AG office determined that the request filed by GOAL was a copy or duplicate of the one previously filed, and was therefore banned with no response necessary.
(I actually have no idea, it's a good question).
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Maura Healey refuses to disclose
- Thread starter jefsemperfi
- Start date
AG office determined that the request filed by GOAL was a copy or duplicate of the one previously filed, and was therefore banned with no response necessary.
(I actually have no idea, it's a good question).
and rubber stamp election results
Sad, because it's entirely plausible that this (or something very like this) will be their response!
Mike S
NES Member
There has been no response to date. Also, to my knowledge there is no 10 day response period (deadline) for FOIA's of this nature, I think that only applies to petitions for things like arrest records and things of that nature.
**********
She and her fellow repressives don't believe in the 2nd Amendment and would repeal it if they thought they could get away w/it. This is their tactics now that they can't get more useless gun laws they Congress. As much as we bitch about the Republicans remember, if they didn't hold the House and Senate Obama would have rammed thru many anti-gun bills.
EJFudd
NES Member
Remember that Queen Maura has stated repeatedly that she doesn't believe that the Second Amendment means what it says. She believes it is some meaningless outdated dribble about the rights of individual states (not the people) to possess arms. As such, I'm sure she sees no need to repeal anything. That's good for her because repeal will never happen. She just needs Hitlery to get in there and appoint one or more additional partisan Dems to SCOTUS who will agree with her that the Second Amendment is meaningless.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
The ResponseThe records custodian must respond to requests as soon as practicable, withoutunreasonable delay and within ten calendar days.13 The response must beeither an offer to provide the requested materials or a written denial.
Page 12 at the bottom
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf
*******Remember that Queen Maura has stated repeatedly that she doesn't believe that the Second Amendment means what it says. She believes it is some meaningless outdated dribble about the rights of individual states (not the people) to possess arms. As such, I'm sure she sees no need to repeal anything. That's good for her because repeal will never happen. She just needs Hitlery to get in there and appoint one or more additional partisan Dems to SCOTUS who will agree with her that the Second Amendment is meaningless.
And that's why Hillary and the Clintonista's must be defeated.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
Nice to see those fighting for us having no idea about the rules of FOIA requests......*sigh*
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
I doubt Mike is the guy filing FIOA requests. (I know it's not technically a FIOA request, but still.) Plus the 10 days is legally meaningless anyway because the law is toothless. Basically in 10 days you can complain to someone...
Side note, anyone want to guess who you complain to if the record custodian blows you off?
A custodian of a public record shall, within ten days following receipt of a request for inspection or copy of a public record, comply with such request. Such request may be delivered in hand to the office of the custodian or mailed via first class mail. If the custodian refuses or fails to comply with such a request, the person making the request may petition the supervisor of records for a determination whether the record requested is public. Upon the determination by the supervisor of records that the record is public, he shall order the custodian of the public record to comply with the person’s request. If the custodian refuses or fails to comply with any such order, the supervisor of records may notify the attorney general or the appropriate district attorney thereof who may take whatever measures he deems necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this section. The administrative remedy provided by this section shall in no way limit the availability of the administrative remedies provided by the commissioner of administration and finance with respect to any officer or employee of any agency, executive office, department or board; nor shall the administrative remedy provided by this section in any way limit the availability of judicial remedies otherwise available to any person requesting a public record. If a custodian of a public record refuses or fails to comply with the request of any person for inspection or copy of a public record or with an administrative order under this section, the supreme judicial or superior court shall have jurisdiction to order compliance.
Your government, working for you.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
You're welcome!
Glockster30
NES Member
Mike, as already pointed out by others, there is a 10-day response time for these type of FOIA requests that have nothing to do with petitions, arrests, etc.
If the AG refuses to comply or deny's the request, that falls under the 10-day limit to respond and she is required to explain why she will not produce the information requested. The only out that the AG might have is that the request involves voluminous paperwork and she requested more time to produce it, which someone associated with GOAL should know.
