Re: FOIA tutorial for Kathy

From: Jim March <jmarch_at_prodigy_dot_net>
Date: Thu Nov 11 2004 - 11:38:33 CST

OK, sorry I wasn't clear.

On *any* California PRAR, the agency has 10 days from reciept of your
request to get back to you with an "initial response". This can be all
the documents you asked for, or a statement that what you want doesn't
exist, or they refuse to give it to you for some reason, or they list
what they WILL give you and what the copying fees are going to be, or
they tell you it's complicated and ask for a 20-day extension. Or some
combination - fr'instance, on my PRAR to sheriffs and police chiefs on
gun-permit records, I ask for items 1 through 7, each of which is a
different class of documents asked for:

http://www.equalccw.com/prarccwlocal.pdf

Some they might object to, others like item 7 are a document they're
required to have and look stupid if they don't cough up - as for example
in this case of a truly comical "whoops!" of a one-page PRAR response:
http://www.equalccw.com/sfsheriff.gif

Anyways. What I'm getting at is that the typical 10-day response letter
often looks like:

--------------
On item 1, you're talking about 200 pages of stuff. At 10 cents a page,
please cough up...

On item 2, we have no such documents...

On item 3 it'll take us another 20 days to sort that out, it'll be about
1,000 pages...you sure you want all that?

On item 4, that stuff is private, take our asses to court if you think
otherwise...
--------------

...or some combination.

Now, those time limits are the rules in California. Other states vary,
although the California time figures are pretty common. It has nothing
to do with when you make the request, or when the election happened.
(The only "timing issue" is that it's smart to make the request for
after the documents you want get created! Example: if you want a copy
of the final certified vote count, that doesn't get generated until "x"
number of days post-election.)

When asking for an election recount, THAT is a very specialized thing
and yes, there's time limits that usually start when the final vote is
certified by county/state elections officials. But that's not a
function under the Public Records Act or similar.

Jim

Kathy Dopp wrote:

>Jim March said:
>
>
>>Kathy Dopp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Our group will provide the statistical evidence to pinpoint certain
>>>counties election results as being suspect, provide statistical
>>>evidence you can take to court and leave the rest to you other experts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>'Kay, we can do that. You point us to where there's trouble, we'll home
>> in there.
>>
>>One part of public records I didn't cover: there's generally an "initial
>> response window" (in California, 10 days) in which (at a minimum) they
>>"describe what they've got" and what it'll cost. They then often
>>(usually) ask for a 20-day extension, or they can cough up at the 10 day
>> point.
>>
>>
>
>Not sure what you mean. do you mean that these election records have to
>be asked for within 10 days after an election?
>
>We will never get our analyses done to pinpoint counties by then. We
>haven't set up the server yet or culled all the data for all the states.
>It may take weeks or month(s) to get ready to begin the comprehensive
>analyses. We hope to have a system in place by 2006 to produce it within
>days of the election, but it's a lot of work.
>
>I'm thinking of this as a 2-year project altogether to first produce
>enough analyses to uncover suspicious looking counties and then produce
>the detailed analyses needed for court and do the recounts, but perhaps w/
>money we could cut the time down.
>
>Jim, if you want to call me do. 435-608-1382
>
>
>
>>The "day 10 letter" will also contain any objections to what you're
>>asking for.
>>
>>So knowing how strongly they object to being dug into, we have a pretty
>>damn good clue who's dirty :).
>>
>>If we then cross-reference that data from our (BBV.org) records request
>>with your statistics, we'll know where to REALLY dig deep 'cuz there's
>>bodies buried. "Digging" often means suing under these open records
>>laws over wrongful denial. A good example of a legal decision in such a
>> case is the 1986 California Supreme Court "CBS v. Block" which can be
>>read at:
>>
>>http://www.equalccw.com/cbsvblock.html
>>
>>And yes, it's gun-related but it's directly about public records so if
>>you want to see how a court copes with these issues, there ya go, your
>>choice of my short summary or the whole unedited text below that.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Nov 30 23:17:27 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 23:17:44 CST