Report on Freedom of Information Act Request

Failed to execute CGI : Win32 Error Code = 2
Report on Freedom of Information Act Request

"The Labyrinth" by Digital Spirit

A Journey Through The Labyrinth
by Jay Reynolds

This report describes the results of my efforts, using the Freedom
Of Information Act(FOIA), to confirm and inquire about material
samples sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) on 1/12/2000 by Clifford Carnicom and David Peterson representing the "Chemtrail Research Fund".

Background

Since early 1999, reports have circulated which allege that viewers of contrails have also observed web-like material falling from the sky, which they assumed were related to the aircraft. One of these reports was discussed in my first article on the subject, in which I simulated the rate of fall of such a material, and found that it descended so slowly and was horizontally displaced so much that it could not have been related to the contrail seen.

During November and December of 1999, Clifford Carnicom claimed to have received samples of such a substance, one of which he says he sent to EPA addressed to Carol Browner, the EPA Administrator. Carnicom also has displayed various microphotographs which he claims come from one of these samples. Significantly, Carnicom claimed to Joseph Farah, the Editor of WorldNet Daily, that he had lab test results, but that,

" ...it could be easily proven that the lab conclusions were false...".
Carnicom has never presented these lab conclusions, or described how they could be proven false.

During 2000, I wrote an extensive article, the first of it's kind, which discussed how falling webs have been observed for over 100 years and are known to be the ordinary result of spider dispersal. In the article, I described exactly what amino acids would be found by HPLC analysis in normal spider webs, thus allowing unknown web material to be identified.

While he has never displayed any actual laboratory analysis of the material,
Carnicom later claimed that:

"Numerous red blood cells, white blood cells, and
unidentified cell types have been found within the
sub-micron fiber sample previously presented and submitted on
Jan 20 2000 to Carol M. Browner"

The above claim has not been professionally evaluated, and no real laboratory tests have been presented.

In February, 2001, Carnicom claimed to have collected air samples
in which he also found "red blood cells". This claim was evaluated by two pathologists and a hematologist at the request of Erminia Cassani, a "chemtrails" believer, who concluded:

"For Mr. Carnicom (or anyone) to put the idea into the mind
of readers, many of them already horribly scared by what might
be in chemtrails aerosol, seems dangerously irresponsible when he has performed such a spurious analysis to begin with and the opinion
of "red blood cells" was not rendered by a medical professional,
and at least 3 professionals who specialise in the study of blood have
said "no" these photos do not look like red blood cells, although
one thought they might resemble them.

How many mentally and physically fragile people out there
will read Mr. Carnicom's proclamations of "proof" that
chemtrails are a biological testing program and perhaps
commit suicide or otherwise harm themselves or others in some
kind of public gun attack, or bombing, or the like, fearing the
worst, i.e. that their country is performing dangerous biological
testing on United States citizens via raining down red blood cells
on all of us to infect us with something? To those of us in
the medical community who work everyday to save lives these
type of incendiary statements fall into the reckless endangerment
category and is tantamount to crying "fire!" in a theater. I for
one would ask Mr. Carnicom to turn his considerable efforts
and his obvious very high intelligence toward helping look
for the real Chemtrails answers rather than obscure and muddy
the picture with more hysteria producing "biological specimens"
of questionable origin that do not hold up under professional scrutiny."

By November, 2000, Carnicom had reported several responses from EPA, none of which addressed the sample sent whatsoever, but all of which stated EPA's belief that what had been observed were normal contrails.

I found EPA's refusal to even mention the material samples sent by Carnicom in their correspondence to him very curious, while "chemtrail" believers, and Carnicom himself, used that fact to support the idea that EPA was engaging in a cover-up.

In order to confirm whether or not such a sample had in fact been sent to EPA, and if in fact the EPA documents displayed by Carnicom were genuine, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act Request to ascertain the truth of the matter. Such a FOIA request had been briefly discussed by Carnicom and others, but no results have been forthcoming.

FOIA REQUEST SENT

[Message Sent November 25, 2000]

HQ FOIA Operations Staff
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (1105A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-7333 FAX (202) 501-1818
Email: hq.foia@epamail.epa.gov

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Sirs:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C., Sec. 552.

