Well, Obama has been pretty good at presiding over the passage of various ex post facto laws.
But it does seem to me that what you describe would violate the basic rule of law, if they try to pass a new law to punish a “crime” that was committed before the law forbidding it was on the books.
In fact, ex post facto application of the law has been considered wrong ever since Magna Carta.
Perhaps they are pretending to clarify existing law. Still, I would think that the worst they could do would be to forbid any future “harrassment.”
The thing of it is, they don’t have any laws saying how many requests you can make, whether you can ask for the same thing somebody else asked for already, whether you can associate with other people to reduce the number of requests necessary, whether you can appeal to the OIP if you are wrongly denied, etc. All the stuff I’ve done is legal. The whole determination is whether they are bothered by it.
In the instances where they gave answers that I was able to understand as conforming to the law I didn’t ask anything more about that. One person I know of has NEVER asked a SINGLE question about Obama. Her only requests have been for things they are required to have available and to make public.
This is entirely a punitive law - punishing people for the DOH folks feeling frazzled.
Well, they wouldn’t feel frazzled if they would just answer the stinkin’ questions as required by law. Jeesh.