That's going to be interesting, by implying a buyback indicated that they would be arguing the taking clause of the 5th amendment and that just compensation will be offered when taking private property under the guise of "public use". I would love to see the spin on this one.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Yea, "Emily Snyder, a spokeswoman for Healey, said Wednesday that the directive from Williams did not equate to an “order” and noted that the attorney general’s office has begun the process of revising its response to Reinhart’s request." So, they are going to blow more smoke...
And today she doubled down. Color me shocked.
Mass AG Healey Doubles Down on Refusal to Disclose Details of Gun Law Interpretation Process
Mass AG Healey Doubles Down on Refusal to Disclose Details of Gun Law Interpretation Process
amm5061
NES Member
She's using the NSSF's lawsuit as reason to not disclose? I'm sorry, but isn't all this shit just going to come out during discovery anyway? Is she going to ignore subpoenas for these documents as well?
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
She is a POS. Those records BELONG to the public !!
WE THE PEOPLE !! invoke the 2nd amendment. Healey should go back to law school !! Healey should uphold her oath !! Healey should be removed from office !!!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 9,023
- Likes
- 5,511
So what they're saying is that after they made this bogus "guidance" and other legal threats, they are being sued for it so they cannot release any information related to their original decision which is what is getting them sued.
Glockster30
NES Member
Now she is using the excuse that since the NSSF suit was filed against her, this is still in the "deliberative process." How abut prior to the suit being filed? The deliberative process was over when you acted. Now you are stating that your deliberative processes regarding the enforcement notice are incomplete and ongoing, so how could enact your edict without completing the deliberative process in the first place?
We know Maura that you cannot defend your unprecedented illegal actions that violated the Constitution without Due Process. Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to hide anything if you thought you stood on solid ground constitutionally. Your only hope now is that the Court denies the suit on merit, so that you can continue your hide your obscene, indefensible actions; otherwise the truth will eventually come out.
http://newbostonpost.com/2016/09/28...se-details-of-gun-law-interpretation-process/
Last edited:
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
“In summary, the records withheld under G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(d) are not public records because our deliberative processes regarding the (enforcement) notice are ongoing and incomplete, tied to our open investigations, and include legal opinions relevant to actual and threatened litigation,”
BS, everything is public record in a public office !! if anyone can look up my address and find out what I paid for a house. Then public office records belong to the PEOPLE ! EABOD. My blood pressure can't take this.
![[angry2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/019.gif "Angry2 [angry2]")
BS, everything is public record in a public office !! if anyone can look up my address and find out what I paid for a house. Then public office records belong to the PEOPLE ! EABOD. My blood pressure can't take this.
Last edited:
amm5061
NES Member
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
I wonder if some more narrowly worded requests could avoid these exemption claims.
E.g. Separate requests for:
- A list of people she sent a copy of the enforcement notice on or before 7/20.
- The existence of any communication between her office and the Clinton campaign / DNC.
- Communication between her office and DNC related to her participation in DNC events.
E.g. Separate requests for:
- A list of people she sent a copy of the enforcement notice on or before 7/20.
- The existence of any communication between her office and the Clinton campaign / DNC.
- Communication between her office and DNC related to her participation in DNC events.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
According to Tarrow, Healey’s July 20 issuance of the enforcement notice “was not intended to signal finality of the deliberative process.” Tarrow cited the last sentence of Healey’s notice as proof: “[t]he AGO reserves the right to alter or amend this guidance.”
In other words, she's not done yet....
Tarrow did however describe the nature of the records Healey’s office elected to withhold from Reinhart, including, “records and data regarding the sale and ownership of firearms; records related to the manufacturing and design of certain weapons; notes from investigatory interviews with dealers, law enforcement, researchers, and other public and private sources; communications with victims of gun violence; and internal communications.”
Records regarding the ownership of firearms. Hmmm, what might she be planning to use those for?
“If disclosed, the withheld records would prejudice current law enforcement efforts by prematurely releasing information about the nature and course of our investigations, and by alerting targets to planned civil or criminal enforcement actions.”
Similar threads
