ASIM REHMAN: CHIEF COUNSEL TO OIG/NYPD
ROLE IN THE COVER UP OF THE MURDER:
- WANTONLY VIOLATED FOIL LAW TO PROTECT PERPETRATORS
SEE BLACKSTAR NEWS FOIL REQUEST TO OIG
BSN 2/12/15 FOIL appeal to Asim Rehman
Milton
Allimadi
Blackstar News
PO Box
New York NY, 10027
Blackstar News
PO Box
New York NY, 10027
Asim
Rehman
Office of Inspector General
80 Maiden Lane ,
14th floor New York, NY 10038
Office of Inspector General
80 Maiden Lane ,
14th floor New York, NY 10038
February 12, 2015
Re: Freedom of
Information
Law Appeal
Dear
Mr. Rehman,
On behalf of the Blackstar
News, I hereby
appeal the denial of access regarding our request, which was made on
January 19th and sent to Asim Rehman, Office of Inspector General, 80
Maiden Lane, 14th floor New York, NY 10038. Our requests are relevant
to the circumstances surrounding the death of anti-corruption
whistleblower Mr. Sunny Sheu.
The records that were
denied include 24 categories of requests for documents relating to
the death of Sunny Sheu, and the apparent cover up by NYPD personnel
of the circumstances surrounding it. These records were denied on the
purported basis of exceptions §87(2)(e)(i),
and §87(2)(b).
Specifically,
you wrote: “Any
material which may be in the possession of this Department that would
be responsive to your request would be exempt from disclosure
pursuant to Public Officers Law §87(e)(i)
and §87(2)(b) on the grounds that the materials were compiled for
law enforcement purposes and disclosure would interfere with law
enforcement investigations. Any such record would also be exempt
pursuant to Public Officers Law §87(2)(b) on the grounds that such
disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.”
According
to Robert Freedman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open
Government: “The
Court of Appeals has held on several occasions that the exceptions to
rights of access appearing in §87(2) "are to be narrowly
construed to provide maximum access, and the agency seeking to
prevent disclosure carries the burden of demonstrating that the
requested material falls squarely within a FOIL exemption by
articulating
a particularized and specific justification for denying access".
Your
letter states
that every passage of every individual request in our letter is
excepted by §87(e)(i) on the grounds that the materials were
compiled for law enforcement purposes and disclosure would interfere
with law enforcement investigations.
We
appeal this exemption on the basis that the OIG has not demonstrated,
by
articulating
a particularized and specific justification, why
disclosing any of the requested material would interfere with any law
enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings.
As
you know, simply claiming that “any
material which may be in the possession of this Department that would
be responsive to your request would be exempt from disclosure
pursuant to Public Officers Law §87(e)(i)”
is
neither a particularized nor a specific justification for denying
access. You
have not even indicated to what “law enforcement investigation”
(if any) you are referring or what parties (if any) are under
investigation, let alone how any of the documents would impede such
an alleged investigation.
Basing
your denial on §87(e)(i)”
is even
more bizarre in light of the fact that your Senior Investigator, Joe
Carinha stated that he found nothing suspicious about the death of
Sunny Sheu, and further stated that he was speaking for your Chief
Investigator, Thomas Mahoney.
Your
letter also states
that every passage of every individual request in our letter is
excepted by §87(2)(b) on the grounds that disclosure would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. We appeal on the basis
that the OIG has not demonstrated,
by
articulating
a particularized and specific justification, why
disclosing any
of the documents requested would constitute an unwarranted invasion
of anyone's privacy.
As
you know, Mr. Rehman, simply claiming that the material you “may
have in your possession, would be exempt from disclosure pursuant to
Public Officers Law §87(2);” in
no way represents a particularized
and specific justification for denying access.
You
have not even indicated whose privacy (if anyone) would be
unwarrantedly invaded, let alone how each specific passage of each
specific document would constitute such an alleged invasion.
