I admit to being completely baffled

[dsc]

If records are not covered by FOIA, and upon asking where they are made public I get no answer at all, what else can one do to show the records are in essence sealed? I really would like to know this. I was called dishonest for asserting that records not covered by the FOIA are in fact sealed after asking for some place they could be found and not getting even one response. So I have to ask what else needs to be shown?

[Mairead]

1. Do the fairies at the bottom of the garden have green wings?

[ModerateMiddle]

2. I understand that you are frustrated

But I think the problem is in how you are wording your assertion that the "records are sealed". They only need to be "sealed" if they would be accessible somehow, and "sealing" them protects them from that. For instance, all of my records here at my house are neither "sealed" nor subject to any FOIA access rules.

Congress critters have records that are not subject to FOIA access. They are NOT "sealed". Neither are they accessible by the press or any other lookie loo. But that didn't take any special action to protect them. They simply aren't subject to the rule.

[dsc]

3. So we wouldn't be hearing this crap about Dean

if Dean had merely taken the 6 years to which he was entitled? Somehow I doubt it.

[ModerateMiddle]

4. I actually don't think you would be hearing it

The fact that he asked for TWENTY years, and his comments about WHY he wanted them sealed is what has caused this to be any kind of "issue" at all.

[dsc]

5. We will have to agree to disagree on that

especially since not one critic of him has asked him to release them after 6 years but instead to release them now.

[w4rma]

6. I do. What I see from many folks is a

smear Dean at all costs campaign.

Clark has not opened his records from his administration of the NEA to the public.
None of the Senators or Representatives, currently running for president, have opened their records to the public.

[dsc]

7. I guess it matters what the meaning of sealed is

I am now a liar due to the fact that records that no one can see without permission of the person whose records they are (Congress) are not sealed but records that are sealed are. All righty then.

[ModerateMiddle]

8. are you making this about you?

The words weren't clear. Sealed, in most people's minds, takes an affirmative action to keep them from public view. If the records were de facto private, then no action is required.

I don't think it's a big deal.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. How many threads are you going to start on this topic?

Sealed records are records that have been sealed.


If a congressman has records that you want to see, ask for them. If the answer is no, perhaps you could say that record has been sealed. But you are assuming the answer is no. Just because you can't use the FOIA to force disclosure of a document, doesn't mean that document is secret.

Was there no public disclosure of anything before the FOIA was passed? According to what you are saying, all public records prior to the passage of the FOIA were 'sealed'.

Your argument is just silly.