Author Topic: Judicial Watch vs. Secret Service (Obama's daughter's vacation in Mexico)  (Read 282 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69,385
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them

2its public interest mission, Plaintiff regularly requests access to the public records of federal, state,and local government agencies, entities, and offices, and disseminates its findings to the public.4. Defendant U.S. Secret Service

(“Secret Service”)

is an agency of the U.S.Government and is headquartered at

245 Murray Drive, Building 410, Washington, DC 20223.

TheSecret Service has possession, custody, and control of certain public records to which Plaintiff seeks access.


 5. On March 29, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the Secret Service, bycertified mail, seeking access to the following public records:Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to theexpenditure of U.S. Government funds to provide security and/orany other services for Malia Obama and any companions during herMarch 2012 visit to Mexico.6. According to a U.S. Postal Service receipt

, the Secret Service received Plaintiff’s

request on April 6, 2012. By letter dated May 18, 2012, the Secret Service acknowledged receiptof the request and assigned it File Number 20120618.7. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), the Secret Service was required to

determine whether to comply with Plaintiff’s request within

twenty (20) working days of itsreceipt of the request on April 6, 2012 and to notify Plaintiff immediately of its determination, thereasons therefor, and the right to appeal any adverse determination. Accordingly, the SecretService

’s determination was due by

May 4, 2012 at the latest.8. As of the date of this Complaint, Defendant Secret Service has failed to: (i)

determine whether to comply with Plaintiff’s

requests; (ii) notify Plaintiff of any suchdetermination or the reasons therefor; (iii) advise Plaintiff of the right to appeal any adverse

Case 1:12-cv-01562-BAH Document 1 Filed 09/20/12 Page 2 of 4


3determination; or (iv) produce the requested records or otherwise demonstrate that the requestedrecords are exempt from production.9. Because Defendant failed to comply with the time limit set forth in 5 U.S.C.


 552(a)(6)(A), Plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted any and all administrative remedies withrespect to its requests, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.



COUNT 1(Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552)

 10. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully stated herein.11. Defendant is unlawfully withholding public records requested by Plaintiff pursuantto 5 U.S.C. § 552.12. Plaintiff is being irreparably harmed

 by reason of Defendant’s

unlawfulwithholding of the requested public records, and Plaintiff will continue to be irreparably harmedunless Defendant is compelled to conform its conduct to the requirements of the law.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) order Defendant toconduct a search for any and all records responsive to


FOIA request and demonstratethat it employed search methods reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of records responsive to


FOIA request; (2) order Defendant to produce, by a date certain, any and all non-exemptrecords responsive to


FOIA request and a


index of any responsive recordswithheld under claim of exemption; (3) enjoin Defendant from continuing to withhold any and allnon-exempt records responsive to


FOIA request; (4) grant Plaintiff an award of attorney


fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action pursuant to5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and (5) grant Plaintiff such other relief as the Court deems just andproper.

Case 1:12-cv-01562-BAH Document 1 Filed 09/20/12 Page 3 of 4


4Dated: September 20, 2012 Respectfully submitted,JUDICIAL




INC. /


 / Paul J. OrfanedesD.C. Bar No. 429716425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800Washington, DC 20024(202) 646-5172

 Attorneys for Plaintiff


Case 1:12-cv-01562-BAH Document 1 Filed 09/20/12 Page 4 of 4

Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.

Joseph Story

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo