Inner City Press





In Other Media-eg NYLJ New Statesman, CJR, NY Mag, AJE, Georgia, CSM Click here to contact us     .



These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis
,



Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

CONTRIBUTE

(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro

BloggingHeads.tv
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka

VoA: NYCLU

FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"
 

 

 


Community
Reinvestment

Bank Beat

Freedom of Information
 

How to Contact Us



On Prince Harry Visa DHS Issues Glomar Reply So Stay Motion Withdrawn But Fee Bid Still

by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack

DDC COURTHOUSE, June 14 – The US Department of Homeland Security has refused to grant expedited processing to a Freedom of Information Act request concerning their processing of a visa for Prince Harry and whether favoritism or politics were involved. 

 On June 6 District for the District of Columbia Judge Carl Nichols held oral argument. Inner City Press was there.

   The Department of Justice, representing DHS, said among other things that only that it defined as mainstream media, limiting that term to the New York Times, Washington Post, WSJ and TV networks, can get expedited treatment.

  Judge Nichols took the motion under advisement but asked DOJ to ask DHS, and report by email in a week, if it will agree to expedite or decide, to get to the merits of withholding the records, he said.

  That answer, ironically, will not be public, the docket.

 There was an argument about whether the allegation of government misconduct must be explicit - not unlike SDNY Judge Victor Marrero's recent decision that Inner City Press should have said "objection" rather than asking for the docket number and basis for sealing before being put out of a courtroom, to get review. 

On June 14, the request for a preliminary injunction was withdrawn as moot, after DHS belatedly replied that "we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any records relating to your request under Section 3, pursuant to FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). Exemption (b)(6) exempts from disclosure personnel or medical files and similar files the release of which would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The privacy interests of the individual in the records you have requested outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the information. Exemption (b)(7)(C) excludes records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such materials could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. To the extent records exist, this office does not find a public interest in disclosure sufficient to override the subject’s privacy interests." DHS reply on Patreon here.
But a bid for attorneys fees continues.

 Inner City Press will remain on the cases.

More extra on Substack here

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

sdny

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540



Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2023 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com