| Click on any Page to ENLARGE Original and/or Find Text version Below |
| Index 1 |
| Previous |
| Next |
|
|
| Page 1/2 |
| Page 2/2 |
| Copyright © 2009-2013, MARC CAMPUS |
September 20, 2007
U.S. Department of Justice,
INTERPOL-U.S. National Central Bureau
Attn: Martin Renkiewicz, Director
1425 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Final Notice FOIA 2006
Dear Mr. Renkiewicz:
This letter serves two purposes; to serve as our final notice as it relates to your refusal to comply with our
previous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and to request that this matter be disposed of
efficiently.
Since my last request for full disclosure, additional facts have taken place. First, after your initial letter
dated September 5, 2006, a response letter was faxed on September 20, 2006 regarding both a release
of information and a status of the case currently at issue. Second, I am in receipt of your previously
issued letter regarding this matter. Per 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(2), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(D), you deleted
portions of the file and withheld one page in its entirety, claiming an exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552
(b)(7)(D). Further, per 28 C.F.R. 16.103, you are now unable to amend or further consider this matter.
You have also stated that your department is unable to review the decisions of other agencies. In
essence, it is your contention that governmental entities are “separate and distinct” or autonomous.
However, I do not believe this to be the case. I insist that regardless of your inability to communicate or
contact other entities regarding their policies/procedures that some system of “checks and balances”
exists to prevent intergovernmental overreaching and governmental efficiency. As such, it is my
contention that your failure to do so is both unfounded in law/policy and arbitrary. As previously stated in
my last correspondence, as a government agency, you bear the burden of demonstrating that materials
sought under FOIA are not agency records and that such records have not been improperly withheld.
See Katz v. National Archives & Records Admin., 862 F.Supp. 476, (D.D.C. 1994) affirmed 68 F.3d 1438,
314 (C.A.D.C. 1995).
Moreover, I am in receipt of your letter from INTERPOL regarding the release of some information.
INTERPOL has chosen to follow its own rules nearly 10 months after the fact by releasing some
information. Further, you stated in a letter dated August 29, 2007 that I am unable to receive information
from INTERPOL to USNCB. However, it is my contention that personal information is a property interest;
an interest to which I am entitled. As such, I am entitled to this information because it is personal to me.
Furthermore, there is a strong presumption in favor of disclosure of documents under FOIA and any
exemptions are to be narrowly construed. Anderson v. Department of Health and Human Services, 907 F.
2d 936, (C.A.10 Utah 1990).
This denial of my property right in the form of personal information is a denial of justice. In essence,
justice delayed is justice denied. I am requesting that this matter be resolved efficiently and
professionally. Further, I am requesting that all false information be immediately deleted.
The facts of the underlying claim show that USNCB’s actions fall below the standards of care and duty
from its own organization. Because of USNCB blatant disregard for Marc’s personal civil rights and due to
the length of time it took to get legitimate access to personal information and resolved this matter, Marc
still experiences business endeavors hindered. Because of these damages you created, we are
requesting that your office pays an advance partial payment to start the repair process without more
unnecessary delay and to allow Marc Campus and CS 1 GROUP LEGAL OFFICE Co. to efficiently protect
their new business interests.
If you refuse to take immediate action to honor our requests, you will have again breached your duty of
good faith you owe to Marc Campus and to correct your own wrongs immediately when given the
opportunity to do so.
We will hold this opportunity open until October 3, 2007. If no action is taken by said date, it will be
withdrawn and we will file a lawsuit against you and Interpol Secretariat General and IP France in the
United States Federal Court and will proceed into litigation.
August 23, 2007, a final Notice was addressed to IPSG. A final notice is to be send to you relates to your
wrong conduct when September 20, 2006 you have refused, to take immediate action to follow Interpol
rules to update your file when you were aware of the potential errors they might contained. And an
additional final notice will be received by IP France related to its Interpol Rules violation and its Basic
Police ethic violation to provide false information on Processing Information for the Purposes of
International Police Cooperation.
Marc Campus and his associated businesses will also be entitled to get punitive damages due to the
INTERPOL organization’s gross, willful and wanton conduct.
