegal activities.
4. To send copies to any elected representative, to petition my government for redress of grievances.
5. To expose the manifold wrongdoings of a powerful government agency and then assist in reforming bad institutions to hopefully lead to a better world for both you and I.

My request would place new information in the public realm because so far your agency has resisted release of this information. Further, some of this in my letter seeks new material, so your blanket form letter does nor apply.

The public would benefit and every American will benefit when federal agencies are forced to halt their wrongdoing.

I requested MS 9G-93. Does any copy of that exist in your office anywhere?

If it has been replaced by Manual Section 9824.1 through 9824.5, then please send these, if they exist in your IRS office. Your efforts thus far have been an obvious attempt to send me on a wild goose chase.

Your office does maintain records (illegally) of surveillance of any group. In fact, your office recently released some. Please comply with my request immediately.

I request that you review your failure to comply with my request, excessive deletions, etc.

I requested portions of Video Tape #9974-02, which does not contain the identity of service personnel, and the entire audio portion. Your phony charge for the audio is unacceptable and you know it. I offered to send a blank cassette and you tape it for me - or send me a copy, I'll tape and return yours.

Your reason for denying the instruction guide is not acceptable. Stop the nonsense and send it immediately.

You forgot to send Notice 393.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Clarkson
December 6, 1983

Christian Patriot
777 Patriot Way,
Mellow Woods, Ca 94063,

IN PRO SE


                                  SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                                  COUNTY OF MELLOW WOOD

_____________________
                Christian Patriot,
                                                                                           Case No.: _______
     Plaintiff/Petitioner,                                        }                     

                  v
________________________
              California Department
                    of Consumer
                  Affairs, Kat Hamm

    Defendant/Respondent


                                                                     VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION                                                                                             FOR DECLARATORY AND
                                                                                            INJUNCTION RELIEF AND         
                                                                                            ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE
                                                                                            UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC                                                                                             RECORDS ACT.

[C.C.P. § 1085; Gov't Code § 6250, et seq]

To the above Court:

Plaintiff/Petitioner Christian Patriot, brings this Verified Complaint for a declaratory judgment, and a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction order and, alternatively, petitions this Court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 et seq. and the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), for a writ of mandate directed to Defendants/Respondents Department of Consumer Affairs commanding them to obey the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"), and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The relief sought by the Plaintiff/Petitioner is authorized by Government Code (GOV.) Sections 6258 and 6259 and California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) Section 1085. The Plaintiff/Petitioner is a natural born citizen of the state of California and a consumer residing in Mellow Woods, California, and, therefore, that venue in Mellow County is appropriate.

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff/Petitioner Christian Patriot is a natural person and at all times mentioned herein was a resident of San Mateo County, California. Plaintiff/Petitioner is a "person" authorized to bring this action under the California Public Records Act, GOV. § 6252(c).

3. Defendant/Respondent Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) is, and at all times mentioned herein, was an agency of the California government, which is an agency in charge of promoting and protecting the interests of the people as consumers, and is a "state agency" within the meaning of GOV. §6252(a).

4. Defendant/Respondent Kat Hamm is at all times mentioned herein was the Director of the California Department of Consumer Affairs.

5. Plaintiff/Petitioner is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1 -20, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when these are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by the conduct of such fictitiously named defendants.

FACTS GIVING RISE TO CLAIMS

5. Plaintiff/Petitioner has reason to believe that Defendant/Respondent state agency DCA maintains the records of oaths or affirmations of allegiance of public employees for which the DCA is the appointing power. Pursuant to GOV. §3101, all public employees, including those of state agencies, are disaster service workers. Pursuant to GOV. §3102(a), all disaster service workers shall, before they enter upon the duties of their employment, take and subscribe to the oath or affirmation. Pursuant to GOV. §3104, the oath or affirmation of any disaster service worker may be taken before his appointing power or before any person authorized in writing by his appointing power. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code §306, the Director of DCA, in accordance with the State Civil Service Act, may appoint and fix the compensation of such clerical or other personnel as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, and all such personnel shall perform their respective duties under the supervision and the direction of the director of DCA. Pursuant to GOV. §18153 The State Personnel Board shall prepare and furnish printed forms of the oath. According to the Oath of Allegiance forms prescribed by the State Personnel Board, the oath is to be filed in the official employee file.
6. On February 15, 2003, Plaintiff/Petitioner completed and mailed with proof of service by means of the United States Postal Service a written request to Defendant/Respondent DCA to receive copies of the following public records:

a. Notarized oaths of office of the staff members of the California Chiropractor Board who have been employed in that office in the period of January 1, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to:

Jan Bledge, staff member of the  Chiropractor Board;
Christie Dobbins, staff member of the Board; Chiropractor

b. Plaintiff/Petitioner also requested to receive a copy of the notarized oath of office of

James Praclet, Senior Investigator, Department of Consumer Affairs;
Kat Hamm, Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs.
(A true and correct copy of the letter is lodged concurrently with the Verified Petition/Complaint as Exhibit A).

7. Plaintiff/Petitioner's request reasonably described the aforementioned records and was made in accordance with the DCA’s Policy and Procedure – Guidelines for Access to Public Records, Policy No. LGL 02-01 issued on May 1, 2002.

8. Defendant/Respondent DCA had maintained these records at the agency office in Sacramento, California.

9. The information contained in the aforementioned records is not personal or confidential.

10. On March 13, 2003, on having not received any response from the Defendant/Respondent agency 26 days after the original request, Plaintiff/Petitioner completed and mailed with proof of service by means of the United States Postal Service Express Mail No. ET700936674US a written follow-up request to the Defendant/Respondent agency to receive copies of the above named records. The Plaintiff/Petitioner included a notice of intent to seek relief from the court if no response from DCA was forthcoming in 5 days. (A true and correct copy of the letter is lodged concurrently with the Verified Petition/Complaint as Exhibit B).

