Posted on 10/04/2005 11:32:33 AM PDT by wcdukenfield
BY FIRST CLASS MAIL AND FACSIMILE Fax: (512) 854-9695
October 4, 2005
Mr. Ronnie Earle District Attorney Travis County 509 W.11th St. Austin, TX 78701
APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Earle:
This is an application for production of public information pursuant to Sec. 552.221 of the Texas Public Information Act.
Landmark Legal Foundation (“Landmark”) requests that that your office provide copies of requested material to Landmark’s Leesburg, Virginia address pursuant to Sec. 552.221(b)(2). The following information is sought from your office:
REQUESTED INFORMATION
1. For the time period January 1, 2000 to October 4, 2005: Any and all information in the Travis County District Attorney’s Office (“DA”) , or in the custody or control of any individual working for said office, which name or in any way reference the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”); any entity, campaign committee, employee, agent or consultant of the DNC; DNC Chairman Howard Dean; the Texas Democratic Party; any entity, campaign committee, employee, agent or consultant of the Texas Democratic Party; Texas Democratic Party Chair Charles Soechting; any members of the Texas state legislature; Texas State Representative Pete Laney; and former Congressman Martin Frost.
The information must include, but is not limited to, calendars, agendas, schedules, notes, notations, letters, audio tapes, and/or video tapes. (For a more comprehensive definition of public information, see below.)
2. This request seeks all telephonic records (including but not limited to cell phone numbers) in the custody of the DA’s office, or in the custody of any individual working for said office, or to which the DA’s office has or can receive access, disclosing telephone calls to or from Mr. Earle for the time period August 1, 2005 to October 4, 2005. This request includes all information, regardless of format, including but not limited to bills or invoices disclosing telephonic communications.
3. This request seeks all telephone messages, logs, notes or notations prepared by anyone in the DA’s office for Mr. Earle, including but not limited to Mr. Earle’s secretary, receptionist and or office administrator or manager, for the time period August 1, 2005 to October 4, 2005.
4. This request seeks all telephone numbers (including but not limited to cell phone numbers) of Mr. Earle.
5. This request seeks all information in the custody of the DA’s office, or in the custody or control of any individual working for said office, which name or in any way reference Messrs. Mark Birnbaum, Jim Schermbeck, or their employees, agents or representatives, or the filming of their movie “The Big Buy” which cover the period of January 1, 2002 to October 4, 2005. This includes all telephonic records of communications involving Mr. Earle, the DA’s office, and Messrs. Birnbaum or Schermbeck.
6. This request seeks any copies of the film, or parts of the film The Big Buy, in whatever stage of production, in the possession of Mr. Earle, the DA’s office, or any employee of said office.
Pursuant to Sec. 552.002(a) public information means information that is collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business: (1) by a governmental body; or (2) for a governmental body and the governmental body owns the information or has a right of access to it. Moreover, Sec. 552.002(b) provides that the media on which public information is recorded include: (1) paper; (2) film; (3) a magnetic, optical, or solid state device that can store an electronic signal; (4) tape; (5) Mylar; (6) linen; (7) silk; and (8) vellum. Furthermore, Sec. 552.002(c) provides that the general forms in which the media containing public information exist include a book, paper, letter, document, printout, photograph, film, tape, microfiche, microfilm, photostat, sound recording, map, and drawing and a voice, data, or video representation held in computer memory.
This request includes all information, regardless of format. Moreover, it includes information stored on back-up data files, including disks and recordings of electronic communications.
This request for information does not seek any information exempt from release pursuant to Sec. 552.108 in that such release would not impede legitimate law enforcement or prosecutorial activities. Moreover, information relating to improper or illegal conduct by the DA or any person acting on behalf of or in the employment of the DA’s office is not exempt from disclosure under any exemption set forth in Chapter 552.
In the event that the DA asserts an exemption in response to this application, Landmark will expect timely compliance with the DA’s duty pursuant to Sec. 552.301 to seek an Attorney General’s decision as to the legitimacy of the exemption asserted.
Landmark is a tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization and seeks this information for public dissemination and education. Landmark respectfully requests a waiver or reduction of charges for providing copies of the requested information pursuant to Sec. 552.267 as the information sought is “in the public interest because providing the cop[ies] . . . primarily benefits the general public.” Landmark will, in fact, make this information public upon receipt. If a fee waiver is refused Landmark agrees to pay reasonable duplication costs up to $1500.00, but requests a timely itemized estimate of charges prior to incurring those costs as provided in Sec. 552.2615 via facsimile to Landmark’s Leesburg, Virginia office at 703-554-6119. However, Landmark agrees that duplication and release of records may proceed up to the $1500.00 amount immediately.