I request that a copy of the following documents [or documents containing the following information] be provided to me:

1. Documents related to the receipt, handling, and disposition of alleged material samples sent on 1/12/2000 to the Office of Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator, by Clifford E. Carnicom and David C. Peterson representing the "Chemtrail Research Fund", and allegedly received by Carol M. Browner via certified return receipt mail at EPA on 1/20/2000 as described at this internet website:
http://www.carnicom.com/epa3.htm

2. Documents generated in response to this alleged material subsequent to it's receipt, including its current location, any material or biological analysis results done at EPA or by any other US government agency, communication within EPA related to this material, or communication with any other US government agency.

3. Documents generated in response to the letter attached to the material allegedly sent by Carnicom and Peterson, which documents represent internal communication within EPA, or with any other US government agency.

In order to help determine my status to assess fees, you should know something about me. I am a representative of the news media affiliated with VERITAS News Service, and have previously written articles on this subject. <http://williamcooper.com/contrails.htm>

This request is made as part of news gathering and not for a commercial use. I understand that representatives of the news media may obtain 100 copied pages free, with no charge for search time or review time from the EPA.

I am aware that I am entitled to make this request under the Freedom of Information Act, and if your agency response is not satisfactory, I am prepared to make an administrative appeal.
Please indicate to me the name of the official to whom such an appeal should be addressed.

I am aware that if my request is denied I am entitled to know the grounds for this denial.

I request a waiver of all fees for this request. Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the
operations or activities of the government, and is not primarily in my commercial interest, nor a business trying to get information on industrial competitors.

Sincerely,

Jay Reynolds
Central Bureau Chief
VERITAS NEWS SERVICE

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE

[Message Sent Tuesday, 13 February, 2001]

From: "Jay Reynolds" <reality2u30@hotmail.com>
To: <borushko.margaret@epa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 February, 2001 2:23 PM
Subject: Regarding OTAQ FOIA request RIN-00860-01

Dear Ms. Borushko,
I am writing you in reference to my FOIA request RIN # 00869-01 originally sent November 25, 2000. I understand my request went unassigned until my first inquiry on Jan 2, 2001 when I was told it was first input into the chain of events for it's fulfillment.

I did receive confirmation and the reference number on January 5, 2001.

On February 8, 2001, I again made inquiry by phone and was directed to Vivian Warden(202-564-7613) who told me the request had been assigned to Lillian Davis(202-5647418).

On February 12, 2001, I contacted Ms. Davis, who told me it had been assigned to Sabrina Hamilton(202-564-1083).

Today, February 13, 2001, I contacted Ms Hamilton who told me it had been assigned to you. I understand from Ms. Hamilton that you may be out of town, and left a message on your voice mail this afternoon.

I am now hopeful that I have reached the responsible person who can fulfill my request. In order to help you do this as easily as possible, please know that I am available through email to answer any questions you may have regarding my request. I endeavored to make the request sufficiently specific enough so that the information needed will fully inform my readers, but
also broad enough so that information about which I am not certain will be included.

Further, let me assure you totally that I definitely am not one of the misguided people that just "believe" they are being sprayed from aircraft when they see contrails. Since March of 1999, when my first article was written in VERITAS on this subject, through 2000, and up to the present day I see no tangible evidence that this is occurring.

My work has been cited by the Congressional Research Service in their 1999 Report to Congress on this controversy, and also is cited by the USAF responding to the "chemtrail hoax".

I am a journalist who will follow a story wherever it goes, however, and am particularly aware of the position that Mr. Clifford Carnicom has taken and his many allegations against EPA. I am also aware of the Contrails Fact Sheet and have directed my readers to it by means of a
prominent link at my website. I am also aware of the letters Mr. Carnicom has sent, at least those which he has displayed on his website, and those replies from EPA, which he has also posted on his website.

The purpose of my FOIA is to document and follow, from it's receipt through it's present whereabouts, any material sample which Mr. Carnicom alleges that he sent to EPA. My readers need to know if in fact anything was sent, and what became of it if it was actually sent.

Further, if any such material has been analyzed or identified, I request a copy of any and all analysis made so that my readers may be fully informed.