10. To date, Plaintiff/Petitioner has received no response from DCA to his public records request.

11. Plaintiff/Petitioner was at all times mentioned ready to tender fees and costs for locating, duplicating and reviewing the documents and information requested, and so stated in his original request for the public records. (see Exhibit A)

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Writ of Mandate

12. Plaintiff/Petitioner incorporates paragraphs 1 through 11, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.

13. Plaintiff/Petitioner has a clear, present and beneficial interest in Defendants/ Respondents' compliance with the Public Records Act, GOV. § 6250 et seq., enforceable through this action under GOV. ß 6258 and 6259. Plaintiff/Petitioner has no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the normal course of law. As a result of Defendants/Respondents' refusal to release the aforementioned reports, the Plaintiff/Petitioner sustained and will continue to be denied access to information regarding matters of fundamental public interest concerning the requirement of public employees’ oath of allegiance.

14. By the acts set forth the Plaintiff/Petitioner has exhausted its administrative remedies in this matter, and has fulfilled all preconditions to filing this Verified Complaint and Petition.

15. Defendants/Respondents have a clear, present and ministerial duty to provide copies of the requested oaths of allegiance. Failure to do so is an abuse of discretion correctable by issuance of a writ of mandate from this Court or, in the alternative, by issuance of an order from this Court granting Plaintiff's/Petitioner's request for injunctive relief. Defendants/Respondents have abused their discretion in responding to the Plaintiff's/Petitioner's Public Records Act request by failing to promptly provide copies of the oaths of allegiance as specified in GOV. ß 6252.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief

16. Plaintiff/Petitioner hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 11 inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.

17. An actual controversy exists between the Plaintiff/Petitioner and DCA in that the Plaintiff/Petitioner contends that the copies of oaths requested are public records which must be promptly released to the Plaintiff/Petitioner. DCA has repeatedly ignored the Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Public Records Act requests for access to these public documents. Therefore, the Plaintiff/Petitioner and the public are, and will continue to be, unable to obtain access to the public records sought due to Defendants/Respondents' acts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff/Petitioner is entitled to an order pursuant to GOV. ß 6258 declaring the records sought are subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act.

18. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has incurred, and will incur, attorneys' fees in pursing in this Court, the relief sought.

19. The Plaintiff/Petitioner alleges that the access to copies of oaths of allegiance of public employees is of substantial interest and benefit to the public. The Plaintiff/Petitioner further alleges that it is, therefore, entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and other litigation costs, pursuant to GOV. ß 6259.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Petitioner prays for:

1. An Order requiring DCA to show cause, if any, why it should not be enjoined as hereinafter set forth during the pendency of this action;

2. A temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction compelling Defendants/Respondents, and each of them and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for defendants to provide Plaintiff/Petitioner with copies of the aforementioned records on payment of a fee covering the costs to DCA of providing such copies;

3. Alternatively, that this Court issue an alternative writ of mandate commanding DCA to provide copies of the aforementioned records requested by the Plaintiff/Petitioner, or to show cause before this Court at a time specified by Court order why it should not be done and why a peremptory writ should not issue;

4. On the return of the alternative writ and hearing on the order to show cause, a peremptory writ of mandate should issue under seal of this Court compelling DCA to immediately provide copies to all public records sought by the Plaintiff/Petitioner.

5. For a declaration that the aforementioned records are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act [GOV. ß 6253] and that disclosure is not prohibited under the public interest exemption [GOV. ß 6255].

6. For attorneys' fees and costs in this action according to proof pursuant to GOV. ß 6259;

7. That this Court grant such other relief as may be just and proper.

VERIFICATION
I verify under penalties of perjury that the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and/or belief.


Dated: _______________

_____________________
Christian Patriot

Christian Patriot,
777, Patriot Way
Mellow Wood, Ca 94063,

IN PRO SE


                              SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
                                  COUNTY OF MELLOW WOOD

____________________
            Christian Patriot,
                                                                                Case No.: __________
   Plaintiff/Petitioner,
                                                                      }    
                 v
____________________
        California Department of                                  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

        Consumer Affairs, KAT
        HAM AND DOES 1-20

     Defendant/Respondent

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Defendants/Respondents Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), Kat Hamm as Director of DCA, and DOES 1-20 are hereby ordered to show cause, if any, why they should not be enjoined as hereinafter set forth during the pendency of this action.

Dated: _______________
_________________________________
Judge, Superior Court of Mellow County

Christian Patriot,
777 Patriot Way,
Mellow Wood, Ca 94063,

IN PRO SE


                             SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
                             COUNTY OF MELLOW

____________________
                Christian Patriot,

        Plaintiff/Petitioner,                              }   

                    v                                                     Case No.: ____________
_____________________
     California Department of
     Consumer Affairs, KAT
     HAMM AND DOES 1-20
                                                                               ORDER FOR          
                                                                                                         DECLARATORY 
                                                                                                          RELIEF                                   
                                   
        Defendant/Respondent



THE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that the following records are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act [Government Code ß 6253] and that disclosure is not prohibited under the public interest exemption [Government Code ß 6255].

Records:

a. Oaths of office/allegiance of the staff members of the California Chiropractor Board who have been employed in that office in the period of January 1, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to:

Jan Bledge, staff member of the Chiropractor Board;
Chris Doone, staff member of the Chiropractor Board;

b. Oath of office/allegiance of

James Peckley, Senior Investigator, Department of Consumer Affairs;
Kat Hamm, Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs.

It is so ordered:

Dated: _______________

___________________________________
Judge, Superior Court of Mellow County

Christian Patriot,
777, Patriot Way
Mellow Wood, Ca 94063,
IN PRO SE




                               SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
                               COUNTY OF MELLOW


__________________
          Christian Patriot,           
                                                                  }
     Plaintiff/Petitioner,                                                          Case No:___________

                 v
                                                                                       ORDER FOR  
____________________                                                                                           
                                                                                       INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    California Department of
     Consumer Affairs, KAT
     HAMM AND DOES 1-20

  Defendant/Respondent


The Defendants/Respondents Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), Kat Hamm as Director of DCA, and DOES 1-20 and each of them and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for defendants/respondents are hereby ordered to provide Plaintiff/Petitioner with copies of the following records on payment of a fee covering the costs to DCA of providing such copies:

a. Oaths of office/allegiance of the staff members of the California Acupuncture Board who have been employed in that office in the period of January 1, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to:

Jan Bledge, staff member of the Chiropractor Board;
Chris Doone, staff member of the Chiropractor Board;

b. Oath of office/allegiance of

James Peckley, Senior Investigator, Department of Consumer Affairs;
Kat Hamm, Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs.