Sec. 552.221(d) requires that you act “promptly [and] without delay” -- within the 10 days provided in. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this request further, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Levin President
cc: Ms. Alicia Perez, Executive Manager Administrative Operations Travis County 314 W. 11th St. Austin, TX 78701
SY- Is Columbus Day a busines day? (in relation to FOIA request?)
Government agencies typically have up to three days to respond to FOIA requests. The three days do not include holidays or weekends. Columbus Day, IIRC from yesterday, is a federal holiday so it wouldn't be counted against the agency.
Ah, I didn't even look at the story or the thread, just answered your question. This is Texas, so its going to fall under Texas laws, presumably. I would suspect that Texas did not take Columbus Day as a holiday, I know most Georgia counties did not.
Also, I think the limit is 10 days there.
At least I'm pretty sure that was what was in the request. So, depending if the county of request, and the State of Texas reqs, we don't count weekends and maybe or maybe not Columbus day. So from Oct 4, that would be Oct 18 or 19, just like the previous poster stated.
I wonder how long Earle could drag it out beyond that?
Oh well, it'll be interesting to see what, if anything is released.
I'm more familiar with Georgia laws, but you don't have to provide the information requested within the time limit, you just have to respond (of course, there has to be a reasonable excuse why you can't provide within the three days). Further, in Georgia any "ongoing criminal investigation" is almost completely exempt from open records laws, so Earle might be able to exempt these records (or try) on that ground. But I don't know Texas open records laws.
Just for an FYI, you don't have to read all this.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/og_faqs.shtml#pia
What procedures must be followed if a governmental body wishes to withhold information?
Within ten business days of receiving a written request, the governmental body must:
* write the Attorney General, asking for a decision and state which exceptions apply to the requested information;
* provide the requestor with a written statement that the governmental body wishes to withhold the information and that it has asked the Attorney General for a decision;
* provide the requestor with a copy of the governmental body's correspondence to the Attorney General; and
* make a good faith attempt to notify, in the form prescribed by the Attorney General, any affected third parties of the request.
Within fifteen business days of receiving your request, the governmental body must:
* write the Attorney General and explain how the claimed exceptions apply;
* provide a copy of your written request to the Attorney General;
* provide a signed statement to the Attorney General stating the date the request was received by the governmental body or provide evidence sufficient to establish the date the request was received; and
* provide copies of the documents requested or a representative sample of the documents to the Attorney General and the documents must be labeled to show which exceptions apply to which parts of the documents.
JW777 ADDED: "I want to see a fight. Just like, I wanted Bush to pick someone that we could once and for all fight the Demoncats on and win and shove it up their arses."
After learning more about Miers and hearing Rove talk about the Hariett Miers nomination, my analysis is that Bush is employing a calculated "strategery" and is being greatly "misunderestimated" by the RATS, the Media and many Conservatives.
With loyalty being as important to Bush as it is, and with his having seen the disasters of nominating SCOTUS Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor, I cannot believe that Bush would nominate someone who is not faithful to the concept of original intent of the Constitution---and be staunchly pro-life.
That being said, I believe that Bush's plan was to put up two seemingly "stealth" candidates, who are KNOWN by him to be conservative: pro-life and strict constructionists. The RATS would be caught off-guard---and RELIEVED---by his NOT nominating two CLEAR, STAUNCH conservatives.
As a result of Bush's SCOTUS track record, aging SCOTUS Justice Stevens, would feel less worried about Bush nominating an ultra-conservative and feel safe to retire early.
Then, for the "third time's a charm" nomination, Bush takes the "nucular" option and nominates Janice Rogers Brown.
Because of his SCOTUS track record, the RATS would have a harder time arguing that Bush nominates ultra-conservatives, and assuming she is then confirmed, we would have THREE NEW CONSERVATIVE SCOTUS JUSTICES and Roe could be overturned on the grounds of FRAUD in the original case and NEW MEDICAL INFORMATION which was not known at the time Roe was first decided.
Mark my words...You heard it here first...I believe Miers is part of Bush's "strategery" to add THREE conservative Justices to the SCOTUS!
EYESPYSOMETHING ADDED: "Within fifteen business days of receiving your request, the governmental body must: ..."
So, what if the govermental entity doesn't respond or do those things within the specified time period? Is it an automatic win for you (and you just have to state that and demand immediate production) or do you have to file a lawsuit to get it? If it is the latter, that becomes a VERY expensive request for info and basically impossible for most people.
Hmm. I will digest that. Thanks.
Bump to see what the outcome of this is next week.
Has anyone heard if the FOIA documents have been delivered to Mark Levin?????
Isn't this due today???
BTTT
Way to go MARK. Thank you and God Bless. PING and Amen.
I think that was due at COB yesterday. I want the Texas Rangers to lock the DA and his staff in the jail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.