Further, my readers need to know the rationale and reasoning behind any decisions made in regards to this matter, which will require me to obtain any and all internal documents which represent communication pertaining to these decisions.

Again, I am available to answer any questions you may have regarding this request, and hope that it will be fulfilled within the specified time frame of 5 U.S.C., Sec. 552, and EPA guidelines. For your reference, below are the specifics of my request as copied from my original document.

Best regards,
Jay Reynolds
Central Bureau Chief
VERITAS NEWS SERVICE

EPA Responds to FOIA Request

[Letter received March 5, 2001]

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY
2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

Jay Reynolds
Central News Bureau
Veritas News Service

Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request; RIN 00860-01

Dear Mr. Reynolds,

In response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of November 25, 2000, in which you request information related to alleged material sample,we are supplying copies of the following relevant documents that are responsive to your request. Each copy is identified by a number that corresponds to the numbers shown below.

1. Certified Mail envelope, NO. Z 218 710 731, dated January 14, 2000, from Chemtrail Research Fund, Aspen, Co, to Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator, Washington, DC

2. Letter from David C.Peterson, Chemtrail Research Fund, to Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator, dated January 12, 2000

3. Letter from Clifford Carnicom, Chemtrail Research Fund, to Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator, dated January 12, 2000

4. Label dated 1/12/00, "Fibrous Substance Sample For EPA Identification," attached to Ziploc bag container.

5. First page, of two-page reply letter from EPA's Assessment and
Standards Division, dated February 22, 2000, David C. Peterson,
and Clifford E. Carnicom, of the Chemtrail Research Fund,

6. Second page of letter described immediately above, signed by
Robert Larson, for Chester J. France, Director, Assessment and
Standards Division

7. Priority Mail envelope, tracking no. 7000 0600 0025 7524 4547 ,
dated June 6, 2000, from Chemtrail Research Fund, Aspen, Co, to
Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator, Washington DC

8. Letter from Clifford E. Carnicom, and David Peterson, Chemtrail
Research Fund, to Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator, dated
May 30, 2000

9. Letter from Clifford E. Carnicom, Chemtrail Research Fund, to
Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator, dated January 12, 2000

10. Label dated 1/12/00, "Fibrous Substance Sample For EPA
Identification"

11. Reply letter from EPA's Assessment and Standards Division,
dated June (day not readable) 2000, to Clifford E. Carnicom, and
David C. Peterson, of the Chemtrail Research Fund, signed by
Robert Larson, for Chester J. France, Director, Assessment and
Standards Division

12. First page, of two-page reply letter from EPA's Assessment and
Standards Division, dated February 22, 2000, to David C.
Peterson, and Clifford E. Carnicom, of the Chemtrail Research
Fund,

13. Second page of letter described immediately above, signed by
Robert Larson, for Chester J. France, Director, Assessment and
Standards Division

14. Email to president@Whitehouse.GOV, dated 07/12/2000, from
Scot Pfeiffer, Irving, TX

15. Document with heading, "EPA Refuses To Identify Sample"

16. First page, two-page reply letter from EPA's Assessment and
Standards Division, dated February 22, 2000, to David C.
Peterson, and Clifford E. Carnicom, of the Chemtrail Research
Fund

17. Second page, of two-page reply letter from EPA's Assessment and Standards Division

18. First page, two-page reply letter from EPA's Assessment and
Standards Division, dated November 29, 2000, to Mr. Scot
Pfeiffer, Irving, TX [JAY REYNOLDS NOTES: This letter is essentially identical to Item 16&17 above]

19. Second page of letter described immediately above, signed by
Ines Storhok, for Chester J. France, Director, Assessment and
Standards Division [JAY REYNOLDS NOTES: This letter is essentially identical to Item 16&17 above]

The alleged material sample submitted to EPA from the Chemtrail Research Fund was not analyzed for its chemical and physical properties. A difficulty with this sample is that it is minimal in quantity and lacks a verifiable chain of custody, with origins that cannot be established, e.g., where and when retrieved.

We are granting your request for a fee waiver in accordance with the Agency's regulations, 40 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.120(d). The enclosed information totals 19 pages.