It is so ordered:

Dated: _______________

___________________________________


Judge, Superior Court of Mellow County

Christian Patriot,
777, Patriot Way
Mellow Wood, Ca 94063, IN PRO SE


                                  SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
                                      COUNTY OF MELLOW


___________________
             Christian Patriot,
                                                               }
     Plaintiff/Petitioner,
                                                                              Case No.____________
                       v
____________________                                   PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
  California Department of
  Consumer Affairs, KAT
  HAMM AND DOES 1-20

         Defendant/Respondent


The Defendants/Respondents Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), Kat Hamm as Director of DCA, and DOES 1-20 and each of them and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for defendants/respondents are hereby ordered to immediately provide Plaintiff/Petitioner with copies of the following records on payment of a fee covering the costs to DCA
of providing such copies.

Records:

a. Oaths of office/allegiance of the staff members of the California Acupuncture Board who have been employed in that office in the period of January 1, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to:

Jan Bledge, staff member of the Chiropractor Board;
Chris Doone, staff member of the Chiropractor Board;

b. Oaths of office allegiance of

James Peckley, Senior Investigator, Department of Consumer Affairs;
Kat Hamm, Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs.


It is so ordered:

Dated: _______________

___________________________________
Judge, Superior Court of Mellow County

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR
COUNTY OF AIKEN
                                                              )       THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
                                                              )
 REBEKAH E. SUTHERLAND            )

                                                              )

              Plaintiff,
                                                               )                      CIVIL ACTION

                                                                )                     FILE NO: 00-CP02-702

CITY OF AIKEN, SC and )
MR. ADMINISTRATOR and
BRAITH SMITH, P.A.

                                                                
Defendant

COMPLAINT

COME NOW. Sutherland files her Complaint in the above- referenced case and respectfully shows this Court the following:

1. Plaintiff Sutherland is a South Carolina citizen and resident.
2. Plaintiff Gary H. Smith, III, is an individual citizen and resident of the State of South Carolina. He is an attorney for the City of Aiken, working out of the Braith Smith, P.A. office.
3. The City of Aiken, South Carolina, Administrative office is run by the appointed City Administrator, Mr LeDuck. It is a public body under the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, S.C. Code Ann. Section 30-4-10 et seq., and is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 30-4-20 (a) and Section 30-4-100, and may be served with summons, process and copy of this Complaint upon Roger LeDuck, Manager, at 214 Park Avenue, S.W., Aiken, South Carolina 29801.
4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
5. Part of Defendant's responsibilities are to respond to Freedom of Information Requests sent to the City of Aiken.
6. Pursuant to the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, S.C. Code Ann. Section 30-4-10 et seq., any person has a right to inspect and copy any public record of a public body, such as Defendant, unless such records are specifically
   prohibited by law from being open to the public, in accordance with reasonable rules concerning the time and place of access.
7. On July 6, 1999, Sutherland requested that the Defendant release all documents known as invoices which record the cost accrued by the City of Aiken to post billboards around the City of Aiken promoting the "Character First" program and displaying the required character trait for each month from the date of its inception.
8. By letter dated July 6, 1999, Sutherland requested a written request under both the state and federal Freedom of Information Act to request the public record described in the preceding paragraph on Defendant. A true and correct copy of that request is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
9. Defendant is in control of the above-described requested documents with access to the public City of Aiken Offices in which these documents are public records under South Carolina law.
10. In response to the above-described requests by Sutherland, Defendant arbitrarily, wrongfully, illegally, and repeatedly refused to release thee
    above described and requested public records and has failed to release any
    documents or portions of any documents related to or constituting any grievance report to the Plaintiff.
11. On July 16, 1999, a written response was sent on behalf of
    Defendant to the Plaintiffs, saying that the research for the FOIA letter had been
    fulfilled by the city staff; however, the information was never placed into the envelope which was mailed to the Plaintiff. It is noted that in the letter, the omission of the word "Enclosures" indicates there never intent to send any information to the Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of this response is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
12. On July 18, 1999, the Plaintiff sent a response back to the Defendant to notify him that the information was missing from the envelope, and that the FOIA request remained active, awaiting reply. A true and correct copy of this response is attached hereto as Exhibit "C."
13. On July 20, 1999 again a written response was sent to the Plaintiff in which the Defendant erroneously denies any participation of the City of Aiken in the Character First program. He stated the program was developed by the Mayor Cavanaugh, and that the City of Aiken had not spent money on the program. A true and certified copy of this response is attached hereto as Exhibit "D."
14. The Plaintiff had in her possession a copy of the City of Aiken Minutes dated March 8, 1999 in which the Aiken City Council voted to participate in the Character First program. The minutes state: "The City of Aiken will be the first city within South Carolina developing this program&helips;" A copy of the minutes as given to the Plaintiff by the City secretary is attached hereto as Exhibit "E."
15. On August 6, 1999, a written response arrived from the Defendant stating, "&helips;the City has expended funds to support the 'Character First' resolution and the goals adopted by City Council&helips;" However, the requested information about the cost of the Character First billboards was omitted for the third time. A true and certified copy of this response is attached hereto as Exhibit "F."
16. The above-described and requested documents are public records of a public body under South Carolina law, are not prohibited from disclosure by order of any court, and are not specifically exempted by law from being open to the public for inspection and, accordingly, must be made available for inspection and copying by the general public and to the Plaintiffs by Defendant.
17. The City of Aiken violated the FOIA in a previous instance; and therefore, has a record of noncompliance with the FOIA. The Aiken City Council Minutes dated July 14, 1997 (pages 379, 385, and 386) reveal that a local newspaper had to use the Court to access public records from the Public Safety Office. Gary Smith was the City Attorney who handled the case. A copy of these minutes are attached hereto as Exhibit "G."
18. The Defendant was responsible for responding to the 1997 FOIA request and to the Plaintiff's request in 1999 on behalf of the City of Aiken.
19. Based upon the facts set forth above, this Court should enter an order, declaring that the above-described documents are public records under South Carolina law and that such records should be made available to the public for inspection and copying as provided by law.

COUNT II

20. The allegations of paragraphs one (1) through seventeen (18) are incorporated by reference as if fully and specifically set out herein.
21. The Plaintiffs, a citizen of the City of Aiken and the State of South Carolina has no adequate remedy at law, and require an injunction to obtain access to the above-described public records, and will be irreparably harmed and denied their right of oversight over the government as provided by South Carolina law, unless an injunction, compelling the release of the above-described public records, is issued.