Moreover,
according to C.O.O.G. Executive Director Robert Freedman's Advisory
Opinion:
“It
is emphasized that the introductory language of §87(2) refers to the
authority to withhold "records or portions thereof" that
fall within the grounds for denial that follow. The phrase quoted in
the preceding sentence in my opinion indicates that single record or
report might consist of both accessible and deniable information; it
also indicates that an agency must review records sought, in their
entirety, to determine which portions,
if any, may justifiably be withheld.”
You
have not confirmed that you even possess any of the documents that we
have requested, let alone that you have reviewed
every record sought in its entirety.
Without confirmation that you have reviewed
each and every one of the records sought, in their entirety,
there can be no reasonable basis to your denial of any of them under
§87(2).
If
you do not have possession of certain documents, you must deny their
disclosure based
on the fact that
you do not possess them
- not based on a blanket
reference to some random, hypothetical exception.
Pursuant
to FOIL protocol our request contains this unambiguous language: “If
documents are denied in part, please specify the exemptions claimed
for each page or passage. For
documents withheld in their entirety please state, in addition, the
date of and the number of pages in each document.”
In
violation of FOIL law, you
have failed to provide the date and the number of pages of each and
every document you are withholding in full.
According
to FOIL law, each and every document in each of the 24 categories of
documents requested which
are in your possession and which you are withholding must be
specifically described, including
the
date of and the number of pages in each document, and
you must articulate
a particularized and specific justification for denying access to
each and every one of them.
Finally,
here is one more passage regarding “blanket denial”, from an
Advisory Opinion by Mr. Freedman, which alone nullifies your denial
of our requests: “The Court of Appeals, the state’s
highest court, confirmed its general view of the intent of the
Freedom of Information Law in Gould
v. New York City Police Department,
stating that:
"To
ensure maximum access to government records, the 'exemptions are to
be narrowly construed, with the burden resting on the agency to
demonstrate that the requested material indeed qualifies for
exemption ...Just
as significant, the Court in Gould
repeatedly specified that a blanket denial of access to records is
inconsistent with the requirements of the Freedom of Information
Law.”
On the basis of the above, Mr. Rehman, you have failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls squarely within any FOIL exemption, and therefore you are required to disclose all of the documents requested in our letter of January 19th, 2015
On the basis of the above, Mr. Rehman, you have failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls squarely within any FOIL exemption, and therefore you are required to disclose all of the documents requested in our letter of January 19th, 2015
The
stunning inadequacy of your response appears to reflect either utter
ignorance of NY FOIL law or a willful disregard of it. Your
flippancy in this matter becomes especially troubling in the context
of this case, which involves the unsolved death by “blunt force
trauma to the head”, of an anti-corruption whistleblower who was
scheduled to testify at a Senate hearing. The NYPD, over whom your
agency has oversight, has never investigated Mr. Sheu's death because
they illegally contest the Medical Examiner's official ruling that
the manner of death was “undetermined”. As you know, the NYPD
(and the Queens DA) have been covering up this matter by refusing to
comply with FOIL law, despite numerous certified letter to
Commissioners Kelly and Bratton. The OIG's perpetuation of the NYPD's
policy of obfuscation through violations of FOIL law would reflect
very poorly on its claim of “independence”.
As
required by the Freedom of Information Law, the head or governing
body of an agency, or whomever is designated to determine appeals, is
required
to respond within 10 business days of the receipt of an appeal.
If the records are denied on appeal, please explain the reasons for
the denial fully in writing as required by law.
In addition, please be
advised that the Freedom of Information Law directs that all appeals
and the determinations that follow be sent to the Committee on Open
Government, Department of State, One Commerce Plaza, 99 Washington
Ave., Albany, New York 12231.
Sincerely,
Milton Allimadi,
Publisher, Black Star News
Milton Allimadi,
Publisher, Black Star News
cc:
Robert J. Freedman , C.O.O.G.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara
Philip Eure
Mark Peters
Al Sharpton
William Bratton
OIG/NYPD FOIL OFFICER ASIM REHMAN'S 3/16/15 RESPONSE TO BSN FOIL APPEAL:Robert J. Freedman , C.O.O.G.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara
Philip Eure
Mark Peters
Al Sharpton
William Bratton
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome your comments about this site: In keeping with the serious nature of this matter, please keep your comments respectful and succinct.