Sincerely,
(Ines Storhok for)
Robin Moran, Director
Light Duty Onroad Center

FOIA Response Appealed

[Message sent March 6, 2001]

HQ FOIA APPEALS OFFICER
HQ FOIA Operations Staff
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (1105A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-7333 FAX (202) 501-1818
Email: hq.foia@epamail.epa.gov

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request Appeal

Dear Sir or Madam:

This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act,
5 U.S.C. Sec. 552.

On 10/25/2000, I requested documents under the Freedom of Information Act. My request was assigned the following identification number: [RIN 00860-01].

On 3/5/2001, I received a response to my request in a letter signed by [Ines Storhok, for Robin Moran, Director, Light Duty Onroad Center] I am writing to obtain a precise determination
of why portions of my request have been denied, and to resubmit my request on appeal.

My original request(copy attached below) included the request for:

QUOTE- Item [1]. Documents related to the receipt, handling, and disposition of alleged material samples sent on 1/12/2000 to the Office of Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator, by Clifford E. Carnicom and David C. Peterson representing the "Chemtrail Research Fund", and allegedly received by Carol M. Browner via certified return receipt mail at EPA on 1/20/99 as described at this internet website:
http://www.carnicom.com/epa3.htm

I am reasonably satisfied that item [1] of my original request
has been responded to.

QUOTE- Item [2]. Documents generated in response to this alleged material subsequent to it's receipt, including its current location, any material or biological analysis results done at EPA or by any other US government agency, communication within EPA related to this material, or communication with any other US government agency.

My original request for item [2] documents has not been substantively responded to.

No documents generated by EPA in response to the sample were sent to me in fulfillment of my original request, no exemption was specified, and no statement was made that the requested material does not exist.

The cover letter sent by EPA in response to my original FOIA request states, "The alleged material sample submitted to EPA from the Chemtrail Research Fund was not analyzed for its
chemical and physical properties. A difficulty with this sample is that it is minimal in quantity and lacks a verifiable chain of custody, with origins that cannot be established, e.g.,
where and when retrieved."

My original request was for documents which EPA should have used to quantify whether or not the sample is in fact minimal, and would necessarily include a description of the sample mass and volume. Without such basic factual information, EPA would not have been able to determine whether the sample is minimal or not.

I appeal my original request for any documents related to a material or biological analysis of the sample submitted to EPA by the Chemtrail Research Fund, which was not responded to by EPA.

Standard practice within government upon receipt of such a material sample would necessarily include documentation to establish and maintain EPA's own chain of custody. My request
for "Documents generated in response to this alleged material subsequent to it's receipt, including its current location," was not responded to.

I appeal my original request for documentation responsive to my request, documents which establish EPA's own chain of custody in handling of this material from receipt to
it's current location.

My original request for documents related to, "communication within EPA related to this material, or communication with any other US government agency" was not responded to. I am aware that any such communication within EPA of a factual nature does not fall within exemption, and the factual portions of ALL communication falling under my original request must be released. Public disclosure to me has been made by EPA that, "A difficulty with this sample
is that it is minimal in quantity and lacks a verifiable chain of custody, with origins that cannot be established, e.g., where and when retrieved." This public disclosure of EPA's opinion negates future privilege of internal communication under exemption 5, because the opinion has not been kept within the agency and is now a matter of public record.

I appeal my original request for documentation responsive to my request for "communication within EPA related to this material, or communication with any other US government agency"

QUOTE- 3. Documents generated in response to the letter attached to the material allegedly sent by Carnicom and Peterson, which documents represent internal communication within EPA, or with any other US government agency.

My original request for item [3] documents has not been substantively responded to.

No documents generated by EPA in response to the item [3] were sent to me in fulfillment of my original request, no exemption was specified, and no statement was made that the
requested material does not exist.

I appeal my original request for documentation responsive to my request in item [3].

In summary, the documents that were withheld must be disclosed under the FOIA because disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to
contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government, and is not primarily in my commercial interest, nor a business trying to get information on industrial competitors.

I am aware that while the law allows your agency to withhold specified categories of exempted information, you are required by law to release any segregable portions that are left after
the exempted material has been deleted from the data I am seeking. I am aware that the intent of Congress in writing the Freedom of Information Act was to provide full disclosure
interpreted broadly, and with a presumption in favor of such disclosure.

I request a waiver of all fees for this request.