COUNT III

22. The allegations of paragraphs on (1) through (19) above are incorporated as if fully and specifically set out herein.
23. The Plaintiff is a person seeking injunctive relief in this case, and if she prevails in this case, in whole or, in part, she should be awarded her reasonable legal fees and costs of litigation pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 30- 4-100.
24. Based upon the facts set forth above, this Court should enter an order awarding the Plaintiff her legal fees and other litigation expenses incurred in this case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 30-4-100.
25. Based upon the facts set forth above, this Court should consider punitive measures to stop the repeated abuses of the Freedom of Information Act by the City of Aiken, its administrators, and its attorneys.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays to this Court for the following:

1. That this Court issue an order declaring that the above described documents are public records under South Carolina law and that such records should be made available for inspection and copying to the Plaintiffs as provided by law;
2. That this Court issue an injunction compelling Defendant to perform its official duty by permitting the Plaintiffs to inspect and copy the above-described public records as provided by law;
3. That this Court order Defendant to pay the Plaintiff her reasonable attorney fees other litigation expenses incurred in pursuing this case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 30-4-100;
4. That this Court set down at the earliest possible time a hearing on the matters set forth in this Complaint; and
5. For all other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, this 23rd day of June, 2000.
Sutherland,
Holder in
Due Course
Sui Juris

The IRS is illegally withholding information about its operations, claiming that the public release of some of it would compromise homeland security.

Details of the agency's actions are laid out in the lawsuit against the IRS filed on April 14 under the Freedom of Information Act.

The lawsuit, brought for TRAC's co-directors David Burnham and Susan B. Long by Scott Nelson of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, is part of an ongoing effort to provide the American people with information they need to judge how the IRS is carrying out its important responsibilities.

The agency's current policy of refusing to make public routine statistical information and how it is collected reverses a thirty-year period of relative openness.

To see a press release about the filing, the actual complaint and a short discussion of the dangers posed by IRS secrecy, go to: Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

---

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a non-partisan research organization associated with Syracuse University.

If you would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, go to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse and click on the red E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of that page.

Robert Clarkson, an Anderson, South Carolina Constitutional advocate, has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC against the Federal Reserve System; the Governor and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve; and Federal Reserve Banks in Richmond and Atlanta.

The lawsuit is intended to force the Fed and its branches to reveal certain documents under the FOIA. The FOIA, Title 5 United States Code 552, requires Federal agencies to produce all documents requested in writing under the FOIA. Clarkson made a number of written requests for documents.

Federal Reserve officials refused his requests because they claimed the Fed is not a federal agency.

Documents Clarkson has requested include:

1. a list of stockholders of the Federal Reserve broken down by race, creed and national citizenship;
2. account of the Fed's donations to political parties and candidates;
3. copy of the audit of the Fed;
4. minutes of meetings of the Open Market Committee; authorization to issue Federal Reserve Notes;
5. documents on losses from foreign currency transactions.

Clarkson said in a prepared statement:

The purpose of this lawsuit is to expose the Federal Reserve and bring public attention to the fact that the Federal Reserve Bank is a private institution making vast profits for its private owners.

We will ask the Federal Courts to decide whether the Fed is covered by the FOIA law and thereby an agency of the U.S. Government. We expect to lose on that issue, though."

Robert Clarkson is a graduate of Clemson University in Economics (1969) and of University of South Carolina Law School (1974). He served in Vietnam in 1970-71 with the 25th Infantry Division, 22nd Infantry Regiment. He is a recognized authority on the Federal Reserve and the Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act.

Clarkson has filed many prior FOIA-PA lawsuits and is currently suing the Air Force under the FOIA for their records of their own outrageous political activities.

The Lawsuit

The White House Counsel--Executive office of the President was sued under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in U.S. District Court in Greenville, S.C. by longtime conservative activist Attorney Robert B. Clarkson.

The FOIA request and lawsuit seeks all records and documents of the White House Counsel office which show legal work by taxpayer-paid attorneys and their staff for benefit of Hillary Rodham Clinton, a private citizen, and President William Clinton for non-official legal work.

Clarkson only seeks evidence of use of public funds, lawyers and their resources being used to represent and defend Mrs. Rodham-Clinton, a non-government employee and President Clinton for private unofficial representation for various investigations including that known as Whitewater, private law suits or Paula Jones case, investigation by Independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

Clarkson specifically states he did not request and does not want any documents dealing with official government or presidential business or lawful governmental activity.

Pursuant to a subpoena enforcement case by Independent Counsel Starr, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in May and June of 1997 that these records were public documents and are not protected by any privilege because Mrs. Rodham-Clinton is a private individual.

Dr. Robert B. Clarkson is a graduate from Clemson University 1969, served in Vietnam with the 25th Infantry Division and graduated from U.S.C. law school in 1974. Clarkson is the founder and leader of the Carolina Patriots, a tax reform organization, editor of The Patriot Cannon, and publisher or Clarkson's Offshore Banking News. He has filed dozens of previous FOIA and Privacy Act lawsuits.

Clarkson was recently quoted as saying, "The Clintons' use of government attorneys, their staffs and supplies in private legal matters is a clear misuse of taxpayers' funds. Clinton a Vietnam-era draft dodger, is accustomed to dodging the law but sooner or later he must account for his actions."

The FOIA law is a frequently used "Private Attorney General" law, less charitably known as a "Federal Bounty Hunter" law, to help enforce federal laws and collect expenses, attorney fees, etc.

__________See Lawsuit below__________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

ROBERT CLARKSON                            }
                                                                              Docket #___________
             vs.                                                }
                                                                               Complaint for Declaratory
White House Counsel -                                              and Injunctive Relief
Executive Office of                                   
the President )                                                              (Jury Trial Demanded)

1. This is a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 USC ß 552
   as amended, to order the production of documents and records requested by
   Plaintiff that are held by Defendant federal agency.
2. Plaintiff Robert Clarkson is a citizen and legal resident of the state of South Carolina and this District. Defendant is a federal agency that can be sued in the District, according to FOIA 552(a)(4)(B), where Plaintiff resides.
   
