The original date of the FOIA is 7 January, 2010. Everything revolves around that.TallDave wrote:There's no question that it is. The company doeesn't get to decide that. There's some question as to whether the company actually requested this or not.It would not surprise me at all if this were a FOIA decision at China Lake.
Either way, it's grossly unfair to accuse Rick of dishonesty. As Tom alluded to above, Polywell was kept under wraps by the sponsors for over a decade before any of us had even heard of it. It only briefly saw daylight when the funding was cut.
There were five documents identified as meeting the FOIA. These encompass a total of about 235 pages.
The disclosure exemption is based soley on input from EMC2 regarding proprietary position. I explained this earlier during my updates on the process.
This was the final wicket to release.
I think we have good grounds to submit an appeal. Especially regarding the Peer Review Report, which was commissioned by the navy, and not submitted by EMC2. It is also number 1 one the list of documents identified, as it was the primary focus of the FOIA request.
Specifically NAVAIR cited disclosure exemption based on FOIA Exemption 4 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) which is proprietary information for competitive position.
I will need to address the appeal in terms of the above cited US Code.
I have 60 days to submit it writing, but do not think it will take that long. This appeal will draw another rebuttal opportunity from EMC2. But the appeal will be handled by the Navy Office of the General Counsel, Pentagon, vice the Counsel Office at China Lake.