Monday, March 15, 2010

Ely FOIA Appeal - 4th Update / March 26, 2010

MARCH 26, 2010

Called today and left a message for Mr. Strayhorn, who Ms. Johnson tells me is the hed honcho of the govts' FOIA dept. I let him know that Mrs Johnson DID confirm reciept of my FOIA appeal (received last december) and that since there were "many many many" people interested in the outcome of this appeal......I would appreciate a call back with an update as to its status. I shall give them a few more days to respond before commencing a lawsuit to compel compliance.

I have also done as a commentator has suggested below, and also left the same message for:

Alexandra Mallus
Chief FOIA Information Officer
(202) 208 - 5342


March 15, 2010 (3rd Update)

Calling Mrs. Johnson again today to find out why I havent received a response to my FOIA appeal sent in last November. She has me on hold right now while she "looks up" the record. Mrs. Johnson is back now, and tells me that my appeal is still under review and also added (again) that I should be hearing something "in a few weeks" more. However, that is what she told me last Jan. 29 the last time I called her. I told her that basically all I am looking for at this time is some sort of "official" verification that my appeal was even received. Her reply to me was to inform me that such letters would not be issued until the appeal can be reviewed. She reminded me (again) that the dept was "backlogged" with such appeals and I said I imagine that you are, HOWEVER; I reminded her again that there was a statutoriy imposed statue of limitations on the time alloted for them to reply to FOIA appeals and asked her advice as to how long I should wait before suing them for failure to reply. She was quiet for a moment, thinking I suspect, on how to respond when finally she suggested that I direct my inquiry to her supervisor Darrell Strayhorn, the offical officer in charge of FOIA appeals. She offered to switch me over to Mr. Strayhorns voice-mail. Of course I said thank you and she did in fact switch me over to Mr Strayhorns voice mail where I left a message for him inquiring of the status of my FOIA appeal submitted last November. Stay tuned to this post for more updates as they develop.

JANUARY 29th, 2010 - 2nd Update

I just got off the phone with a Dorathy Johnson, FOIL "Special Appeals" Officer, who verified for me that my appeal was (indeed) recieved at their (DOI) Office on December 9, 2009.

I reminded her that it has been TWO MONTHS since I sent the appeal, and have not heard anything on it yet. She informed me that I should be recieving something in the mail soon. I asked her if she could give me an idea as to just how long it might be, reminding her that there is a statute of limitation on these things and I was just curious to know how long I should be expected to wait before I trouble them with a phone call again. She told me to "give it two more weeks."

If any one else wants to follow up on the "Jubic FOIA Appeal" you can call Ms. Johnson at (202) 2085339.


Sent Nov. 25, 2009, and still no reply to my FOIA appeal. Do you think they could be ignoring me, hoping I wil just go away? NOT. Tomorrow I shall give them a call to remind them I am still waiting to know what became of the over 600 horses taken from the Seaman, White River (Golden Gate) and Caliente Districts last year;

Department of the Interior / FOIA Officer
1849 C St. N.W. MS-6556, MIB
Washington, DC 20240


# OS-2010-00066

Ely District BLM # NV-NVL 0000-2010-001

To Whom It May Concern;

I am writing to appeal a denial of my request to be provided with information concerning the number and location of all the wild horses and burros rounded up in 2009 from the Golden Gate, Seaman, White River and Caliente Herds, which by the numbers estimated in the respective EAs was said to total over 600 head of horses.

As indicated in my original request (attached) ....”The information I am seeking to obtain includes the names and locations of all the long and short-term holding facilities where these particular herd-members are being kept, whether said facilities are owned by the BLM or leased under private contract. I would also like to be provided with all of the individual herd-members brand numbers along with individual discriptions or photographs or any other information that would identify the individual horses removed from the above listed rangelands."

In response to my request, Ditha Hutchinson, FOIA Coordinator for the Ely District Office of the BLM, informed me by letter that they “do not have the information” I requested,” and forwarded my request to Arthur A. DiGrazia, Jr. , Wild Horse and Burro Operations Manager, Ridgecrest Regional Wild Horse and Burro Corrals, 300 S. Richmond Rd, Ridgecrest, CA 93555 (See Ely District Letter dated Nov. 16, 2009, attached)

On or about November 16, 2009, I did receive a letter from Hector Villalobos, Field Manager at the Ridgecrest Short Term Holding Facility in Ridgecrest California, who informed me that “to his knowledge” all wild horses gathered in the BLM Ely District during the 2009 season were transported to the Ridgecrest Facility and “no other.” However, he did not provide me with any documents that would validate that any transfer of animals had occurred between the Ely District and the Ridgecrest facility, no trucking record or receipts or bills of ladel, etc. (See Villalobos Letter dated Nov. 16, 2009, attached)