   Defendant has possession and control over the records and documents sought by Plaintiff. Defendant has refused to comply with Plaintiff’s lawful request and to obey the clear mandate of the FOIA.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to FOIA 5 USC ß 552
   (a)(4)(B) and 28 USC 1361, and 1402.
4. On 26 May 1997, Plaintiff Clarkson requested from Defendant all records and
   documents from Defendant pertaining to:
   1. The notes of White House Counsel pertaining to the activities of H. R. Clinton pertaining to the death of Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster.
   2. The notes of White House Counsel pertaining to the discovery of missing Rose Law Firm billing receipts found in the White House. These requested documents are the same records under subpoena by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and subject to decisions of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.
      
      Said FOIA request is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein.
5. Defendant failed to comply and on 30 June 1997, Clarkson filed his administrative appeal, and again on 7 July 1997.
6. On 9 July 1997 Clarkson filed his second FOIA Request for Documents (Exhibit B), which is an expanded version of his earlier request. Defendant Agency failed to comply and on 2 Sept. 1997, Clarkson filed his administrative appeal.
   
   Plaintiff requests only copies of documents dealing with unlawful and wrongful actions of the Office of the White House Counsel in providing free legal services and resources to Mrs. H. R. Clinton, a non-government employee, and to President W. J. Clinton for non-official legal matters such as dealing with private lawsuits and investigations by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
   
   Plaintiff specifically did not request and does not want any documents dealing with official governmental or presidential business or lawful government activities.
7. Plaintiff has a statutory right to the requested records and Defendant has no legal basis for its refusal to disclose them to him. Defendant agency has acted in a wrongful, intentional and willful manner and Plaintiff was damaged as a result of Defendant’s refusal and failure. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies, and Plaintiff is entitled pursuant to law, to inspect and copy the requested documents.
   
   Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions against Defendant, damages, attorney’s fees, out-of-pocket expenses and cost.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:

1. Declare that the Defendant’s refusal to disclose the requested records is unlawful.
2. Order the Defendant to make the requested records available to Plaintiff Clarkson.
3. Declare that records of the unlawful or illegal activities of the federal agencies are not protected by any exemption of the FOIA.
4. Award Plaintiff costs, fees, out-of-pocket expenses, and attorney's fees in this action.
5. Grant such other and further relief which is just and proper.

Date: 30 November, 1997                                              ________________________
                                                                                       Robert B. Clarkson
                                                                                       515 Concord Avenue
                                                                                       Anderson, SC 29621
                                                                                       864/225-3061

Exhibit A

FOIA Request

TO: The White House Counsel                              FROM: Robert B Clarkson
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave                                                      864/225-3061
Washington, DC 20002

1. This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 usc 552 and the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552a. I agree to pay costs and fees of locating and copying the below requested documents.
2. This request is in the public interest because the requested materials pertains to the public at large and not to any particular person. Also, my funds are not unlimited and I may be a person eligible to receive federal benefits. Therefore I request that you waive fees and costs, but if you do not, please send the requested materials and do not let the request for waiver delay this FOIA request. You can consider this a firm agreement to pay fees.
3. If some of my requests are exempt from release, send me those portions “reasonably
   segregatable”, and provide me with an indexing, itemization and detailed justification
   concerning information which you are not releasing.
4. Please send me the following documents:
   1. The notes by White House Associate Counsel Miriam R Nemetz dated July 11, 1995, on the activities of Mrs Hillary R Clinton pertaining to the death of Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster.
   2. The notes of White House Special Counsel Jane Sherburne dated January 26, 1996, pertaining to the discovery of missing Rose Law Firm billing records found in the White House living quarters.

   These requested documents are the same records under subpoenas of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and mentioned in the recent decision of the 8th US Court of Appeals.

Date:26 May 1997                                                             __________________
                                                                                           Yours, Robert Clarkson

Exhibit B

TO: Mr. Charles Ruff                                                    FROM: Robert Clarkson

Attn: Robert Schroeder FROM;
The White House Counsel<
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington. DC 20002

1. This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC ß552 and the Privacy Act, 5 Usc ß552a.
   I agree to pay costs and fees of locating and copying the documents requested below.
2. This request is in the public interest because the requested materials pertain to the public at large and not to any particular person. Also, my funds are limited and I may be a person eligible to receive federal benefits. Therefore, I request that you waive fees and costs, but if you do not, please send the requested materials and do not let the request for waiver delay this FOIA request. You can consider this a firm agreement to pay fees. I request fee waiver because no commercial use is intended and disclosure will contribute to public understanding of the activities of the government.
3. If some of my requests are exempt from release, send me those portions “reasonably segregatable,” and provide me with an indexing, itemization and detailed justification concerning information which you are not releasing.
4. Please send me the following documents: computer disc or tapes, written material,
   1. The notes and related documents by White Associate Counsel Miram R Nemetz dated July 11, 1995, on the activities of Mrs. Hillary H Clinton about and pertaining to the death of Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster and Ms Nemetz’s legal representation of or legal work for Mrs. Clinton.
   2. The notes and related documents of White House Special Counsel Jane Sherburne dated January 26, 1996, pertaining to the discovery of missing Rose Law Firm billing records found in the White House living quarters. These above requested documents are the same records under subpoena of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and mentioned in the recent decisions of the 8th US Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court.
   3. All rules and regulations pertaining to the private or unofficial, not job related use of government personnel especially attorneys, their staff, government equipment and Supplies, in particular those in the Department of Justice and Office of Counsel to the President by important government officials as President William J Clinton, and the spouse of important officials as Mrs. Hillary H Clinton, for assistant, advice, legal work, appearances in non-official lawsuits, civil or criminal investigations grand jury or congressional appearances that are not related to official work.
   4. All rules and regulation pertaining to the use of the time, staff and supplies of the attorneys in your office by non-government employees as Mrs. Hillary R Clinton for non official legal work as representation in civil lawsuits, Criminal investigation and appearances before grand juries and congressional committees.
   5. Copies of all records, written material and computer records pertain to the use, advise and counsel to Mrs. Hillary R Clinton by any government attorney, his staff and equipment, from the White House Counsel Office or Department of Justice or any department of the US government, in any matter 1990, in particular the legal work about the many legal problems commonly referred to as "Whitewater," in particular any investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, grand jury appearances, discovery and any Congressional investigation. This request includes copies of all work done for Mrs. Clinton by any government attorney for any reason since 1990, and related documents, notes, legal research, pleadings, etc for any non—official work but only for the private benefit of the said Mrs. Clinton.
   6. All records, written material and computer files pertaining to the use, advice & counsel to President William J Clinton by any government attorney or his staff and advisors from any department especially The Office of Counsel to The President in any private, personal, non—governmental matter since 1990, in particular the records on any legal matter or legal problem as commonly referred to as ’Whitewater” , in particular concerning any investigation by the said Independent Counsel, grand jury appearances, congressional investigations, depositions, discovery or any civil or criminal proceeding pertaining to President or Mrs. Clinton and their staff and advisors, and more especially legal assistance in the civil lawsuit by Ms Paula Jones.
      