I hope that this matter can be resolved without any more unnecessary delay.
Sincerely,
CS 1 GROUP LEGAL OFFICE Co.
Director
U.S. Department of Justice,
INTERPOL-U.S. National Central Bureau
Attn: Martin Renkiewicz, Director
1425 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Final Notice FOIA 2006
Dear Mr. Renkiewicz:
This letter serves two purposes; to serve as our final notice as it relates to your refusal to comply with our
previous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and to request that this matter be disposed of
efficiently.
Since my last request for full disclosure, additional facts have taken place. First, after your initial letter
dated September 5, 2006, a response letter was faxed on September 20, 2006 regarding both a release
of information and a status of the case currently at issue. Second, I am in receipt of your previously
issued letter regarding this matter. Per 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(2), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(D), you deleted
portions of the file and withheld one page in its entirety, claiming an exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552
(b)(7)(D). Further, per 28 C.F.R. 16.103, you are now unable to amend or further consider this matter.
You have also stated that your department is unable to review the decisions of other agencies. In
essence, it is your contention that governmental entities are “separate and distinct” or autonomous.
However, I do not believe this to be the case. I insist that regardless of your inability to communicate or
contact other entities regarding their policies/procedures that some system of “checks and balances”
exists to prevent intergovernmental overreaching and governmental efficiency. As such, it is my
contention that your failure to do so is both unfounded in law/policy and arbitrary. As previously stated in
my last correspondence, as a government agency, you bear the burden of demonstrating that materials
sought under FOIA are not agency records and that such records have not been improperly withheld.
See Katz v. National Archives & Records Admin., 862 F.Supp. 476, (D.D.C. 1994) affirmed 68 F.3d 1438,
314 (C.A.D.C. 1995).
Moreover, I am in receipt of your letter from INTERPOL regarding the release of some information.
INTERPOL has chosen to follow its own rules nearly 10 months after the fact by releasing some
information. Further, you stated in a letter dated August 29, 2007 that I am unable to receive information
from INTERPOL to USNCB. However, it is my contention that personal information is a property interest;
an interest to which I am entitled. As such, I am entitled to this information because it is personal to me.
Furthermore, there is a strong presumption in favor of disclosure of documents under FOIA and any
exemptions are to be narrowly construed. Anderson v. Department of Health and Human Services, 907 F.
2d 936, (C.A.10 Utah 1990).
This denial of my property right in the form of personal information is a denial of justice. In essence,
justice delayed is justice denied. I am requesting that this matter be resolved efficiently and
professionally. Further, I am requesting that all false information be immediately deleted.
The facts of the underlying claim show that USNCB’s actions fall below the standards of care and duty
from its own organization. Because of USNCB blatant disregard for Marc’s personal civil rights and due to
the length of time it took to get legitimate access to personal information and resolved this matter, Marc
still experiences business endeavors hindered. Because of these damages you created, we are
requesting that your office pays an advance partial payment to start the repair process without more
unnecessary delay and to allow Marc Campus and CS 1 GROUP LEGAL OFFICE Co. to efficiently protect
their new business interests.
If you refuse to take immediate action to honor our requests, you will have again breached your duty of
good faith you owe to Marc Campus and to correct your own wrongs immediately when given the
opportunity to do so.
We will hold this opportunity open until October 3, 2007. If no action is taken by said date, it will be
withdrawn and we will file a lawsuit against you and Interpol Secretariat General and IP France in the
United States Federal Court and will proceed into litigation.
August 23, 2007, a final Notice was addressed to IPSG. A final notice is to be send to you relates to your
wrong conduct when September 20, 2006 you have refused, to take immediate action to follow Interpol
rules to update your file when you were aware of the potential errors they might contained. And an
additional final notice will be received by IP France related to its Interpol Rules violation and its Basic
Police ethic violation to provide false information on Processing Information for the Purposes of
International Police Cooperation.
Marc Campus and his associated businesses will also be entitled to get punitive damages due to the
INTERPOL organization’s gross, willful and wanton conduct.
I hope that this matter can be resolved without any more unnecessary delay.
Sincerely,
CS 1 GROUP LEGAL OFFICE Co.
Director
