My computer has frozen 4 times today - 3 times in the middle of trying to post. Somebody wants to shut me up.
So I’ll probably be absent for a while.
But before I go, I want to point out that OIP Opinion Letter 07-01 says that if the very existence of a record is to be protected from disclosure a Glomar response (”The records, if any, are protected from disclosure”) is to be used.
That’s because a standard denial, without the Glomarized response, is a confirmation of the record’s existence. Otherwise, why add the “if any”?
The OIP is supposed to safeguard against careless answers by checking to make sure that the response follows the guidelines. Paul Tsukiyama wrote the guidelines saying that records’ existence is to be checked before anything else, and if the records don’t exist, the box is to be checked and that’s the end of it. He wrote that shortly before telling MT, on appeal, that the DOH properly denied her request for supplementary documents offered in support of the claims on the original or amended BC. This isn’t just SNAFU; this was checked for accuracy by the OIP director, who certainly knows the rules.
Seize the carp, thanks for the insight on how the Obots operate. Apparently I’m getting too close for their comfort. Bgill, if you’re keeping count - my computer froze 4 times today. Never on Drudge. Never on HotAir. Never on news sites. Just on FR and on my own blog, today. And I haven’t even been online so much today.
If you don’t see much of me in the next few days you’ll know what’s going on.
Back up your files Butter...
LOL. The depth of birther paranoia never cease to amaze me!
LOL. So the birther argument now hangs on the fact that some Hawaiian bureaucrat forgot to write "if any" when denying some crank's request for documents.
It's sad that you people can't see how absurd you look.
I’ve been online all morning without a bit of trouble. Then I start reading this thread’s posts and zowie. Mine in slowing down and pausing.
************
Howdy there, Eligibility Ed, you big hunk a hunk!