      I especially request documentation pertaining to the use of government attorneys and resources for private, non—governmental legal assistance or representation to President and Mrs. Clinton on non— official matters outside the scope of his office. I do not request copies of any records to official business or governmental activities.
   7. Copies of all records, computer files, etc, of any legal work, pleadings, legal research, legal advice or plan given or prepared for the benefit of the said President and Mrs. Clinton on any private, non-governmental, non-official legal or other matter, case or investigation whether civil or criminal including assistance in any congressional, grand jury or criminal investigation . In other words, please send me a copy of all paper or computer work done by your office on private legal problems of the said President and his wife since 1990, as long as it is of course, not official governmental work. And, send me a copy of all work for Mrs. Clinton, a non governmental employee.

---

The United States Air Force has been sued in U.S. District Court for South Carolina, Docket #8:97-1882 under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by national patriotic leader Robert Clarkson.

Clarkson filed suit against the USAF Special Operations Command (AFSOC) at Hurlbut Field, Florida and other locations over a military training course called "Dynamics of International Terrorism."  The course is based on materials purchased from Morris Dees and Joe Roy of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) of Montgomery, Alabama. Although the materials are more fundraisers for the SPCL than educational materials, Dees and Roy have with full government approval distributed them to various military bases where they have been used to dangerously misinform American troops.

Among SPLC items distributed are the booklet "False Patriots" and a brochure, "Keeping Watch." Both documents include fund raising requests for the SPLC, a well-known private political organization of extreme left-wing orientation.

In response to a FOIA request by Clarkson, the AF SOC released the class materials including records of payment for them. However, none of the released material had anything to do with any "international" operations, and nothing about real terrorism by international groups. The booklet and pamphlet were strictly leftist-oriented scare propaganda targeting religious and political organizations, many of whom call for a return to government accountability.

"False Patriots" encourages the public to trust the Clinton administration.

Since the military failed to produce anything documenting the "international terrorism" it associates with these patriotic organizations, Clarkson filed an administrative appeal to the Secretary of the Air Force under the FOIA, filed a barrage of supplemental FOIA requests for release of documents and finally the FOIA lawsuit. With it he plans to put a stop to programs which teach American soldiers to treat innocent people as terrorists.

---

About Robert Clarkson

Robert Clarkson graduated from Clemson University in 1969 and from University of South Carolina Law School in 1974. He served in Vietnam with the 22nd Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division as a 1Lt infantry platoon leader.

Robert Clarkson is Executive Director of the Carolina Patriots, a Constitutional study group which is libeled in the SPLC booklet. Clarkson is a nationally recognized expert on the Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act and tax procedure law. He has written several books and is editor of The Patriot Cannon, a tax reform magazine. He was co-founder of the both the Libertarian Party and the U.S. Taxpayers Party in South Carolina.

For 20 years, Dr. Clarkson has been speaking and writing about the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, plus the danger to our rights and liberties from the IRS,income tax and Federal Reserve.

In the SPLC suit, Clarkson is making use of what are known as the "sunshine" laws because they give citizens access to what government is doing as financed by taxpayers. The Freedom of Information Act, Title 5 US. Code  552, was passed by Congress in 1966 and requires that federal agencies release records and documents upon request. Requesters can file suit when they discover something improper and collect costs and attorneys' fees for calling the government to account. The FOIA is a "private attorney general" statute. Dr. Clarkson needs more patriots to participate and send in FOIA forms.

For information on the AF SOC class on "international terrorism," contact Col. Eugene Ronsick, USAF SOC, Hurlbut Field, FL 32544. For a copy of the lawsuit and other information, write the Patriot Network, POB 2368, Care of Robert Clarkson, Anderson, S.C. 29622. Phone 864/225-0882

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

ROBERT B. CLARKSON                            }
                                                                                       Docket #__________________
               vs                                              

                                                                                       COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
                                                                                                                                AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND a
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE                                                   (Jury Trial Demanded)



1. This is a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 USC ß 552 as
amended, to order the production of documents and records requested by Plaintiff
that are held by Defendant federal agencies.

2. Plaintiff, Robert B. Clarkson, is a citizen and legal resident of the state of South
Carolina and this District.. Defendants are  federal agencies that can be sued in the
District, according to FOIA 552(a)(4)(B), where Plaintiff resides.

Defendants have possession and control over the records and documents sought by
Plaintiff.

Defendants have refused to comply’ with Clarkson’s lawful request and to obey the
clear mandate of the FOIA.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to FOIA 5 USC ß 552 (a)(4)(B)
and 28 USC ß1391 and 1402.

4. On October 6,1996, Plaintiff Clarkson requested from Defendants all records and
documents from Defendants pertaining to a course called “Dynamics of International
Terrorism” taught at the United States Air Force SOC by Morris Dees and Joe Roy of
the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and related material as listed in his FOIA
Request of October 6,1996 Attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference
herein. Defendants failed to comply and on December 1,1996, Clarkson filed his
administrative appeal.

5. On October 24, 1996, Clarkson filed his FOIA Request for Documents (Exhibit B),
which is identical to his October 6,1996 request except for different addressee.

On November 22, 1996, Colonel Eugene Ronsick, Director of USAF-SOC responded
and released to Clarkson various political and fundraising pamphlets of the SPLC, but
not one single word pertaining to “International Terrorism”. The released material was
nothing except political literature of extreme left-wing variety which attacked various
political groups accused of being right-wing, plus an appeal for funds for Dees’ anti-
American political group.

