| 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Withdrawn But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withdrawn as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.
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
|
,