Sincerely,
Jay Reynolds
Central Bureau Chief
VERITAS NEWS SERVICE

Standard Documentation Used by EPA

EPA Form 4-17906 "Chain-of Custody Record"
and Form 1500-2(R-7-75) "EPA Official Sample Seal"

According to this EPA Environmental Investigations Standard
Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual:
"Samples should not be accepted from other sources unless the sample procedures used are known to be acceptable, can be documented, and the sample chain-of-custody can be established. If such samples are accepted, a standard sample tag containing all relevant information and the Chain of Custody Record shall be completed for each set of samples"

EPA Responds to My Appeal

[Letter received May 12, 2001]

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY
2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

Mr. Jay Reynolds
Central Bureau Chief
Veritas News Service

Re: Freedom of information Act Request HQ-RIN-00860-01

Dear Mr. Reynolds,

This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) request of November 25, 2000, and supplements my February 28,2001, letter to you. In my February 28 letter, I provided you with nineteen documents that are responsive to item 1 of your request. My office determined that we had no documents responsive to items 2 and 3 of your request, and I intended to communicate that fact to you in my February 28 letter.

Based on my recent telephone conversation with Robert A. Friedrich, Deputy Associate General Counsel, in the Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA or Agency) Office of General Counsel, I understand that you appealed my February 28 response with respect to items 2 and 3 of your request. Mr Friedrich suggested that I have my office conduct another search to determine whether we have any additional documents that are responsive to item 1 of your request, and whether we have any documents that are responsive to items 2 and 3 of your request. My office has now completed that search, and these are the results.

Item 1 of your request asked for "Documents related to the receipt, handling, and disposition of alleged material samples sent on 1/12/2000 to the Office of Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator, by Clifford E. Carnicom and David C. Peterson representing the 'Chemtrail Research Fund', and allegedly received by Carol M. Browner via certified return receipt mail at EPA on 1/20,2000 as described at this internet website: http://www.carnicom/epa3.htm."
My office has no additional documents that are responsive to item 1 of your request.

Item 2 of your request asked for "Documents generated in response to this alleged material subsequent to its receipt, including it's current location, any material or biological analysis results done at EPA or by any other U.S. government agency, communication within EPA related to this material, or communication with any other U.S. government agency." My office has no documents that are responsive to item 2 of your request.

Item 3 of your request asked for "Documents generated in response to the letter attached to the material allegedly sent by Carnicom and Peterson, which documents represent internal communication within EPA, or with any other U.S. government agency." My office has no documents that are responsive to item 3 of your request.

If you consider this letter to be a denial of your request, you may submit a written appeal to the Freedom of Information Office(1105A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, within 30 calendar days of your request, which is HQ-RIN-00860-01, the date of this letter, my name and address as the person who issued this denial.

Sincerely,
(signed by Robin Moran)
Robin Moran, Director
Light Duty Onroad Center

cc: Robert A. Friedrich, OGC
Betty Lopez, HQ FOI Office

Analysis of FOIA Results

My FOIA request confirmed that in fact, a material sample was sent by Carnicom and received by EPA. It also confirmed that the documents displayed at the Carnicom website are genuine responses from EPA to his submission, and that they received the documents he sent.

While EPA never responded to or even made reference to the sample in their correspondence to Carnicom, my FOIA, which carries the force of law, was able to obtain a response on the sample, which was:

"The alleged material sample submitted to EPA from the
Chemtrail Research Fund was not analyzed for its chemical
and physical properties. A difficulty with this sample is that
it is minimal in quantity and lacks a verifiable chain of custody,
with origins that cannot be established, e.g., where and when retrieved."

On appeal, further information was gleaned from EPA, who in response to my FOIA request for EPA's own "verifiable chain of custody", which they say Carnicom's sample lacks, responded:

"Item 2 of your request asked for "Documents generated
in response to this alleged material subsequent to its receipt,
including it's current location, any material or biological
analysis results done at EPA or by any other U.S. government
agency, communication within EPA related to this material,
or communication with any other U.S. government agency."
My office has no documents that are responsive to item 2 of
your request."

The quote above, if EPA's response is to be believed, also tells
us that they either arbitrarily determined that the sample was
"minimal in quantity", and had no factual basis with which to
determine this, or they have witheld documents.