Colonel Ronsick also released the payment records to SPLC but these were
unreadable and on December 3,1996, Clarkson wrote Colonel Ronsick to request a
readable copy, which was refused. Copy of letter attached as Exhibit C.

Since Colonel Ronsick refused to comply with Plaintiffs FOIA request and only
distributed extreme liberal political and fundraising material, Clarkson filed his
administrative appeal dated December 1, 1996, which was denied.

6. From October 6,1996 to present, Clarkson sent the UASF and its various
departments a large number of FOIA Requests for Documents which were similar to the
above-mentioned request but expanded.

Defendants refused to comply and Clarkson filed his administrative appeals. These
requests, their dates, addresses, and date of appeals are listed below. Copies of these
requests which are hereby incorporated by reference herein, are attached to Clarkson’s
pleading “List of Exhibits” to be filed shortly.

Clarkson made the following requests on the following dates:

Exhibit       Date              Addressee                         Response                 Date of Appeal D              1/25/97          Secretary of the Air Force   None                          2/26/97 E               1/25/97          HQ AFSOC/SCMS           Refused F               3/10/97          USSOC, MacDill AFB       Refused                       4/7/97 C              3/25/97          USSOC, MacDill AFB       None                           4/7/97 H              1/31/97          Joint SOC, Ft. Bragg          Refused                      4/7/97 I                1/31/97          USSOC, Pentagon               None                          4/7/97

7. Plaintiff has a statutory right to the requested records and Defendants have no legal
basis for their refusal to disclose them to him.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:

1. Declare that, the Defendant’s refusal to disclose the requested records is unlawful.

2. Order the United States Air Force, the Special Operations Command and the

Department of Defense to make the requested records available to Plaintiff Clarkson.

3. Award Plaintiff costs, fees, out-of-pocket expenses, and attorney’s fees in this

action.

4. Grant such other and further relief which is just and proper.



Date: 4 June, 97                                                          _________________________
                                                                                   Robert B. Clarkson
                                                                                   515 Concord Avenue
                                                                                   Anderson, SC 29621
                                                                                   864/225-3061

FOIA REQUEST Exhibit A

FOIA Request



TO: USAF Special Operations School                        FROM: Robert Clarkson
USAFSOS                                                                              515 Concord Ave
Hurlburt Field                                                                           Anderson, SC 29621
Ft Walton Beach, FL


ATTN: Disclosure Officer

1. This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552 and the Privacy Act, 5USC 552a. I agree to pay costs and fees of locating and copying the below requested documents.

2. This request is in the public interest because the requested materials pertains to the public
at large and not to any particular person. Also, my funds are not unlimited and I may be a
person eligible to receive federal benefits. Therefore, I request that you waive fees and costs, but if you do not, please send the requested materials and do not let the request for waiver delay this FOIA request. You can consider this a firm agreement to pay fees.

3. If some of my requests are exempt from release, send me those portions “reasonably
segregatable”, and provide me with an indexing, itemization and detailed justification
concerning information which you are not releasing.

4. Please send me the following documents:
A. All records, books, reports and material pertaining to your course “Dynamics of International Terrorism” taught at USAFSOS, especially the information and material on Patriots, Tax Protestors”, “ rightwing groups”, militias, The Patriot Network, The Carolina Patriots, rightwing Patriots, tax resisters and any other political organization and political group.

B. All reports, books, records, receipts and material pertaining to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Klanwatch,, Joe Roy, Morris Dees, the book False Patriots, and any related operation and organization.

C. All records, expense accounts, bills, payment request, receipts, financial statement or record pertaining to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Klanwatch, Joe Roy, etc.


Date: 6 Oct 96
                                                                                            Yours,

                                                                             _____________________
                                                                             Robert Clarkson

  
________________________________________
Exhibit B

TO: Letitia Hudson                                              From:  Robert Clarkson
FOIA Manager
EQ AFSOC/SCMS (F0IA)
Hurlburt Field, FL




1. This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552 and the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552a. I agree to pay costs and fees of locating and copying the below requested documents.

2. This request is in the public interest because the requested materials pertains to the public
at large and not to any particular person. Also, my funds are not unlimited and I may a
person eligible to receive federal benefits. Therefore, I request that you waive fees and costs, but if you do not, please send the requested materials and do not let the request for waiver delay this FOIA request. You can consider this a firm agreement to pay fees.

3. If some of my requests ore exempt from release, send me those portions “reasonably
segregatable”, and provide me with an indexing, itemization and detailed justification
concerning information which you are not releasing.

4. Please send me the following documents:
A. All records, books, reports arid material pertaining to your course “Dynamics of International Terrorism” taught at USAFSOS, especially the information and material on Patriots, “ Tax Protestors”, “ rightwing groups”, ‘Militias, The Patriot Network, The Carolina Patriots, rightwing Patriots, tax resisters and any other Political organization and political group.

B. All reports, books, records, receipts and material pertaining to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Klanwatch,, Joe Roy, Morris Dees, the book False Patriots, and any related operation and organization.

C. All records, expense accounts, bills, payment request, receipts, financial statement or record pertaining to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Klanwatch, Joe Roy, etc.

                                                                                                    Yours,

Date:29 Oct 96                                                             ________________________
                                                                                     Robert B. Clarkson

Exhibit C

                                                                                               Robert Clarkson
                                                                                               515 Concord Ave
                                                                                               Anderson, SC 29621

Col. Eugene Ronsick
Director, USAF Special Operations Command
100 Bartley St, Command Suite
Hurlburt Field, FL 32544

Dear Col Ronsick:

I wrote your office under the Freedom of Information Act 5 USC ß552 for copies of the Morris Dees—Southern Poverty Law Center course on International Terrorism taught to military personnel.

However, you sent me a pile of political literature of extreme left-wing flavor attacking political groups not favored by Dees. You sent me nothing about any international operation or any actual terrorism either- just trite left—wing propaganda about domestic
political groups ( unpopular political groups but still political).

Please send me what I requested. I know your agency has more documents than what you sent. Please send me a copy of the contract with Dees-SPLC and information on how and why he was hired.

