I AM not here to outdo Vice President Joe Biden in his debate with Republican hopeful Paul Ryan. This comment worked favorably for the Vice President and may have derailed Congressman Ryan’s attempt to discredit the Vice President and the administration’s policies.

I use this word to describe the frustration, exasperation and contradictory language of U.S. laws and policies. Recently, a local news organization requested from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, under the Freedom of Information Act, access to certain information relating to the Blue House case. This request was forwarded to the U.S. Justice Department and promptly denied under the Privacy Act.

You can see why I paraphrased the Vice President now.

If the privacy act was used as a denial basis, I am assuming this is to protect the rights of certain individuals. For the most part, convicted felons have their rights annulled or surrendered at the time of conviction of a felony and/or incarceration. The other – phantom defendants, i.e. unnamed “co-conspirators” or individuals whose identities have not been revealed, divulged or disclosed – are either unknown or anonymous. Finally, there is the investigating or prosecuting agency, the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The first two parties don’t seem to have any apparent right to privacy; it has been rescinded, revoked or they ostensibly do not exist. If a case has been adjudicated and the defendant convicted and sentenced to a prison term, why does this body continue to say that case files or trial documents are not available for review and public disclosure?

Playing to a higher authority in order to create a “Houdini” illusionary smokescreen that decisions are made outside of jurisdiction is a blatant refusal to take acceptance at a grassroot level. When a request is made to access and review these very same documents that protect the right to know under the Freedom of Information doctrine, the very same people do a complete about face and deny a perfectly legal application of the U.S. law.

This creates suspicion, animosity and ill-feelings of a cover up, whether one is taking place or not. The impression of wrongdoing is established and this is the reason politicians in general are mistrusted by their very own constituency. Simply denying a basic right of a U.S. citizen, organization or entity because you have the authority to do so imparts arrogance and shortsightedness of a magnitude reminiscent of other rogue entities that usurp an individual’s right to freedom of information.

Using good guy, bad guy or application of higher authority does not go over well here too. Former President Harry Truman had a plaque on his desk that had inscribed “The buck stops here.” These are not, of course, inalienable rights that are guaranteed at birth, but nevertheless these are intrinsic freedoms, laws, policies and protections that have been incorporated into our founding fathers’ constitutional blueprint of a free, open, and transparent society. Anything less is a crime against our country, humanity and mankind.

Open up the books and let us peek inside to see if there were any improprieties or anomalies.

If this is a closed case, there has been a conviction and the perpetrator sent to prison, then this should not be a moot point.

Let us decide if you deserve our praise or critique.

The Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act ... a contradiction in terms.

Patrick Sullivan,
Upper Tumon