Included in Mr. Villalobos response was two documents, both "generic" cut-out portions of something else (retracted), one is a generic partial post-gather report which is not even printed on offical letter-head of any kind nor does it have anything printed upon it that would substantiate its date, author or place of orgin. In this "report," it is indicated only that a total of 689 horses were gathered from these complexes. There is nothing in this report to indicate what became of them after gather. (See partial post-gather report attached)

Mr. Villalobos then goes on to admit that the Ridgecrest Facility has processed only 15 wild horses from Ely District, which he states were gathered from the White River Complex. As proof of the processing of these 15 horses, Mr Villalobos submits a second “generic” document with a series of 15 numbers on it indicating the freeze-mark and signalment numbers of 15 horses. As mentioned above regarding the post-gather report document, this document is also a "generic" cut and paste rendition of numbers printed upon plain paper with no official letter-head of any kind nor anything printed upon it that would substantiate its date, author or orgin, or the current whereabouts of the 15 horses. (See “Prepped” Sheet attached)

I am appealing the response of the Ely District as a blanket denial and the response of Mr. Villalobos as a partial denial of my request and do so on the following grounds;

1. I was seeking information on the identification and whereabouts of over 600 wild horses gathered from these complexes and received only generic information regarding 15 horses allegedly gathered from the White River Complex and processed at Ridgecrest. The documents, devoid of any verifiable information, are insuffient as proof of gather, transfer or receipt and current whereabouts as same is not even on official letterhead so as to be able to acertain in fact which office had generated them or when or by whom. The documents are also unsigned or un-verified by any signature of their author.

2. The response does not fulfill any portion of my request seeking information on the whereabouts of ALL the wild horses gathered from these various complexes, including the 15 alleged to have been processed at Ridgecrest. The reply from the Ely District stating that they have no records whatsoever in regards to the “disposition” of these horses is incredible, and Mr. Villalobos' off-hand, "un-official" statement that “to his knowledge” the horses were transfered to the Ridgecrest Facility is an insufficent reply to a request for documentary proof as to the whereabouts of these horses allegedly gathered from the Ely District and allegedly transferred to Ridgecrest Short-term Holding Facility. Moreover, the "processing" records of the 15 horses allegedly taken from the White River HMA and allegedly transferred to Ridgecrest do not state where these horses were actually taken from nor does it state that these horses are being held at Ridgecrest. What I received was a series of numbers printed on a plain piece of paper devoid of any "officiality" with only the words "processed" stamped across the top. NO OTHER information at all appears on this document, not even any sort of offical or departmental letter-head or identification of any kind. There are no dates or signatures. This document tells me nothing.

I am appealing in hopes that I will be provided OFFICAL dated and signed departmental documents as kept in the normal course of business regarding the whereabouts of the 689 horses allegedly gathered from the Ely District BLM in 2009 and un-accounted for thus far. The information and documents provided in reply to my FOIA request are woefully insufficient as proof of the "chain of custody" or whereabouts and /or fate of these horses, and it is sufficient proof of same that I am seeking to obtain.

Thanking you in advance for any consideration you may give this matter. I anxiously await your reply.

Yours, etc.,


Christine A. Jubic


Anonymous said...

There might not be any documents that answer your request. Under the FOIA, the government has no obligation to answer questions or create documents. But if that is true, they should be telling you that. I think the best thing to do would be to contact the Department of the Interior's FOIA Liaison. Department of the Interior
Alexandra Mallus
Departmental FOIA Officer (MS-7438 MIB)
Office of the Chief Information Officer
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
telephone number: (202) 208-5342
fax number: (202) 208-6867
e-mail address:

Good luck.

Mz.Many Names said...

Thank you, I will do that, as I believe the documents I am requesting are of the kind used as a normal part of the BLMs gather operations.....keeping track of how many and where they went should be documented someplace, wouldnt you think? Thanks again for advice. I will make that call today.

MorganG said...

In the reports that I analyzed for Cindy MacDonald they had the freezemark #s, the gather location, their current status ie. adopted, LTH, sold or all too often dead. Along with the date of adoption, sale or death. Those in LTH had the location of facility noted. So the BLM does have these reports but are loathe to hand them out. Even the ones that Cindy received only covered from 1/1/07 thru 10/31/07 and then they started putting their feet down.

Mz.Many Names said...

Update: I was contacted by the DOI on friday, March 26, 2010, who asked me if I could resend everything again, which I will do this week.