I was upset that the USAF was paying money to Dees, Roy & SPLC, a group of former anti-war protestors during the Vietnam era. I was a 1 Lt infantry platoon leader with the 25th Infantry Division in Vietnam and am now a disabled veteran from combat operations. Dees has a long history of radical anti-American activities, yet you hired him to teach politics to military personnel.

The literature you sent me even had Dees soliciting for funds for his political action group. Surely, this is not a proper activity of the USAF. Personally, I do not believe the Air Force should be involved in domestic political affairs anyway.

Go ahead and send me the other documents I requested. I made a formal FOIA request for “all records, books, reports and material”, but your office has not complied. Also, you sent me two of the form “Order for Supplies or Services” for Joe Roy but these are
too faint and unreadable. Please send me some better ones.

The literature from Dees that you sent me makes many charges against many political groups and people. Is this the official USAF position? Since the Dees booklet was distributed to a military group, is it then an official US document? Please inform me of the official status in the USAF of Dees, Roy, SPLC and their written material. Let us work together.

Summons
 Summons in a Civil Action


                                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                 _____________DISTRICT OF South Carolina_____________


Robert B Clarkson
           V.                                                                                   Case #_________
                                                                                SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
United States Air Force
Special Operations Command and
Department of Defense


TO: (Name and Address of Defendant) USAF Special Operations Command
100 Bartley St, Hurlburt Field, FL 32544—5273


Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1400

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to file with the Clerk of this Court and serve upon

PLAINTIFF' ATTORNEY (name and address) PRO SE,
                                                                          Robert B Clarkson
                                                                          515 Concord Ave
                                                                          Anderson, SC 29621
                                                                          864/225-3061



5 USC 552(a) (4)
an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 30 days per 5 USC 552(a) (4) after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

CLERK:______________________ DATE: _______________

_____________________________
By Deputy Clerk                                                                                                  

US District Court District of Georgia

ROBERT B. CLARKSON Plaintiff                 v. JOHN HENDERSON-IRS, GEORGIA Defendants

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL #_________________ COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF OF PRIVACY ACT

1. This is an action under the Privacy Act 5 USC 552a, to order Defendants to expunge and correct certain documents and to furnish an accounting.
2. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 USC 552(a)(4), 5 USC 552a, 28 USC 1361 and the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution.
3. Plaintiff is a citizen of the US and brings this action in the court district of Defendant, John Henderson.
4. Defendant, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is an agency of the executive branch of the US gfovernment which the documents complained of below are located. Defendant John Henderson is the District Director of the IRS in teh State of Georgia and is sued in his official capacity as the custodian ofthe documents below mentioned and is Chief perations Officer of the IRS in that State.
5. Defendants have in their files a "memorandum of Surveillance" pertaining to the surveillance of Feb , 1979 from 7:30 pm to 9:15 pm at the Holiday Inn in Atlanta, georgia agianst a "local organisation called 'We the People'". Additionally, this said memorandum pdertains to almost entriely the Plaintiff, who is alleged to be the principal speaker of this private meeting of private citizens. This document is maintained in Defendant's file in violation of the Privacy Act (e)(7), and (e)(1) and should be expunged. Additionally, this particular memorandum is malicious, untruthful and totally and completely illegal.
6. Defendants also contain in their fils and numebr of other materials pertaining to Plaintiff which should be expunged. Plaintiff, on information and belief alleges that Defendants have anewspaper clipping pertaining to Plaintiff from the North Dekalb News dated Feb 7, 1979 whch is also unttruthful, malicious and in fact was written, printed or "planted" in said newspaper for the purose of harming and embarrassing Plaintiff. In addition, Defendants have in their files newspaper clippings, press releases and other papers pertaining to First Amendment activities of a numbner of people in the above-mentioned group, "We the People". All of these documents and any other documents pertaining to surveillance against private groups and derogation tothe First Amendment fo the US Constitution should be expunged forever in Defendant's files by order of this court.
7. That heretofore, Plaintiff addressed a letter to defendant Henderson to request that he expunge, delete and amend all records or documentation whatsoever pertaining to how Plaintiff exercise his First Amendment right pursuant to the Privacy Act, which included the documents above mentioned. Plaintiff also mentioned that "your memorandum stated that I 'advocated not paying any income tax' which is false, malicious and a purposeful lie."
8. Plaintiff also requested an accouting or listing of all agencies' disclosures of the above-mentinoed matierals pertainig to the Privacy Act, including a list of which agencies recieed which records for which reasons. Further, under the FOIA, Plaintiff requested a copyu of the written guidelines establishing a procedure of how Plaintiff might have his records amended. Last, Plaintiff requested for Defendants to furnish in 10 days in writing the reasons for the refusal to make the above-mentioned corrections or expungements.
9. Defendants have refused to comply with any of the requests of the Plaintiff which were outlined in the above-mentioned letter, which is attached and hereby incorporated by reference.
10. Plaintiff is harmed by Defendants' maintenance of the above-mentioned records in their files for the following reasons:
1. The files are in violation of Plaintiff's statutory rights as set forth under The Privacy Act (1),(c)(7).
2. Affront to Plaintiff and reminder to him forever of the deprivation of the constitutional rights and the spying against him and other political reformists.
3. Unless removed by Court Order, the documents could and might adversely affect Plaintiff's relationship with other employees and agencies of the IRS and other governemnt officials.
11. Information pertaining to Plaintiff in Defendant's files is not only incorrect, but additionally, the particular newspaper article above-mentioned was placed in the file for the malicious and intentual purpose of harming Plaintiff.
12. Plaintiff, having exhausted his administrative remedies, is entitled pursuant to law to have the above-mentioned documents removed, expunged, and corrected; to be furnished with an accounting of all disclosures and to be provided with a copy of the administrative procedures of Defendant agency for further amendment and correction. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitlied pursuant to the Privacy Act to receive attorney's fees, costs in this action, and sanctions against Defendants.
13. Plaintiff requests that this Court do issue its rule to show cuase ordering Defedants to appear forthwith before this Court and show cause why the release hereinabove required should not be granted and Plaintiff have an opportunity to appeal at that time to set forth a reason for this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court do grant the relief here and above requested and for such other relief that this court may deem fit, just and proper.

DATE:____________________    _____________________________			
Anderson, SC	             ROBERT CLARKSON, PLAINTIFF
PRO SE