It is interesting to note that the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, which responded to my FOIA, functions to conduct laboratory tests on vehicle emissions and fuels and has extensive equipment to do so, along with 400 employees.

The National Vehicle

and Fuel Emissions

Laboratory

PHOTO OF NVFEL LABORATORY

Conclusions

I conclude that Clifford Carnicom and David Peterson, acting as the "Chemtrail Research Fund" did send a material sample to EPA, which received it and probably still has it in their possession.

I conclude that Carnicom, Peterson, and others made repeated attempts
to get a response from EPA regarding the material sample they sent.

I conclude that while EPA did respond to Carnicom and Peterson regarding
their belief in "chemtrails", EPA never responded in any way whatsoever regarding the material sample the agency holds in it's possession.

I conclude that Carnicom and Peterson sent no documentation to establish the origin of the material sample, thus precluding it from being tested.

I conclude that Carnicom, having worked for the Federal Government for fourteen years, is aware of the FOIA law.

I conclude that Carnicom and Peterson considered filing a FOIA request, but did not do so because it better suited his purpose to use EPA's lack of response to generate the appearance of a "stonewall".

I conclude that Carnicom has, for over one year, avoided producing an actual verifiable laboratory sample analysis of the material because such analysis will show that it is ordinary material of natural origin, and not connected to aircraft in any way.

I conclude that EPA's lack of response did indeed have the effect of
garnering increased support for Carnicom and his "chemtrails" claims.

I conclude that the EPA office of Air and Radiation failed to follow their own Standard Operating Procedures by not establishing their own Chain-of-Custody Record as required.

I conclude that the EPA Office of Air and Radiation failed to meet
their stated goal to "Be a Primary Source of Credible Information", due to their failure to respond regarding the material sample sent and received.

I conclude that the individuals within EPA responsible for making the decision to not address the material sample are Robin Moran, Director, Light Duty Onroad Center, Chester J. France, Director, Assessment and Standards Division, Robert Brenner, Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Air and Radiation, Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, and Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, since replaced by Christine Todd Whitman.

Message sent June 1, 2001

The following was sent to these responsible individuals at EPA:

To:
moran.robin@epa.gov
brenner.rob@epa.gov (for
oge.margo@epa.gov

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing you in reference to events described on my internet website
which relate to an EPA response to two American citizens which I find inappropriate. Please reference my website address below for complete documentation of the facts in this matter, obtained from EPA through a Freedom of Information Act request:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/FOIA.html

The facts show that Clifford Carnicom and David Peterson mailed a sample of thus-far unidentified material in 1999 to EPA. These men requested that EPA identify the sample, which they claimed had fallen from the sky and was a "health risk". Despite repeated attempts by these men and others to get a response, and repeated replies from EPA regarding their concern, no reference was ever made by EPA to the existence or fate of the material.

Only by my use of the Freedom of Information Act, one year after this sample was received, and only to me, did EPA make the first substantive response to the sample, which was,
"The alleged material sample submitted to EPA from the
Chemtrail Research Fund was not analyzed for its chemical
and physical properties. A difficulty with this sample is that
it is minimal in quantity and lacks a verifiable chain of custody,
with origins that cannot be established, e.g., where and when retrieved."

While I remain skeptical of the claims of Carnicom and Peterson, and in fact
can understand the rationale behind EPA's reasoning for not making an analysis, as citizens they deserve a direct response at least equal to that made to me under the Freedom of Information Act. They also deserve an apology from EPA for being ignored so long.

I conclude that the effect of EPA's non-response in this matter has been
a miscalculation on their part. It might seem the easy way out of a difficult situation to ignore those whom we do not agree with, but often such inaction has consequences too, sometimes worse than if openly addressed.

I request that you respond to Carnicom and Peterson as you would have your own personal concerns addressed by others in government service.

Sincerely,

Jay Reynolds
Central Bureau Chief
VERITAS News Service

Relevant Links

The Freedom of Information Act -A User's Guide

USING THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
a Step-by-Step Guide

GSA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) TRAINING

September 3, 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL Janet Reno Regarding The Freedom of Information Act

Back to Contrails-or 'Trails-CON?