Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/214398861/Shapiro-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 19:56:59
Document Index: 175440653

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 1', '§ 798', '§ 3024', '§ 3605', '§ 552']

Shapiro Complaint | Freedom Of Information Act (United States) | National Security Agency
Shapiro ComplaintUploaded by HuffPost PoliticsRelated InterestsFreedom Of Information Act (United States)National Security AgencyNelson MandelaUnited States GovernmentGovernment Of The United StatesRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Ryan Shapiro, a Ph.D. candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is suing three government agencies to get answers about America's role in Nelson Mandela's infamous 1962 arrest.View MoreRyan Shapiro, a Ph.D. candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is suing three government agencies to get answers about America's role in Nelson Mandela's infamous 1962 arrest.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.1:14-cv-19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, , PLAINTIFF vs. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Washington, DC 20505, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 1400 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1400, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 and NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, 9800 Savage Rd. Fort Meade, MD 20755 DEFENDANTS
THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Ryan Noah Shapiro is a citizen of Massachusetts residing at
, Cambridge, MA 02141. 2. Plaintiff is a Ph.D. candidate in the Program in History, Anthropology, & Science,
Technology, and Society (HASTS) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Plaintiff is an historian of the political functioning of national security and the policing of dissent.
Plaintiff seeks access to certain public records to write popular news and/or
scholarly articles for distribution to the academic and general public. His connections and relationships with a wide range of domestic and international media organizations will ensure that any story he drafts based on the information contained in these documents will be published and reprinted. 4. 5. Defendant Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an agency of the United States. The CIA has possession, custody and control of the records Plaintiff sought from
the CIA in his FOIA request to that agency. 6. 7. 8. Defendant Department of Defense (DOD) is an agency of the United States. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is a component of the DOD. The DIA has possession, custody and control of the records Plaintiff sought from
the DIA in his FOIA request to that component. 9. 10. 11. Defendant Department of Justice (DOJ) is an agency of the United States. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a component of the DOJ. The FBI has possession, custody and control of the records Plaintiff sought from
the FBI in his FOIA request to that component. 12. 13. Defendant National Security Agency (NSA) is an agency of the United States. The NSA has possession, custody and control of the records Plaintiff sought from
the NSA in his FOIA request to that agency.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. 15. This action arises under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 USC § 552. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter pursuant to 5 USC
§ 552(a)(4)(B).
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 5 USC § 552(a)(4)(B).
STATEMENT OF FACTS BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s FOIA requests pertain to Rolihlahla Mandela, a/k/a Nelson Mandela,
a/k/a Madiba, a/k/a Tata. Mandela (July 18, 1918 to December 5, 2013) was a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary and politician who served over 27 years in prison for his activism prior to becoming South Africa’s first black president following his release from prison in 1990. Among numerous other awards, Mandela was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom. 18. The CIA was reportedly involved in Mandela’s 1962 arrest that led to his
decades-long incarceration. Mandela was denounced by his critics, including numerous leading U.S. conservative politicians and pundits, as a Marxist terrorist. 19. Though the U.S. intelligence community is long believed to have been involved in
Mandela’s arrest, little specific public information exists regarding this involvement. Similarly, though the U.S. intelligence community is long understood to have routinely provided information to the South African regime regarding the anti-apartheid movement more broadly, little specific public information exists about these activities either. Further, despite now being universally hailed as a hero and freedom fighter against gross injustice, Mandela was designated a terrorist by the United States government and remained on the U.S. terror watch list until 2008. 20. Plaintiff anticipates that the records to which he seeks access will begin to answer
the following questions: What was the extent and purpose of the U.S. intelligence community’s 3
surveillance of Nelson Mandela prior to his arrest? What role did the U.S. intelligence community play in Mandela’s arrest and prosecution? What role did the U.S. intelligence community play in the broader effort to surveil and subvert the South African anti-apartheid movement? To what extent, and for what objectives, did the U.S. intelligence community surveil Mandela following his release from prison? To what extent, if any, did the U.S. intelligence community continue providing information regarding Mandela to the apartheid regime following Mandela’s release from prison? What information did the U.S. intelligence community provide American policymakers regarding Mandela and the South African anti-apartheid movement? To what extent, and to what ends, did the U.S. intelligence community surveil the anti-apartheid movement in the United States? How did the United States government come to designate Nelson Mandela a terrorist threat to this country? How did this designation remain unchanged until 2008? And what was the role of the U.S. intelligence community in this designation and the maintenance thereof?
PLAINTIFFS’ FOIA REQUESTS AND DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES
On December 11, 2013, Plaintiff sent FOIA requests to the CIA, DIA, FBI, and
NSA via Certified mail, requesting copies of records mentioning or referring to Mandela. Plaintiff’s FOIA requests are attached to this Complaint as Exhibits 1-4, with his signature replaced with “/s/ RNS”. Exhibit 5 is a set of five enclosures which were submitted with each request. Exhibits 1-5 are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. In his requests to the CIA, DIA, and NSA, Plaintiff requested expedited processing and a fee waiver.
CIA 22. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, the FOIA request to the CIA
described in Paragraph 21 was received by the CIA on December 19, 2013. 23. The CIA’s response to Plaintiff’s request for expedited processing with respect to
the request described in Paragraph 21 was due ten calendar days after the CIA received it on December 19, 2013, which would have been December 29, 2013. 24. After ten days had passed and Plaintiff did not receive a response to his FOIA
request to the CIA, described in Paragraph 21, with a determination as to whether the CIA will grant expedited processing, he commenced the present suit on January 8, 2014. 25. While this litigation was pending, the CIA issued a final response to Mr.
Shapiro’s FOIA request, stating that the request could not be processed because it would require the agency to perform an unreasonably burdensome search.
DIA 26. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, the FOIA request to the DIA
described in Paragraph 21 was received by the NSA on December 18, 2013. 27. 28. The DIA assigned Mr. Shapiro’s FOIA request tracking number 0125-2014. In a letter dated January 2, 2014, the DIA denied Mr. Shapiro’s request for
expedited processing, claiming that Mr. Shapiro had not demonstrated a compelling need for the information. 29. The January 2, 2014 letter also noted that the DIA was experiencing a “substantial
delay in processing requests” and that it was “impossible for [the DIA] to forecast when your case will be completed.”
Mr. Shapiro appealed the DIA’s decision in its entirety in a letter dated January 7,
2014. Mr. Shapiro specifically stated that the grounds for his appeal included the denial of his request for expedited processing as well as the DIA’s failure to provide an estimated date of completion. 31. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, Mr. Shapiro’s appeal was
received by the DIA on January 9, 2014. 32. In a letter dated January 14, 2014, the DIA acknowledged receipt of the appeal
and assigned it tracking number APP-0020-2014. The letter further stated that the agency would be unable to respond to the appeal within FOIA’s 20 day statutory period due to “unusual circumstances.” 33. The DIA’s response to Mr. Shapiro’s appeal was due twenty business days after
the DIA received it on January 9, 2014, which would have been February 7, 2014. 34. As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has not received a response to his
appeal to the DIA with a final determination as to his appeal.
FBI 35. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, the FOIA request to the FBI
described in Paragraph 21 was received by the FBI on December 16, 2013. 36. 37. The FBI assigned Mr. Shapiro’s FOIA request tracking number 1244373-0. In a letter dated December 19, 2013, the FBI granted Mr. Shapiro’s request for
expedited processing. 38. The FBI’s response to Mr. Shapiro’s request was due twenty business days after
the FBI received it on December 16, 2013, which would have been January 15, 2014.
As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has not received a response to his
request to the FBI with a final determination as to whether the FBI will release the requested records.
NSA 40. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, the FOIA request to the NSA
described in Paragraph 21 was received by the NSA on December 21, 2013. 41. 42. The NSA assigned Mr. Shapiro’s FOIA request tracking number 76029. In a letter dated December 31, 2013, the NSA responded by referring Mr. Shapiro
to a “previusly [sic] released” Cryptolog document mentioning Mandela, but otherwise denying the request on the basis that, pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3, NSA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or non-existence of records responsive to Mr. Shapiro’s request. 43. Specifically, with respect to Exemption 1, NSA’s December 31, 2013 letter
claimed that the existence or non-existence of records about Mandela is a properly classified matter under Executive Order 13526 § 1.4(c), a provision which allows the government to keep secret “intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology,” but only when “unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security[.]” 44. Specifically, with respect to Exemption 3, NSA’s December 31, 2013 letter
claimed that the fact of the existence or non-existence of the information requested is exempted from disclosure pursuant to The Espionage Act of 1917 (18 U.S.C. § 798); The National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)); and The National Security Agency Act of 1959 (50 U.S.C. § 3605).
Because there were no assessable fees, the NSA did not consider Mr. Shapiro’s
request for a fee waiver or to be placed in the media category for fee purposes. 46. The NSA also did not consider Mr. Shapiro’s request for expedited processing
because the December 31, 2013 letter provided the agency’s final response. 47. 2014. 48. According to the records of the U.S. Postal Service, Mr. Shapiro’s appeal was Mr. Shapiro appealed the NSA’s decision in its entirety in a letter dated January 7,
received by the NSA on January 10, 2014. 49. In a letter dated January 24, 2014, the NSA acknowledged receipt of the appeal
and assigned it tracking number 3896. 50. The NSA’s response to Mr. Shapiro’s appeal was due twenty business days after
the NSA received it on January 24, 2014, which would have been February 24, 2014. 51. As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has not received a response to his
appeal to the NSA with a determination as to his appeal.
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF FOIA 52. paragraphs. 53. Paragraph 21. 54. Defendants CIA, DIA, and NSA have violated FOIA by failing to grant Plaintiff’s Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing on each of his requests described in This Count realleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding
requests for expedited processing.
Plaintiff has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed until the CIA, DIA,
and NSA are ordered to grant Plaintiff’s request for expedited processing on his FOIA requests described in Paragraph 21. 56. Plaintiff is entitled to a waiver of fees for his requests to the CIA, DIA, FBI, and
NSA which are described in Paragraph 21. 57. The CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA have violated FOIA by failing to grant Plaintiff’s
requests for fee waivers. 58. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed until the CIA, DIA,
FBI, and NSA are ordered to grant Plaintiff’s request for a waiver of fees for his FOIA requests described in Paragraph 21. 59. The CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA have violated FOIA by improperly withholding
records, failing to conduct an adequate search, and in the case of the CIA, refusing to process the request at all. 60. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed until Defendants are
ordered to disclose all responsive, releasable records.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: (1) Declare Defendants’ failure to comply with FOIA to be unlawful; (2) Declare that Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA request; (3) Grant Plaintiff an award of attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action pursuant to 5 USC § 552(a)(4)(E)(i); (4) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief which the Court deems proper.
__/s/ Jeffrey Light_______________ Jeffrey L. Light D.C. Bar #485360 1712 Eye St., NW Suite 915 Washington, DC 20006 (202)277-6213 Jeffrey.Light@yahoo.com Counsel for Plaintiff
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Shapiro ComplaintSkip carouselLewpolicy1-5NASAeoir28Strunk Supplemental Declaration w Exhibits in Opposition to Summary Judgment DCD 08-Cv-2234foia procedures and guidelines (01709358x9ed46)12-12-30 REHealth and Human Services2453_Resp-Recs-5CREWNoticeessay1FOIA Request - CREWOsama and ObamaTrump Conflicts Foia RequestStrahlenfolter Remote Neural Monitoring Bioelectricterrorism Wordpress Com 2012Guy Diviaio v. Clarence M. Kelley, Director Fbi, Wm. E. Colby, Director Cia, John R. Bartels, Jr., Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration, Dept. Of Justice, 571 F.2d 538, 10th Cir. (1978)Felice Quest ArticleNoticeDefence India Nelson MandelaCREW v. Office of AdministrationOppose the Protecting Cyber Networks Act HR 1560Insider News - 1635 - 21 December “End Of World” Fears Kill NATO AmbassadorLetter to Pres Aquino to include Freedom of Information in Legislative AgendaSpeech 2ac Pr 7 7-7 9AM2015-11-09 Memorandum and Order (Flores v DOJ) (FOIA Lawsuit)CREWHellen Zille's tribute to Nelson Mandela2015 United Health Care Individual-1 Rate Filing.pdfDocuments About Freedom Of Information Act (United States)Skip carouselBEPshreddedCurrency 2010 2012-2015FCC Net Neutrality White HouseSocial Networking FOIA Complaint FinalShow Temp (12)State OIG FOIA RequestFriendly Fire Airstrike in the Vicinity of Arghandab, Afghanistan, 9 Jun 14Malia MexicoSchoenberg vs. FBI - Complaint - FOIA Lawsuit2161 docsMarine Corps analysis of female integrationJudicial Watch v Dept of State Gardasil Complaint 2-28-2013Hillary Clinton's Libya EmailsJustice Department Reply brief 7.29.16Holder Travel Records CombinedWu-Tang Clan court filing104904507-TSA-Complaints-2010Escobar LetterFCC FOIACREW v. Department of Health and Human ServicesCREW V. Federal Election Commission (Westar)CREW v. Office of AdministrationJohn J. Wren v. Margaret Heckler, 744 F.2d 86, 10th Cir. (1984)Responsive Document - CREWGawker Vfb iFed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,463 Frank Frankel v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 460 F.2d 813, 2d Cir. (1972)LarsonFOIA OIG WrightRobertJrComplaints AppealDenialSigmund Diamond v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, William Webster, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice, Griffin Bell, Attorney General of the United States, and Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State, Defendants, 707 F.2d 75, 2d Cir. (1983)CREW v. Office of AdministrationCREW v. DHSMore From HuffPost PoliticsSkip carouselShooting Investigation 7-10-14Suspicious Activity Report ComplaintDOJU.S. v ConleyBurwell v. Hobby LobbyBurwell v. Hobby LobbyHarris Et Al. v. Quinn, Governor of Illinois, Et AlMcCullen v CoakleyRecess Appointments06-25-14 Speaker Memo to House Members on Separation of PowersSpeaker Memo to House Members on Separation of Powers06-25-14 Speaker Memo to House Members on Separation of PowersBarron Drone MemorandumGuantanamo Force Feeding Tapes MotionScott Walker Investigation DocumentsThe New Soft Money1926 SAT Test Copy1328727492Statement of ChargesWisconsin Gay MarriageParalyzed VeteransVWF2014-05-23 Response Letter to Chairman IssaCantwell-Reid Letter to GoodellDOJ Recording PolicyIndictment of Chinese Military HackersDc Gun Control RulingMikulski Collins LetterDOJ/DOE Letter on Affirmative ActionGrimm Indictment