AaronI

They have 20 days to respond to the initial request. If they don't respond, the first step should be to submit an administrative appeal to the FOIA contact for the agency. They have 20 days to respond to your appeal. If that appeal is denied or you still don't get a response, you can file a lawsuit in your nearest US District Court (the statue of limitations is 6 years). The agency will respond to the complaint, and you'll know whether it's worth your time to pursue it.

A good place to start is http://www.foia.gov/

The specific information required for a request varies by agency, as do any fees. Most of them now provide online forms on their sites.

While I was the FOIA/Privacy Act coordinator/liaison for one of the commands I was attached to while in the Navy, we generally accepted any form of written request, provided the person included their full name, postal address, phone number and a detailed enough description of the information they were requesting.

Use of the privilege is not based on the type of proceeding (ie, it applies to more than just criminal cases), but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure that would invite. Precedent has shown self-incrimination is enforceable in non-disciplinary public school "proceedings".

If the students were "coerced" or "compelled" to take a survey that may self-incriminate them, then it could probably be shown the privilege did apply.

I doubt it has to do with labor laws, specifically.

Payment is paid through a verified Paypal account, which you must be 18 years of age to use their services according to their user agreement.

...or, they just didn't register.

Charities with an income less than £5000/yr do not have to register, but still maintain their charitable status.

Did you read the post? It's counting those who have visited the G+ stream or used the mobile app.

I haven't met any fellow USians that _constantly_ do this. Then again, I guess that's the problem with making wide generalizations about an entire group of people.

A point which is based on a flawed assumption. Public posts don't necessarily correlate with private posts.

Agreed. It's essentially design by committee, which may work well when there's only a handful of you, but consensus of several individuals is difficult to reach, and the obvious or safe choice is accepted with little insight or vision. Committees create divisiveness and perpetuate a loss of vision. They exist only because individuals are taught that consensus is more important than making the right decision.

Facebook does this as well if it believes you're creating multiple accounts.

They can pass an act designated as "private law" (aka slip laws), which can apply to specific individuals and afford relief from another law or grant benefits/powers that are not available under the general law. So Congress actually does have the authority to extend his tenure.

It's sarcastic in intent. Trying to condemn an idiom that is obviously logical nonsense misses the point. When I say "I could care less", it could be interpreted instead, "as if there were anything else I care less about."

I was under the impression it had more to do with Facebook's policy of requiring real names. Most Japanese users do not use their real identities online.

I served in the Navy as a Legalman (LN), and while I don't know the specifics of this case, military justice differs from civilian justice in quite a few ways. To begin with, a trial is not needed for confinement, nor for certain types of punishment.

Under Article 10 of the UCMJ, the accused can be confined before trial. There is no upper limit on how long, either. Though I believe rule 707 of the Manual for Courts-Martial says the "general" maximum is 120 days for what is considered a speedy trial.

Not saying what they're doing is right (or wrong), but it seems his incarceration is legal (for now).

Gates, as SecDef, has been pushing for many of those changes since he took office in 2006. There's quite a bit to give Obama credit for, but Gates as SecDef is not one of them.

Sony's WebTV was a set-top box (Phillips produced them as well) for WebTV Networks, Inc. Microsoft later bought WebTV Networks in '98.

The issue most likely is not the weapons themselves, but who controls them. A stockpile of weapons are only dangerous in the "wrong" hands. If Iran is being bullied, as you put it, then it's not just by the U.S. Quite a few other countries apparently feel those weapons would essentially be in the "wrong" hands if Iran acquires them.

Worked fine for me as well (using Chrome). I was able to get 591 out of 622 contacts, assuming those individuals changed their privacy settings to hide their email..

Your argument that because you're "blunt" entitles you to behave like a 5 year old, is utter bullshit. There is something called tact. If you want people to help you, then perhaps try showing some.

The dude had a lot more patience than support channels on other networks that would have outright banned you for your childish behavior and holier than thou attitude.