IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
\n______________________________________<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES, )
\nET AL., )<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs, )
\n)<\/p>\n
v. ) Civil Action
\n) No. 01-2500<\/p>\n
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )<\/p>\n
) Judge Kessler<\/p>\n
Defendant. )<\/p>\n
______________________________________)<\/p>\n
ANSWER<\/p>\n
Defendant, United States Department of Justice, by and through its undersigned counsel, answers plaintiffs\u2019 Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief (“complaint”) as follows:<\/p>\n
FIRST DEFENSE<\/p>\n
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.<\/p>\n
SECOND DEFENSE<\/p>\n
In answer to the individually numbered paragraphs of the complaint, defendant states as follows:<\/p>\n
1-2. These paragraphs contain plaintiffs\u2019 characterization of this action to which no answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.<\/p>\n
3. The first and third sentences are admitted. The second sentence is denied.<\/p>\n
4-26. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in these paragraphs.<\/p>\n
27. Admit.<\/p>\n
28. Admit.<\/p>\n
29-31. These paragraphs contain plaintiffs\u2019 characterization and description of their October 29, 2001 letters to the Office of Information and Privacy, the FBI, and INS, to which no answer is required, but insofar as one is deemed required, denied, and the Court is respectfully referred to the letters for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.<\/p>\n
32. The first sentence contains plaintiffs\u2019 characterization and description of the November 1, 2001 letter from Melanie Ann Pustay, Office of Information and Privacy, Department of Justice, on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, to Kate Martin, Center for National Security Studies, to which no answer is required, but insofar as one is deemed required, denied, and the Court is respectfully referred to the letter for an accurate and complete statement of its contents. The second sentence is denied, except to admit that the FBI provided a substantive response to plaintiffs\u2019 request on November 1, 2001.<\/p>\n
33. Admit.<\/p>\n
34. Denied.<\/p>\n
35. Denied.<\/p>\n
36. Denied, and it is averred that INS asked the requesters to consider narrowing the scope of their request because of the potential enormity of the response.<\/p>\n
37. Admit.<\/p>\n
38. Admit.<\/p>\n
39. Denied.<\/p>\n
40. The first sentence contains plaintiffs\u2019 characterization and description of the November 1, 2001 letter from John Kelso, FBI, to Kate Martin, Center for National Security Studies, to which no answer is required, but insofar as one is deemed required, denied, and the Court is respectfully referred to the November 1, 2001 letter for an accurate and complete statement of its contents. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the second sentence except to admit that an appeal was telefaxed to the Office of Information and Privacy on November 7. The third sentence is denied, and it is avered that by letter dated December 10, 2001, DOJ\u2019s Office of Information and Privacy denied the appeal and affirmed the FBI\u2019s action on plaintiffs\u2019 FOIA request on both Exemption 7(A) and 7(C) grounds, and also notified plaintiffs that the FBI had no records responsive to the request for policy directives issues to officials regarding the disclosure of information about detainees.<\/p>\n
41. Admit.<\/p>\n
42. Denied.<\/p>\n
43. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.<\/p>\n
44. This paragraph contains conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.<\/p>\n
45. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.<\/p>\n
46-47. These paragraphs contain conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.<\/p>\n
48. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.<\/p>\n
49. This paragraph contains conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.<\/p>\n
50. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.<\/p>\n
51-53. These paragraphs contain conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.<\/p>\n
54. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.<\/p>\n
55-57. These paragraphs contain conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.<\/p>\n
58. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.<\/p>\n
59-61. These paragraphs contain conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.<\/p>\n
The remainder of the complaint sets forth plaintiffs\u2019 prayer for relief to which no answer is required, but insofar as an answer is deemed required, defendant denies that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or to any relief whatsoever.<\/p>\n
Wherefore, having fully answered, defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice.<\/p>\n
Respectfully submitted,<\/p>\n
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR.
\nAssistant Attorney General<\/p>\n
ROSCOE C. HOWARD
\nUnited States Attorney<\/p>\n
DAVID J. ANDERSON<\/p>\n
ANNE L. WEISMANN<\/p>\n
LISA A. OLSON<\/p>\n
U.S. Department of Justice
\nCivil Division, Room 1052
\n901 E Street, N.W.
\nWashington, D.C. 20530
\nTelephone: (202) 514-5633
\nFacsimile: (202) 616-8470
\nE-mail: lisa.olson@usdoj.gov
\nDated: Jan. 11, 2002 Counsel for Defendant<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE<\/p>\n
I hereby certify that on January 11, 2002, copies of the Answer were served by facsimile and by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, upon plaintiffs\u2019 counsel as follows:<\/p>\n
David L. Sobel, Esq.
\nElectronic Privacy Information Center
\n1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
\nSuite 200
\nWashington, D.C. 20009
\nfax: (202) 483-1248<\/p>\n
Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union
\nof the National Capital Area
\n1400 20th Street, N.W. #119
\nWashington, D.C. 20036
\nfax: (202) 452-1868<\/p>\n
Kate Martin, Esq.
\nCenter for National Security Studies
\n2130 H Street, N.W. S. 701
\nWashington, D.C. 20037
\nfax: (202) 994-7005<\/p>\n
Steven R. Shapiro, Esq.
\nLucan Guttentag, Esq.
\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union Foundation
\n125 Broad Street
\nNew York, N.Y. 10004
\nfax: (212) 549-2651<\/p>\n
Ellior M. Mincberg, Esq.
\nPeople for the American Way Foundation
\n2000 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
\nWashington, D.C. 20036
\nfax: (202) 293-2672<\/p>\n
__________________________
\nLISA A. OLSON<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________________ ) CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES, ) ET AL., ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action ) No. 01-2500 UNITED STATES...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4169,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[68],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-freedom-of-information-act-lawsuit"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p89tuq-1By","jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Advocacy-Work.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6172","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6172"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6172\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6173,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6172\/revisions\/6173"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4169"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}