You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #106: CREW a GOLD MINE of "Anonymous" posts: Missing OVP Evidence Admissible [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #103
106. CREW a GOLD MINE of "Anonymous" posts: Missing OVP Evidence Admissible
Missing OVP Evidence Admissible
Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 3:53pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-681...

No merit to Any Assertion there is "no" evidence

CREW reports,

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for info. on this issue was denied on the ground there were "no documents" on this matter.

Mandatory Documents, 32 CFR 2800

Small problem: 32 CFR 2800 compels OVP legal counsel to create records, documents, and other management systems to meet the OVP security program requirements.

Ref:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

There is no basis for the FOIA to have been denied. The OVP or DOJ assertion that there is "no evidence" or "no record" may be adversely entered into evidence for the Grand Jury to conclude, OVP and DOJ has not complied with all 32 CFR 2800 requirements, and violated the law.

Problem for OVP Auditors in re 32 CFR 2800

DoJ needs to discuss, as it failed to do with POTUS blocking DOJ OPR from reviewing FISA, what basis it has to not investigate 32 CFR 2800 violations; and why there has been no credible accounting of the OVP legal counsel documentation and tracking requirements 32 CFR 2800.

Here are the legal requirements showing there must be records, and OVP misleading, but response has been unresponsive as required:

(1) Security Clearance Procedures. (i) The Counsel to the Vice President will:
(A) Be responsible for the processing of full field investigations for personnel assigned to the Vice President's staff. Department of Defense detailees are processed by the Defense Investigative Service.

(B) Inform the Staff Security Office of individuals whose full field investigations have been satisfactorily completed and approved and of any subsequent changes.

(C) Notify the Staff Security Office as soon as he/she is aware that a staff member is planning to terminate his/her employment.

Ref:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

OVP has fatally asserted there are not records, yet 32 CFR 2800 shows us that there must be records.

FOIA, Grand Jury Subpoena, Discovery

# 1. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Compliance Records

- How does OVP or DOJ legal counsel explain "no records" when 32 CFR 2800 compels records by OVP legal counsel in re security compliance programs?

- Did OVP use "non records"-systems connected with Microsoft Outlook, and file sharing systems that are electornic and "non records"?

# 2. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Evidence of Notifications

- How did OVP or DOJ legal counsel "inform" others without creating any record of document that notification, as required by 32 CFR 2800?

- What "non document" methods does OVP legal counsel use to comply?

- When did DoJ Staf learn of these "non document" file sharing systems not provided in the FOIA request?

# 3. Missing, Not Provided OVP System to Manage Investigations

- How were the investigations managed and processed by OVP legal counsel if there were not records, plans, or any organizing or reviewing meetings to monitor status of these reviews?

- Did OVP legal counsel discuss, communicate, interfac,e or share data with anyone, any entity, or any contractor using Microsoft Outlook SharePoint, a file sharing system; or any other "non document" method of communication to comply with 32 CFR 2800?

# 4. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel System to Track Changes

- How are changes tracked and reported, as required 32 CFR 2800?

- Were these changes tracked in any "non document" medium, to include file sharing, electronic, or other "non paper" communication, storage, retrieval, or transfer system?

# 5. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Method to OVersee Investigations

- What method, if there is no record, does OVP legal counsel use to track, monitor, and oversee field investigations, as required 32 CFR 2800?

- When did DOJ staff learn 32 CFR 2800 was not being followed?

- Did DoJ Staff review "non document" evidence when responding to this FOIA request?

# 6. Missing, Not Provided OVP legal counsel Plan to Monitor Compliance With Atty Duties; no evidence of a Supervisory Plan of OVP Legal Counsel for Other OVP assigned Counsel

- How does OVP legal counsel show that it has complied with 32 CFR 2800 on issues of notification, oversight, tracking, and monitoring of its legal requirements under 32 CFR 2800?

- What evidence does DOJ Staff have that it reviewed 32 CFR 2800 relative to OVP counsel assertions?

- Has OVP legal counsel fully complied with all "non document"-related requirements of 32 CFR 2800 and the DC Bar Rules, compelling counsel to provide an oversight plan for subordinate attorneys?

- What "non document method" did OVP and DOJ staff consel use to track the status of training of subordinate attorneys on the 32 CFR 2800 legal requirements?

# 7. Missing, No Evidence of OVP Legal Counsel Change Tracking across all management systems

- What is the method by which OVP legal counsel tracks changes to personnel status and incorporates them as required 32 CFR 2800 into other system, paperwork, and management training plans?

- What did DOJ Staff do when it realized OVP Counsel had not met all requirements of 32 CFR 2800; and there were not records as would be expected of a competent OVP mangement oversight system in re 32 CFR 2800?

- DiD DOJ and OVP Staff review, in responding to this FOIA, the "non documents" in electronic format, on file sharing sytems, or sent via software sytsems like SharePoint in MicrosoftOutlook?

Other Research

For more information on what documentation and evidence should be there in OVP legal counsels office in re security compliance, but apparently has been illegally withheld, destroyed, or not created as required, 32 CFR 2800:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC