riciivid may 2 7 2014
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
John Joseph Pawelski
§
FILED
6432 Rockville Drive, Colorado Springs, Colo.
§
JUN 12 201~
Pb~ti~
§ §
v.
merk. U.S. District l Bankruptcy
COUTts for the District of Columbia
§ §
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
§
INVESTIGATION,
§
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
§
Washington, DC.
§
Case: 1:14-cv-00940 Assigned To: Jackson, Amy Berman Assign. Date: 6/12/2014 Description: FOINPrivacy Act
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEYS § 600 E. Street Room 7100 Washington, DC
§
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,
§
700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202
§
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
§
Disclosure Scanning Service - Stop 93a,
§
Post Office 621506, Atlanta, GA. 03062-3006
§
TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL
§
Office of Chief Counsel Disclosure Branch
§
City Center Building
§
1401 H Street NW, Suite 469
§
Washington, DC. 20005
§
Defendants.
§
1n:n :" El) ~l :lil
RICIIVID t 710\~ .......B,r•n·
U
.. nd Q\ tr\ "
ruptcV court•
Runm
MAY 2 7 2014 t1
ORC I~ D. Caesar, Clerk ol Courl
.S. Drs1r1cl Court District of Columhio
t
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 2 of 11 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. This is an action under the Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq., for injunctive and other appropriate relief, and seeking the expedited processing and release of agency records requested by plaintiff from defendants, Federal Bureau oflnvestigation ("FBI"), Executive Office ofU.S. Attorneys ("EOUSA"), and Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA''), Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), Treasury Inspector General ("TIGTA"). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 5 U.S.C. (a)(6)(E)(iii). This court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Venue lies in this district under 5 U.S.C.
§ 52(a)(4)(B).
2
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 3 of 11 PARTIES 3. Plaintiff John Joseph Pawelski is currently under federal indictment. His address for response to this complaint is c/o P.O. Box 75341, Colorado Springs, Colorado [80970-5341]. Plaintiffhas evidence to indicate the above agencies have knowingly and deliberately concealed material evidence in his criminal case, continue to conceal that evidence, and Plaintiff must now, in violation of his Constitutional rights, resort to FOIA to obtain proof of what evidence the agencies have concealed. As an example of the material evidence routinely concealed in federal criminal prosecutions, see Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005. As a second example, see the Los Angeles Times ex pose in 4 months of cronyism and corruption in the Federal Judiciary in Las Vegas and the U.S. Attorney's office. The Head U.S. Attorney for Las Vegas was forced to resign as the investigation widened. See Also the case of Senator Ted Stevens in the D.C. Court in Washington, in which the prosecutors were caught concealing material evidence and are now under criminal investigation themselves. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, has evidence that material information has been concealed from Plaintiff and Plaintiff must now resort to FOIA to obtain evidence he was entitled to by law. 4. Defendant Federal Bureau oflnvestigation ("FBI") is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. FBI is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(t). It may be served at FBIHQ, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Plaintiff is suing for production of all records in all branches of the agency and requests those records not be moved or shifted from one agency or branch to another pending delivery through this lawsuit. 5. Defendant Executive Office of the United States Attorneys ("EOUSA") is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. EOUSA is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(t). It may be served at Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Staff, 600 E Street, NW, Room 7100, Washington, DC, 20530-0001. Plaintiff is suing for production of all records in all branches of the agency and requests those records not be moved or shifted from one agency or branch to another pending delivery through this lawsuit. 3
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 4 of 11
6. Defendant Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. DEA is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). It may be served at Freedom of Information Operations Unit, (SARO), Drug Enforcement Administration, 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. Plaintiff is suing for production of all records in all branches of the agency and requests those records not be moved or shifted from one agency or branch to another pending delivery through this lawsuit. 7. Defendant Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. IRS is a bureau within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). It may be served at Internal Revenue Service, Disclosure Scanning Operation - Stop 93A, Post Office Box 621506, Atlanta GA 30362-3006. Plaintiff is suing for production of all records in all branches of the agency and requests those records not be moved or shifted from one agency or branch to another pending delivery through this lawsuit. 8. Defendant Treasury Inspector General ("TIGTA") is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. TIGTA is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). It may be served at Office of Chief Counsel Disclosure Branch, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, City Center Building, 1401 H Street, NW, Suite 469, Washington, DC 20005. Plaintiff is suing for production of all records in all branches of the agency and requests those records not be moved or shifted from one agency or branch to another pending delivery through this lawsuit.
PLAINTIFF'S FOIA REQUESTS AND REQUESTS FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING 9. By letter to the defendant FBI, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records in all branches of the agency concerning or related to the plaintiff." Plaintiff also requested expedited processing for his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in Defendant's FBI regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant FBI's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request." In support ofhis request, plaintiff noted the media coverage ofthe case of Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern 4
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 5 of 11 District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005 and the investigation of corruption and cronyism in the court system in Las Vegas as well as the recent case of concealment of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. 10. By letter to the defendant EO USA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records concerning or related to the plaintiff' in all branches of the agency. Plaintiff also requested expedited processing for his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in Defendant's EOUSA regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant EOUSA's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request." In support of his request, plaintiff noted the media coverage ofthe case of Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005 and the ongoing investigation of corruption and cronyism in the court system in Las Vegas as well as the recent case of concealment of former Ted Stevens of Alaska. 11. By letter to the defendant DEA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records concerning or related to the plaintiff' in all branches of the agency. Plaintiff also requested expedited processing for his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in Defendant's DEA's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant DEA's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request." In support of his request, plaintiff noted the media coverage ofthe case of Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005 and the investigation of corruption and cronyism in the court system in Las Vegas as well as the recent case of concealment of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. 12. By letter to the defendant IRS, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records concerning or related to the plaintiff' in all branches of the agency.
Plaintiff also requested expedited
processing for his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such 5
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 6 of 11
requests set forth in Defendant's IRS regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant IRS's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request." In support of his request, plaintiff noted the media coverage of the case of Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005 and the ongoing investigation of corruption and cronyism in the court system in Las Vegas as well as the recent case of concealment of former Ted Stevens of Alaska. 13. By letter to the defendant TIGTA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records concerning or related to the plaintiff' in all branches of the agency. Plaintiff also requested expedited processing for his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in Defendant's TIGTA's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant TIGTA's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request." In support of his request, plaintiff noted the media coverage ofthe case of Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005 and the investigation of corruption and cronyism in the court system in Las Vegas as well as the recent case of concealment of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
PLAINTIFF'S FOIA REQUESTS AND REQUESTS FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING 14. By letter to defendant FBI, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the Disclosure of all records pertaining to or related to Plaintiff in all branches of the agency." Plaintiff also requested expedited processing of his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in defendant's regulations. Plaintiff stated that its FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant's regulations, as there is "a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity in this request." In support of his request, Plaintiff noted the media coverage of the Wilson case and the Las Vegas corruption case, as well as the Stevens case, and cited public questions that had been raised about the privacy implications of the government's actions. 6
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 7 of 11 15. By letter to defendant EO USA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records pertaining to or related to plaintiff in all branches of the agency." Plaintiff also requested expedited processing of his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in defendant's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request. In support ofhis request, plaintiff noted the media coverage of the Wilson case and the Las Vegas corruption case as well as the Stevens case and cited public questions that had been raised about the privacy implications of the proposed system. 16. By letter to defendant DEA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the Disclosure of all records pertaining or related to Plaintiff in all branches of the agency." Plaintiff also requested expedited processing of his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in defendant's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant's regulations, as there is "a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity in this request." In support of his request, Plaintiff noted the media coverage of the Wilson case and the Las Vegas corruption case and the Stevens case, and cited public questions that had been raised about the privacy implications of the government's actions. 17. By letter to defendant IRS, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the Disclosure of all records pertaining or related to Plaintiff in all branches of the agency." Plaintiff also requested expedited processing of his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in defendant's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant's regulations, as there is "a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity in this request." In support of his request, Plaintiff noted the media coverage of the Wilson case and the Las Vegas corruption case and the Stevens case, and cited public questions that had been raised about the privacy implications of the government's actions. 18. By letter to defendant TIGTA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the Disclosure of all records pertaining or related to Plaintiff in all branches ofthe agency." Plaintiff also requested expedited 7
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 8 of 11 processing of his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in defendant's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant's regulations, as there is "a particular urgency
to inform the
public about the government activity in this request." In support ofhis request, Plaintiff noted the media coverage of the Wilson case and the Las Vegas corruption case and the Stevens case, and cited public questions that had been raised about the privacy implications of the government's actions. DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO RESPOND AND PLAINTIFF'S ENTITLEMENT TO EXPEDITED PROCESSING
19. To date, defendant FBI has not responded to plaintiffs requests for expedited processing of its FOIA requests. Plaintiff has exhausted or is exhausting the applicable administrative remedies. 20. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA requests under the standards contained in defendant FBI's regulations. 21. Defendant FBI has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiffunder both the FOIA regulations and the regulations required for production under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), raising serious questions about the integrity of the agency. 22. To date, defendant EOUSA has not responded to plaintiffs requests for expedited processing of his FOIA requests. Plaintiff has exhausted or is exhausting the applicable administrative remedies required. 23. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA requests under the standards contained in defendant EOUSA's regulations. 24. Defendant EOUSA has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiff under both the FOIA regulations and the regulations required for production under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), raising serious questions about the integrity of the agency. 25. To date, defendant DEA has not responded to plaintiffs requests for expedited processing of his FOIA requests. Plaintiffhas exhausted or is exhausting the applicable administrative remedies. 26. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA requests under the Standards contained in defendant DEA's regulations. 8
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 9 of 11 27. Defendant DEA has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiff under both the FOIA regulations and the regulations required for production under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963). 28. To date, defendant IRS has not responded to plaintiff's requests for expedited processing of its FOIA requests. Plaintiff has exhausted or is exhausting the applicable administrative remedies. 29. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA requests under the standards contained in defendant IRS's regulations. 30. Defendant IRS has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiff under both the FOIA regulations and the regulations required for production under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), raising serious questions about the integrity of the agency. 31. To date, defendant TIGTA has not responded to plaintiff's requests for expedited processing of its FOIA requests. Plaintiff has exhausted or is exhausting the applicable administrative remedies. 32. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA requests under the standards contained in defendant TIGTA's regulations. 33. Defendant TIGTA has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiff under both the FOIA regulations and the regulations required for production under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), raising serious questions about the integrity of the agency.
CAUSES OF ACTION First Cause of Action: Violation of the Freedom of Information Act for Failure to Timely Respond to Requests for Expedited Processing 34. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs contained herein. 35. Defendants' failure to timely respond to plaintiff's requests for expedited processing constitutes agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed, in violation of the AP A. Defendants' failure to timely respond is arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law and without observance of procedure required by law, all in violation of the AP A.
9
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 10 of 11 Second Cause of Action Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act for Failure to Timely Respond to Requests for Expedited Processing 36. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs contained herein. 37. Defendants' failure to timely respond to plaintiff's requests for expedited processing constitutes agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed, in violation of the APA. Defendants' failure to timely respond is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, and without observance of procedure required by law, all in violation ofthe APA.
Third Cause of Action Violation of the Freedom of (nformation Act for Failure to Grant Requests for Expedited Pr·occssing 38. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all previous paragraphs contained herein. 39. Defendants' failure to grant plaintiff's requests for expedited processing violates the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i), and defendants' own regulations promulgated thereunder.
Fourth Cause of Action Violation oftbe Administrative Procedure Act for Failure to Grant Requests for Expedited Processing 40. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs contained herein. 41. Defendants' failure to grant plaintiff's requests for expedited processing is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, and without observance of procedure required by law, all in violation of the AP A.
Requested Relief 42. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court: 43. order defendants immediately to process the requested records in their Entireties; 44. order defendants, upon completion of such expedited processing, to disclose the requested records in their entireties and make copies available to plaintiff, certified as true and correct copies of the originals; 10
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 11 of 11 45. provide for expeditious proceedings in this action; 46. award plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in this action; and grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 17, 20 14 Respectfully submitted,
,.--
/
/.
I
John Joseph Pawelski, pro se 6431 Rockville Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado 80923
/
Mailing address: c/o P.O. Box 75341 Colorado Springs, Colorado (80970-5341]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF was mailed on this 17th day of April, 2014 to the Clerk of the Court.
, /
I
I )..,..~
... ---.
,
-..._
--
l
John Joseph Pawelski 6432 Rockville Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado
11
John Joseph Pawelski
§
FILED
6432 Rockville Drive, Colorado Springs, Colo.
§
JUN 12 201~
Pb~ti~
§ §
v.
merk. U.S. District l Bankruptcy
COUTts for the District of Columbia
§ §
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
§
INVESTIGATION,
§
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
§
Washington, DC.
§
Case: 1:14-cv-00940 Assigned To: Jackson, Amy Berman Assign. Date: 6/12/2014 Description: FOINPrivacy Act
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEYS § 600 E. Street Room 7100 Washington, DC
§
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,
§
700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202
§
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
§
Disclosure Scanning Service - Stop 93a,
§
Post Office 621506, Atlanta, GA. 03062-3006
§
TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL
§
Office of Chief Counsel Disclosure Branch
§
City Center Building
§
1401 H Street NW, Suite 469
§
Washington, DC. 20005
§
Defendants.
§
1n:n :" El) ~l :lil
RICIIVID t 710\~ .......B,r•n·
U
.. nd Q\ tr\ "
ruptcV court•
Runm
MAY 2 7 2014 t1
ORC I~ D. Caesar, Clerk ol Courl
.S. Drs1r1cl Court District of Columhio
t
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 2 of 11 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. This is an action under the Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq., for injunctive and other appropriate relief, and seeking the expedited processing and release of agency records requested by plaintiff from defendants, Federal Bureau oflnvestigation ("FBI"), Executive Office ofU.S. Attorneys ("EOUSA"), and Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA''), Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), Treasury Inspector General ("TIGTA"). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 5 U.S.C. (a)(6)(E)(iii). This court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Venue lies in this district under 5 U.S.C.
§ 52(a)(4)(B).
2
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 3 of 11 PARTIES 3. Plaintiff John Joseph Pawelski is currently under federal indictment. His address for response to this complaint is c/o P.O. Box 75341, Colorado Springs, Colorado [80970-5341]. Plaintiffhas evidence to indicate the above agencies have knowingly and deliberately concealed material evidence in his criminal case, continue to conceal that evidence, and Plaintiff must now, in violation of his Constitutional rights, resort to FOIA to obtain proof of what evidence the agencies have concealed. As an example of the material evidence routinely concealed in federal criminal prosecutions, see Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005. As a second example, see the Los Angeles Times ex pose in 4 months of cronyism and corruption in the Federal Judiciary in Las Vegas and the U.S. Attorney's office. The Head U.S. Attorney for Las Vegas was forced to resign as the investigation widened. See Also the case of Senator Ted Stevens in the D.C. Court in Washington, in which the prosecutors were caught concealing material evidence and are now under criminal investigation themselves. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, has evidence that material information has been concealed from Plaintiff and Plaintiff must now resort to FOIA to obtain evidence he was entitled to by law. 4. Defendant Federal Bureau oflnvestigation ("FBI") is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. FBI is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(t). It may be served at FBIHQ, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Plaintiff is suing for production of all records in all branches of the agency and requests those records not be moved or shifted from one agency or branch to another pending delivery through this lawsuit. 5. Defendant Executive Office of the United States Attorneys ("EOUSA") is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. EOUSA is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(t). It may be served at Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Staff, 600 E Street, NW, Room 7100, Washington, DC, 20530-0001. Plaintiff is suing for production of all records in all branches of the agency and requests those records not be moved or shifted from one agency or branch to another pending delivery through this lawsuit. 3
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 4 of 11
6. Defendant Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. DEA is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). It may be served at Freedom of Information Operations Unit, (SARO), Drug Enforcement Administration, 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. Plaintiff is suing for production of all records in all branches of the agency and requests those records not be moved or shifted from one agency or branch to another pending delivery through this lawsuit. 7. Defendant Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. IRS is a bureau within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). It may be served at Internal Revenue Service, Disclosure Scanning Operation - Stop 93A, Post Office Box 621506, Atlanta GA 30362-3006. Plaintiff is suing for production of all records in all branches of the agency and requests those records not be moved or shifted from one agency or branch to another pending delivery through this lawsuit. 8. Defendant Treasury Inspector General ("TIGTA") is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. TIGTA is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). It may be served at Office of Chief Counsel Disclosure Branch, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, City Center Building, 1401 H Street, NW, Suite 469, Washington, DC 20005. Plaintiff is suing for production of all records in all branches of the agency and requests those records not be moved or shifted from one agency or branch to another pending delivery through this lawsuit.
PLAINTIFF'S FOIA REQUESTS AND REQUESTS FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING 9. By letter to the defendant FBI, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records in all branches of the agency concerning or related to the plaintiff." Plaintiff also requested expedited processing for his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in Defendant's FBI regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant FBI's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request." In support ofhis request, plaintiff noted the media coverage ofthe case of Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern 4
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 5 of 11 District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005 and the investigation of corruption and cronyism in the court system in Las Vegas as well as the recent case of concealment of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. 10. By letter to the defendant EO USA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records concerning or related to the plaintiff' in all branches of the agency. Plaintiff also requested expedited processing for his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in Defendant's EOUSA regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant EOUSA's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request." In support of his request, plaintiff noted the media coverage ofthe case of Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005 and the ongoing investigation of corruption and cronyism in the court system in Las Vegas as well as the recent case of concealment of former Ted Stevens of Alaska. 11. By letter to the defendant DEA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records concerning or related to the plaintiff' in all branches of the agency. Plaintiff also requested expedited processing for his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in Defendant's DEA's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant DEA's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request." In support of his request, plaintiff noted the media coverage ofthe case of Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005 and the investigation of corruption and cronyism in the court system in Las Vegas as well as the recent case of concealment of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. 12. By letter to the defendant IRS, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records concerning or related to the plaintiff' in all branches of the agency.
Plaintiff also requested expedited
processing for his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such 5
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 6 of 11
requests set forth in Defendant's IRS regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant IRS's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request." In support of his request, plaintiff noted the media coverage of the case of Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005 and the ongoing investigation of corruption and cronyism in the court system in Las Vegas as well as the recent case of concealment of former Ted Stevens of Alaska. 13. By letter to the defendant TIGTA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records concerning or related to the plaintiff' in all branches of the agency. Plaintiff also requested expedited processing for his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in Defendant's TIGTA's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant TIGTA's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request." In support of his request, plaintiff noted the media coverage ofthe case of Wilson v. Barcella, et, al, 4:05-cv-03646, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, filed on October 24, 2005 and the investigation of corruption and cronyism in the court system in Las Vegas as well as the recent case of concealment of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
PLAINTIFF'S FOIA REQUESTS AND REQUESTS FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING 14. By letter to defendant FBI, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the Disclosure of all records pertaining to or related to Plaintiff in all branches of the agency." Plaintiff also requested expedited processing of his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in defendant's regulations. Plaintiff stated that its FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant's regulations, as there is "a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity in this request." In support of his request, Plaintiff noted the media coverage of the Wilson case and the Las Vegas corruption case, as well as the Stevens case, and cited public questions that had been raised about the privacy implications of the government's actions. 6
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 7 of 11 15. By letter to defendant EO USA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the disclosure of all records pertaining to or related to plaintiff in all branches of the agency." Plaintiff also requested expedited processing of his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in defendant's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant's regulations, as there is a "particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in this request. In support ofhis request, plaintiff noted the media coverage of the Wilson case and the Las Vegas corruption case as well as the Stevens case and cited public questions that had been raised about the privacy implications of the proposed system. 16. By letter to defendant DEA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the Disclosure of all records pertaining or related to Plaintiff in all branches of the agency." Plaintiff also requested expedited processing of his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in defendant's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant's regulations, as there is "a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity in this request." In support of his request, Plaintiff noted the media coverage of the Wilson case and the Las Vegas corruption case and the Stevens case, and cited public questions that had been raised about the privacy implications of the government's actions. 17. By letter to defendant IRS, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the Disclosure of all records pertaining or related to Plaintiff in all branches of the agency." Plaintiff also requested expedited processing of his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in defendant's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant's regulations, as there is "a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity in this request." In support of his request, Plaintiff noted the media coverage of the Wilson case and the Las Vegas corruption case and the Stevens case, and cited public questions that had been raised about the privacy implications of the government's actions. 18. By letter to defendant TIGTA, plaintiff requested under the FOIA "the Disclosure of all records pertaining or related to Plaintiff in all branches ofthe agency." Plaintiff also requested expedited 7
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 8 of 11 processing of his FOIA request. Plaintiffs request was in conformance with the requirements for such requests set forth in defendant's regulations. Plaintiff stated that his FOIA request meets the criteria for expedited processing under defendant's regulations, as there is "a particular urgency
to inform the
public about the government activity in this request." In support ofhis request, Plaintiff noted the media coverage of the Wilson case and the Las Vegas corruption case and the Stevens case, and cited public questions that had been raised about the privacy implications of the government's actions. DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO RESPOND AND PLAINTIFF'S ENTITLEMENT TO EXPEDITED PROCESSING
19. To date, defendant FBI has not responded to plaintiffs requests for expedited processing of its FOIA requests. Plaintiff has exhausted or is exhausting the applicable administrative remedies. 20. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA requests under the standards contained in defendant FBI's regulations. 21. Defendant FBI has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiffunder both the FOIA regulations and the regulations required for production under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), raising serious questions about the integrity of the agency. 22. To date, defendant EOUSA has not responded to plaintiffs requests for expedited processing of his FOIA requests. Plaintiff has exhausted or is exhausting the applicable administrative remedies required. 23. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA requests under the standards contained in defendant EOUSA's regulations. 24. Defendant EOUSA has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiff under both the FOIA regulations and the regulations required for production under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), raising serious questions about the integrity of the agency. 25. To date, defendant DEA has not responded to plaintiffs requests for expedited processing of his FOIA requests. Plaintiffhas exhausted or is exhausting the applicable administrative remedies. 26. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA requests under the Standards contained in defendant DEA's regulations. 8
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 9 of 11 27. Defendant DEA has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiff under both the FOIA regulations and the regulations required for production under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963). 28. To date, defendant IRS has not responded to plaintiff's requests for expedited processing of its FOIA requests. Plaintiff has exhausted or is exhausting the applicable administrative remedies. 29. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA requests under the standards contained in defendant IRS's regulations. 30. Defendant IRS has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiff under both the FOIA regulations and the regulations required for production under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), raising serious questions about the integrity of the agency. 31. To date, defendant TIGTA has not responded to plaintiff's requests for expedited processing of its FOIA requests. Plaintiff has exhausted or is exhausting the applicable administrative remedies. 32. Plaintiff is entitled to expedited processing of his FOIA requests under the standards contained in defendant TIGTA's regulations. 33. Defendant TIGTA has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiff under both the FOIA regulations and the regulations required for production under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), raising serious questions about the integrity of the agency.
CAUSES OF ACTION First Cause of Action: Violation of the Freedom of Information Act for Failure to Timely Respond to Requests for Expedited Processing 34. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs contained herein. 35. Defendants' failure to timely respond to plaintiff's requests for expedited processing constitutes agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed, in violation of the AP A. Defendants' failure to timely respond is arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law and without observance of procedure required by law, all in violation of the AP A.
9
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 10 of 11 Second Cause of Action Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act for Failure to Timely Respond to Requests for Expedited Processing 36. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs contained herein. 37. Defendants' failure to timely respond to plaintiff's requests for expedited processing constitutes agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed, in violation of the APA. Defendants' failure to timely respond is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, and without observance of procedure required by law, all in violation ofthe APA.
Third Cause of Action Violation of the Freedom of (nformation Act for Failure to Grant Requests for Expedited Pr·occssing 38. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all previous paragraphs contained herein. 39. Defendants' failure to grant plaintiff's requests for expedited processing violates the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i), and defendants' own regulations promulgated thereunder.
Fourth Cause of Action Violation oftbe Administrative Procedure Act for Failure to Grant Requests for Expedited Processing 40. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs contained herein. 41. Defendants' failure to grant plaintiff's requests for expedited processing is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, and without observance of procedure required by law, all in violation of the AP A.
Requested Relief 42. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court: 43. order defendants immediately to process the requested records in their Entireties; 44. order defendants, upon completion of such expedited processing, to disclose the requested records in their entireties and make copies available to plaintiff, certified as true and correct copies of the originals; 10
Case 1:14-cv-00940-ABJ Document 1 Filed 06/12/14 Page 11 of 11 45. provide for expeditious proceedings in this action; 46. award plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in this action; and grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 17, 20 14 Respectfully submitted,
,.--
/
/.
I
John Joseph Pawelski, pro se 6431 Rockville Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado 80923
/
Mailing address: c/o P.O. Box 75341 Colorado Springs, Colorado (80970-5341]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF was mailed on this 17th day of April, 2014 to the Clerk of the Court.
, /
I
I )..,..~
... ---.
,
-..._
--
l
John Joseph Pawelski 6432 Rockville Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado
11
