The use of the (b)(6) clause to redact answers and bio in Grusch’s manuscript to the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR) is very strange and lacks an explanation. Recently, John Greenewald, who obtained the documents, suggested the redactions in this seemingly agency record was because it constituted Grusch’s personal product. Other viable alternative hypotheses include that the unredacted version could lead to Grusch’s embarrassment, disgrace, harassment or retaliation.
A full version (yes, this is the shorter version) with additional context and citations is available here.
Background
John Greenewald who operates The Black Vault (TBV) is a firebrand Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) activist who has collected and organized more than 3 million pages of FOIA records, estimating about half are about UAP. People inside the government consider him someone who operates a paranormal conspiracy website. His more recent efforts uncovered more facts about David Grusch’s DOPSR of a manuscript (Q/A) pertaining to (at least) the original The Debrief article. In the response all Grusch’s answers and his bio in the manuscript are redacted citing exemption (b)(6) used when the released material is personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The cited reason is confounding. TBV has filed an appeal.
Greenewald’s video covering the release is out, and here a hypothesis for the (b)(6) redactions is put forth. What’s more, Greenewald stresses the relevancy point that paraphrasing what Grusch has stated has to be unfit for public release/classified (if there’s truth to it), given it references recovered and reverse engineered NHI craft. This is Greenewald’s itch based on his knowledge of just how secretive the government is on anything UAP, but DOPSR allowed for public release. It’s an understandable itch.
The (b)(6) privacy exemption: Personal Product hypothesis
In explaining the use of (b)(6) Greenewald puts forth the hypothesis that, even though this is an official agency record, the manuscript is Grusch’s Personal Product and so that allows it to be (b)(6) redacted. Here’s the quote for the hypothesis (39m10s):
Nor is it what this is [personnel or medical], so I think that this really kind of extended the arm of what (b)(6) actually was, and they just redacted everything that David Grusch wrote. It’s technically not a government document so ergo it’s not technically FOIAable, until he submits it to the U.S government then that, that product per se, is FOIAable. But sometimes the same protocol to release information doesn’t apply.
So for example if you’re looking at a biography of a public official, you could get all that it’s FOIAable, and on top of that they wouldn’t (b)(6) it. Why? Because it’s a government document created as a bio for a government official. This however is a personal product from the mind of David Grusch ergo his property. So I think what the legal argument was, or is, even though I’m appealing it, to try and give that that opposing view, I think they saw this as a product of his and it’s up to him to release it to the General Public. So it is private and personal to him even though DOPSR approved it.
So many asked, well this is a fully cleared document why can’t they release it. Well they, meaning the DoD, can’t because FOIA exemptions apply when they give this non-government document out and (b)(6) in their mind applies to this in toto. The incomplete, excuse me uh completely.
Why? again I think that that’s their logic. So it’s all based on personal identifying information or Privacy Information that is all (b)(6). Now, why I went through that is it’s very important because it plays into the appeal.
There are inconsistencies with the FOIA response and this hypothesis. If an agency record (the manuscript) fails the Burka test, it is effectively non-government and so fully non FOIAable. As the response shows the questions in the manuscript, the FOIA officer did consider at least parts of the manuscript as an agency record. We can also consider this a matter of copyright (Personal Product). A document can be “so copyrighted” it’s not an agency record at all. With that some questions to the “personal product” hypothesis abound:
Is the entire manuscript or only parts of it a personal product of Grusch? Are there examples of such a quasi (non-)government distinction in TBV already? What are examples of (b)(6) usage in TBV that extended to this “personal product” theory relating to FOIAable records? Are there any DOPSR (or other Prepublication Review) documents in TBV that share this commonality? How did the TBV formulate its appeal to FOIA? If the reason for (b)(6) isn’t the personal product hypothesis, does that damage the appeal?
If things turn out as TBV expects the appeal will unfortunately be denied, and we’ll be left to speculate why Mr. Paul Jacobsmeyer, Deputy Chief, DOPSR, ruled (b)(6) exemptions should be applied in this intransparent FOIA release.
The (b)(6) privacy exemption: Alternative hypotheses
While there’s clearly merit to Greenewald’s hypothesis as I illustrate above, I’m not fully convinced by the “personal product” hypothesis as it stands. This due to the inconclusiveness on whether the manuscript is an agency record at all, and in the event of a “personal product from Grusch’s mind” I’d consider it an issue of copyright, in which case the (b)(6) exemption is misused and instead (b)(4) would apply. Additionally, “fair use” would allow parts to be unredacted. I therefore venture into some alternative hypotheses (speculations, theories) below for why (b)(6) was applied.
In this finding alternative hypotheses we are looking for why the redacted answers in the manuscript constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under (b)(6). Reading the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press FOIA wiki for Exemption (b)(6), muckrock.com and the DoJ guide
The following observations (see full version for supporting quotes) are made that speak to the use of (b)(6) redactions:
Potential harm from media contact is unlikely to allow for (b)(6) as Grusch’s role is far beyond “mere happenstance”. If the information is public domain, which we expect due to The Debrief/Leslie Kean/Ross Coulthart reporting, (b)(6) does not apply. Grusch voluntarily participates in the public arena and deserves less privacy interests than others. This manuscript is arguably a “central purpose” of FOIA, namely to open government operations to public review (though it does differ in that Grusch’s manuscript has not been part of DoD investigations). It is very hard to understand there’s no segregable information that could be disclosed in the bio/answers. Precedence is such that (b)(6) a clear adverse effects constitutes an invasion of privacy. If the information could lead to embarrassment or retaliation, privacy interests may be found and (b)(6) apply.
I therefore arrive at these alternative hypotheses for the use of (b)(6), referencing the above supporting information in parentheses:
There is non-public and explosive material in the manuscript answers and this information is non-segregable from that which has been made public. (2, 5) The answers, as a whole, suggest a mentally ill individual person wrote them, and making them public would disgrace and embarrass Grusch. (6, 7) The answers, as a whole, could lead to retaliation against Grusch because it sufficiently identifies individuals who have committed crimes. (7) The answers, as a whole, could worsen Grusch’s legal standing in ongoing legal matters. (None) The FOIA processing of this request is a sham, and Jakobsmeyer abused the (b)(6) exemption to perpetrate a coverup. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
The first is the “Grusch still has bombs to drop publicly” which isn’t intuitive since he had the chance at the UAP hearing; alternatively he’ll write a book (NdGT argument). The second is weird given Grusch’s claims for months about the biggest story and coverup in human history. The third is in part at odds with the first, but it would clearly motivate Grusch’s reason to not release the manuscript. The fourth would not be covered by (b)(6). The fifth is dangerous for Mr. Jakobsmeyer (appeals, Grusch making it public and revealing misuse).
So why care about the (b)(6) exemptions?
I investigate and write on this matter to become smarter on the “UFO whistleblower saga” and to get community input on the above hypotheses for (b)(6) redactions by DoD, and to hopefully facilitate a discussion and theorizing as to why Mr. Paul Jacobsmeyer made the determination he did. So I hope some of you will bite and hypothesize with me.
I’ll end with a big h/t and acknowledgement of John Greenewald as he’s the individual who made such a discussion possible in the first place.
submitted by /u/josemanden
[link] [comments]