USCP FOIA

Now into month nine of my research and analysis of the events of January 6, a picture is coming into view that we, The People, have lost the U.S. Capitol. Long before January 6, those in power decided to quietly close off the building and grounds and to develop a security force with greater secrecy than the Secret Service. USCP has been previously accused by Democratic lawmakers on the Hill of “trying to create his own army on Capitol Hill,” a tradition continued by current USCP leadership.

Founded in 1828, the USCP has evolved since 1998 into a federal agency under the direct control and oversight of Congress with a $460 million/year budget. What had appeared to be a place to send busloads of school children on tours has, in fact, become guarded by more than 2,300 officers, equipped with Glock 22 handguns with 15-round magazines and M4s with a range of 550 yards.

These men and women are not the friendly faces of park service rangers or museum security guards we thought them to be. Instead, they operate in the shadows, neither openly reporting nor responding to requests to report to the public -- at times even defying Congress. They are quoted as saying they are “exempt” from the Freedom of Information Act. Even their Union leader, Gus Papathanasiou, is quoted as saying “There is definitely a transparency issue.”

Well, now USCP has made the same claim to me as recently as its claims to attorneys at Judicial Watch, the Congressional Quarterly “Roll Call,” and others.

My request was for 17 records, including the policy and training records on the USCP use of lethal force, both before and after January 6, 2021.

My request was denied by USCP in a letter I received last Saturday, citing 5 USC §551. The USCP form letter is the same trio of sentences printed and reprinted by others on line in their own disgust for the USCP FOIA interpretation.

My position is simple: USCP is not exempt from FOIA. It is not “the Congress.” It is not comprised of our elected representatives, nor is it part of the legislative process afforded to The People. It is a police agency of highly limited jurisdiction with a burgeoning budget and its first historic shooting that the Washington, D.C. OME ruled a “homicide.”

Contradicting its standard form rejection letter, in a pending Judicial Watch lawsuit, the USCP declared itself to the Court to be “an agency.” [See the Answer, document 10, paragraph 4.]

On the official U.S. House website, USCP is described as an “agency.” The U.S. House oversees numerous agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which publishes its policy on the use of lethal force on its website.

USCP is not exempted, specifically, from FOIA. It is an agency to which FOIA is applicable.

So I will begin drafting the lawsuit to compel the response to my FOIA.

I am a peaceful activist. I am a law-abiding gun owner. When you or I go unarmed into Washington, D.C. to raise our voices, we should not be concerned about a fence. We can see a fence. We can challenge a fence. We can get a judicial order concerning the jurisdiction of the USCP to erect a fence in specific circumstances and in relationship to speech and assembly clauses of the First Amendment.

What should concern us are the “outposts” of the USCP around the Capitol, and its grounds, and even off its grounds in places like the subway stop. The sniper, on rooftops and in concealed positions, with a finger on a trigger that, once squeezed, will strike us before the sound reaches the ears of those around us.

I am not alone in my concerns. US Inspector General Michael Bolton on June 16, 2021 submitted a written statement of the OIG oversight reports rolling out about USCP as an organization and its response on January 6, in conjunction with his testimony of June 15, 2021 and June 16, 2021.

Inspector General Bolton pointed out

“Because of the range for projectiles when fired by the M4 rifle, the danger to both police officers and innocent civilians is increased by the use of such weapons.”

Inspector General Bolton also found that

“The Department lacked policies and procedures defining a requirement that FRU officers [“First Responders Unit”] be certified with the use of the M4 rifle. As of May 2021, officers assigned to FRU were not required to be M4 certified. A Department official stated, however, that the M4 rifle is the unit’s primary long gun and used by FRU officers at certain posts and staged at strategic locations. Additionally, the official stated that all FRU officers should be required to be M4 certified because of its use in daily FRU operations.”

As I laid out in my book, Acting USCP Chief Pittman submitted a written statement to the U.S. House Appropriations Committee and provided testimony on February 25, 2021, as follows:

“We also learned that officers were unsure of when to use lethal force on January 6th. We have provided guidance to officers since January 6th as to when lethal force may be used consistent with the Department’s existing Use of Force policy. The Department will also implement significant training to refresh our officers as to the use of lethal force.” [Statement, p. 6; discussion in my book p. 92 plus next page.]

Even though the Acting Chief Pittman gave this testimony to Congress and even though the USCP has cleared Byrd of any wrongdoing in the death of Ashli Babbitt - a shooting ruled a “homicide” by the Washington, D.C. Office of the Medical Examiner - the USCP does not want to release its policies and training on the use of lethal force.

It’s time for me to head back to court. Police transparency in its intended use of lethal force against citizens has never been more important to the temperament of this nation.