Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Asmodeus
...the case to be refiled, assuming the statute of limitations has not expired.

Wrong... the statute of limitations applies to the FIRST FILING... and incidentally does not have application to a FOIA request.

Lahr must request the AMENDED information from the agency FIRST... he then may file a suit if the agency does not respond with that information or provides incomplete information.

You are picking nits while Lahr is following the proper procedure.

886 posted on 09/02/2002 11:53:00 PM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 881 | View Replies ]


To: Swordmaker
RESPONSE FROM CAPT. LAHR re: NTSB LAWSUIT
(excerpts)

(provided by a personal friend of Capt. Lahr)

Ray:
>
> Am I correct in assuming that you have prepared or are in the process of
> preparing a new lawsuit against the NTSB in the event that your refiling
> under the FOIA for the zoom-climb data is not productive?
>
> (Redacted)




(Redacted) - Yes, although this time I won't do it pro se. I have retained a
lawyer, (Redacted) to help me. ....... Ray

[ Then I
asked:]


> Is this information confidential or are the usual suspects aware of your
> intentions. I ask this because disinfo artists on various forums are
making much of the dismissal of the pro se motion.
>
> (Redacted)






Hello (Redacted) - No, it is not confidential. You can tell the world that I am
not about to give up. .........




888 posted on 09/03/2002 5:40:52 AM PDT by JohnFiorentino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 886 | View Replies ]

To: Swordmaker; All
"the statute of limitations applies to the FIRST FILING... and incidentally does not have application to a FOIA request."

From the now deleted source: "There is a [deleted]-year statute of limitations for suing under the FOIA. This means that you have to file a lawsuit within [deleted] years of the date you made your request - even if you have received an incomplete response from the agency."

The "request" referred to is the initial FOIA request. That's when the statute of limitations clock started running.

"You are picking nits while Lahr is following the proper procedure."

Lahr's lawsuit would not have been dismissed as "premature" and he would not have had to start all over again from square one, submitting another FOIA request, if he had followed the "proper procedure". The statute of limitations does not start over again, however. It has kept right on ticking since his first FOIA request. [Source deleted]

From the court record already posted in this thread [and not yet deleted]:

"Scheduling conference held. Charles S. Kim, counsel for Boeing - possible intervenor in this action, is also present. Parties inform Court of dispute as to the actual documents at issue in this matter. Court finds this matter premature to proceed at this time and dismisses this action without prejudice."

The presence of a lawyer from Boeing's legal team as "possible intervenor" dramatizes that the core issue is proprietary information/specs. That's what Ray Lahr, now represented by a lawyer, has to try to skirt around in his FOIA requests.

"Although the law requires federal courts to give priority to FOIA suits, they can still take about a year, and maybe two or three years if a lower court decision is appealed to higher courts. Be warned, the government may use all kinds of courtroom maneuvers to delay or prevent mandatory disclosure - you have to decide how far you want to take your request." [Source deleted]

The court system is the lawyers' playpen.

And the statute of limitations clock is still ticking.

But if or when Ray Lahr's quest fails, which I believe is inevitable because of the proprietary information/specs issue that existed long before the crash of TWA Flight 800, the legal geniuses in their own minds such as Swordmaker or the Great Paralegal (GREPAR) can step up to the plate and file their own FOIA requests and start a new clock running.

The "Missile Witnesses" Myth
FBI Chief Metallurgist Blows Whistle On Kallstrom's Wild Goose Chase

890 posted on 09/03/2002 11:22:05 AM PDT by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 886 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson