Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 33

1 Emilio Reyes

2 REDACTED
3 REDACTED
4 Cell: REDACTED
5 Email: REDACTED
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 EMILIO REYES, Case No.: 18-CV-0367 JAH (RBB)
12 Plaintiff in Pro Se,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
13 v.
Complaint for Declaratory and
14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
Injunctive Relief
THE INTERIOR; BUREAU OF INDIAN
15
AFFAIRS,
Privacy Act Case
16
Freedom of Information Act Case
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
17 Administrative Procedure Act Case
THE INTERIOR; OFFICE OF THE
Federal Declaratory Judgment Act
18 SOLICITOR
Case
19 Defendants.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
21
22
Plaintiff Emilio Reyes, in Pro Se, complains against Defendant Department of the
23 Interior (“DOI”); Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) and Office of the Solicitor (“SOL”)
24 as follows:
25
26 Introduction
27
1. This is an action under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a et. Seq., the
28 Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., or, in the
1
1 alternative, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., the
2 Federal Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201; for declaratory, injunctive,
and other appropriate relief to compel the disclosure and release of documents to
3
Emilio Reyes (“Plaintiff” or “Requestor”). BIA has violated the Privacy Act and
4 FOIA by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s requests within the statutorily prescribed
5 time limit, failing to disclose the requested documents, and unlawfully withholding
the requested information. Plaintiff now asks the Court to order BIA to respond to
6
the requests and produce all responsive agency records improperly withheld from
7 BIA.
8
2. Additionally, Defendant has routinely violated FOIA by consistently ignoring
9
Plaintiff’s requests that pertain to Indian Affairs oversight of BIA records,
10 unlawfully and unreasonably delaying responses, and withholding public
11 disclosure of information sought by Plaintiff. BIA regularly delays or withholds
12 disclosure of information to which Plaintiff is entitled and for which no valid
disclosure exemption or unusual circumstances apply. BIA has maintained an
13 illegal pattern, practice, or policy of: 1) unreasonable delay in responding to
14 Plaintiff’s FOIA requests; 2) failing to timely disclose requested documents; and 3)
15 unlawfully withholding requested information under the Privacy Act and FOIA.

16
3. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief establishing that Defendants have violated FOIA
17 in eleven (11) FOIA Requests, and injunctive relief directing Defendant to
18 promptly provide Plaintiff with the requested information. Further, Plaintiff seeks a
declaratory judgment establishing that Defendant has a pattern, practice, or policy
19
of violating the Privacy Act and FOIA to requests by Plaintiff relating to Indian
20 Affairs, and injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from maintaining such a pattern,
21 practice, or policy.
22
4. The precise documents to which plaintiff seeks access are contained in an online
23 request submitted to the Indian Affairs-BIA FOIA Office on August 23, 2017,
24 assigned BIA-2017-01903 (“Request 1”), August 1, 2017, assigned BIA-2017-
25 01863 (“Request 2”), October 11, 2017, assigned BIA-2018-00083 (“Request 3”),
October 16, 2017, assigned BIA-2017-01998 (“Request 4”), on December 5, 2017,
26
assigned BIA-2018-00360 (“Request 5”), on August 13, 2018, assigned BIA
27 2018-01785 (“Request 6”), on July 24, 2018, assigned BIA-2018-01664
28 (“Request 7”), on May 9, 2017, assigned BIA-2017-01335 (“Request 8”), on

2
1 October 25, 2018, assigned BIA-2019-00176 (“Request 9”), on October 23, 2018,
2 assigned BIA-2019-00175 (“Request 10”), and on October 11, 2018, assigned
BIA-2019-00172 (“Request 11”).
3
4 5. In Request 1, Plaintiff request seeks records pertaining to a tribal affiliation
5 amendment for Roy Fierro; a Gabrielino and Cahuilla descendant. In Request 2,
Plaintiff request seeks records pertaining to the Trask family who are originally
6
from the Mesa Grande Tribe, however, now placed on the enrollment of the San
7 Pasqual Tribe. In Request 3, Plaintiff request seeks records to the blood degree of
8 Irene Basquez; a Pechanga descendant and a former employee of the BIA. In
Request 4, Plaintiff seeks records pertaining to the probate and estate of Marcus
9
Alto; a San Pasqual descendant. In Request 5, Plaintiff seeks records on the
10 procedures and guidelines including data on tribal disenrollment from California
11 Indian Tribes. In Request 6, Plaintiff seeks enrollment applications of Alice
12 Connor, Mitchell Jack, and Rayfield Elliot of the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians.
In Request 7, Plaintiff seeks the 1928 California Indian enrollment applications for
13 Rayfield Elliott, Alice Connor Elliott and Mitchell Jack. In Request 8, Plaintiff
14 seeks records to the entitlement of parcel rights in the Hopland Band of Pomo. In
15 Request 9, Plaintiff seeks the 1928 California Indian enrollment applications for
Clarence Burris, Birdie Burris and Effie Burris. In Request 10, Plaintiff seeks
16
records to the relinquishment of Dennis Lee Hendricks JR, Kathryn Noma
17 (Hendricks) Ramsey, David Andrew Ramsey and Mallory Ramsey from the Ione
18 Band of Miwok Indians to the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians. In Request 11,
Plaintiff seeks correspondence records from Genealogist Lorraine Escobar that
19
relates to the Plaintiff.
20
21 6. In Request 1, the BIA provided 31 pages claiming Exemption 6, redacting 12
22 pages in part. Plaintiff also challenges the search on this request as inadequate. In
Request 2, the BIA provided 4 redacted pages claiming Exemption 6. Plaintiff also
23 challenges the search on this request as inadequate. In Request 3, the BIA
24 provided 2 redacted pages, claiming Exemption 6. In Request 4, the BIA provided
25 14 pages redacted in part and in full claiming Exemption 6, and withheld in full 17
pages claiming Exemption 4. In Request 5, the BIA failed to acknowledge
26
Plaintiff as a Representative of the News and Media and provided a bill for
27 collection of $300 denying 2,100 pages of responsive records. In Request 6, the
28 BIA located 55 pages pertaining to this request; released 1 page in full and

3
1 withheld the remainder 54 pages under Exemption 6. In Request 7, the BIA is
2 withholding 12 pages in full. Plaintiff also challenges the search on this request as
inadequate because the BIA should have 18 pages total of their 1928 applications
3
and 3 summary pages for each individual. In Request 8, the BIA is withholding
4 about 80 pages in part. In Request 9, the BIA is withholding 18 pages in full.
5 Plaintiff also challenges the search on this request as inadequate because the BIA
should have 3 additional summary pages for each individual. In Request 10, the
6
BIA claims that no responsive records were located for this request. Plaintiff
7 challenges the search as inadequate. In Request 11, the BIA released 9 pages of
8 redacted records and withheld 44 pages in full claiming Exemption 6. Plaintiff also
challenges the search on this request as inadequate.
9
10 7. Despite Requestor timely exhausting its administrative remedies, BIA has failed to
11 comply with its obligation under FOIA to make the requested documents and
12 information available. The administrative remedies are deemed exhausted when an
agency fails to comply with the applicable time limits. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
13 Furthermore, SOL has failed to provide a decision on its appeals. Having fully
14 exhausted the administrative remedies, Plaintiff now turns to this Court to enforce
15 FOIA’s guarantee of public access to agency records and to remedy the agencies’
withholding of that access. Accordingly, Plaintiff ask this Court to declare that
16
Defendants have violated the Privacy Act and FOIA, to order Defendants to
17 immediately provide Plaintiff with legally-complaint responses to each of their
18 outstanding record requests, and to grant other appropriate relief, including
attorneys’ fees and costs.
19
20 8. The requested documents are critical to Requestor understanding the actions taken
21 by the BIA in determining a wrongful tribal affiliation assigned to Mr. Roy Fierro
22 and the Trask descendants. Furthermore, the records of Marcus Alto will shed light
to wrongful tribal disenrollment. In addition, the blood degree of Irene Basquez; a
23
former BIA employee, will shed light on BIA’s misconduct. The records on the
24 procedures and guidelines including data on tribal disenrollment from California
25 Indian Tribes, is in the public’s interest. The records of the Elliot and the
Burris/Hendricks family are critical for the Public’s review and to bring the BIA
26
accountable on wrongful tribal affiliation mistakes. Lastly, the records of Lorraine
27 Escobar’s correspondence will benefit Plaintiff and about 10 other families
28

4
1 affected by her actions and misconduct through years of harassment and bullying
2 toward bona fide Native Americans.

3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE


4
9. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B), 702,
5 706 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the Privacy Act, FOIA,
6 the APA, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq.

7
10.Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §
8 1391(e). This action is brought against an agency of the United States.
9
11. Declaratory relief is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
10
11 12. Injunctive relief is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and 5 U.S.C. §
12 552(a)(4)(B).
13
13. This Court has the authority to award reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees under 5
14 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E).
15
THE PARTIES
16
17 14.PLAINTIFF in PRO SE is a resident of San Diego County. Plaintiff descends from
the Gabrielino Tribe; a film and history student, and a researcher of Native
18
American records. Plaintiff is also a Representative of the News and Media for
19 Stop Tribal Genocide; via the Constitution First Amendment Press Association
20 (“CFAPA”).
21
15. DEFENDANT BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS is an “agency” within the
22 meaning of 5 U.S.C. §552(f)(1), and is a bureau within the United States
23 Department of the Interior that enforces BIA laws. BIA has possession and control
of the records Plaintiff requested, and as such, is subject to FOIA pursuant to 5
24
U.S.C. § 552(f).
25
26 16.DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR is a federal governmental agency
27 within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (f)(1) that encompasses BIA and the
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR. The BIA claims to consult with the Regional
28

5
1 Solicitor on the FOIA responses at issue in this Complaint. THE OFFICE OF THE
2 SOLICITOR is responsible for responding to administrative appeals of BIA FOIA
decisions, and is the entity that constructively denied and/or ignored Plaintiff
3
administrative appeal by failing to respond in a timely manner.
4
5
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
6
17.FOIA’s basic purpose is for government transparency. It establishes the public’s
7
right to access all federal agency records unless such records may be withheld
8 pursuant to one of nine, narrowly construed FOIA exemptions. 5 U.S.C. §
9 552(b)(1)-(9).
10
18.FOIA imposes strict and rigorous deadlines on federal agencies when they receive
11 a request for records pursuant to FOIA. Specifically, an agency must determine
12 whether to disclose responsive records and notify the requestor of its
13 determination, within 20 working days of receiving a FOIA request, and it must
make records “promptly” available, unless it can establish that certain unusual
14 circumstances are present and/or that it may lawfully withhold records, or portions
15 thereof, from disclosure. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A),(a)(6); 43 CFR § 2.16(a). Also
16 within 20 working days, the agency must inform the requester that it has a right to
appeal the agency’s determination. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
17
18 19. An Agency must immediately notify the requestor of its determination whether to
19 comply with a request, and the reasons for it, and of the right of such person to
appeal an adverse determination. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i). Further, an agency
20
shall make available a FOIA public liaison to aid the requestor in limiting the
21 scope of the request so that it may be processed within the statutory time limit. 5
22 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(ii).
23
20.FOIA places the burden on the agency to prove that it may withhold responsive
24 records from a requester. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
25
26 21.Congress has specified limited circumstances in which federal agencies may obtain
more time to make the determination that is required by 5 U.S.C. §
27
552(a)(6)(A)(i).
28

6
1 22.An agency may toll the 20-working-day deadline to seek additional information or
2 clarification from a requester, but that tolling period ends when the agency receives
such information or clarification. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii).
3
4 23.An agency may extend the 20-working-day deadline for an additional 10 working
5 days by giving a written notice to the requester that sets forth “unusual
circumstances” to justify a deadline extension which also requires that it provide
6
the date by which the agency expects to make the determination. 5 U.S.C. §
7 552(a)(6)(B)(i). However, to invoke such “unusual circumstances,” the agency
8 must provide the requester with “an opportunity to limit the scope of the request so
that it may be processed within [20 working days] or an opportunity to arrange
9
with the agency an alternative time frame for processing the request or a modified
10 request.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(ii). In addition, when asserting unusual
11 circumstances, the agency “shall make available its FOIA Public Liaison” to assist
12 in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.

13 24.The FOIA Public Liaison’s obligation in the FOIA is to increase transparency. 43


14 CFR § 2.66(c).
15
25.FOIA requires each agency to make reasonable efforts to search for records in a
16
manner that is reasonably calculated to locate all records that are responsive to the
17 FOIA request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(C)-(D).
18
26.FOIA requires federal agencies to expeditiously disclose requested records, see id.
19
§ 552, and mandates a policy of broad disclosure of government records. Any
20 inquiry under FOIA brings with it a strong presumption in favor of disclosure.
21
22 27.Congress recognized that in certain, limited instances, records may be withheld as
exempt from FOIA’s broad disclosure mandate, and thus created nine categories of
23 exemptions. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). These exemptions, however, are narrowly
24 construed in light of FOIA’s dominant objective of disclosure, not secrecy.
25
28.FOIA provides that a request for records must be “reasonably described.” 5. U.S.C.
26
§ 552(a)(3)(A)(i); 43 CFR § 2.5. Courts have determined that a FOIA request
27 reasonably describes the requested records so long as they agency’s records
28 custodian can locate the records.

7
1 29.FOIA provides a greater access of requested records by submitting proof that the
2 person either consents to the release of records or is deceased. In addition, the
Agency can require to supply additional information if necessary to verify that a
3
particular person has consented to disclosure or is deceased. 43 CFR §
4 2.9(a)(1)(2)(b).
5
30.FOIA recognizes four categories of requesters for the purposes of determining
6
search fess and duplication fees. 43 CFR § 2.39(a).
7
8 31.FOIA provides Representatives of the news and media no search and review fees,
adding duplication fees exceeding 100 pages. 43 CFR § 2.39.
9
10 32.It is well established that a Plaintiff in a FOIA case is entitled an index of the
11 documents and portions that have been withheld by the Defendant agency. Vaughn
12 v. Rosen, 484 F. 2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).

13 33. The Privacy Act of 1974 allows citizens to find what information the government
14 keeps on them, primarily in order to ensure its accuracy and allows to amend the
15 record if necessary. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(1); 43 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart K.

16
34. FOIA recognizes that “disclosure” under the Privacy Act or FOIA does not occur
17 if the communication is to a person who is already aware of the information.
18 Schowengerdt v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 823 F.2d 1328, 1341 (9th Cir. 1987).
19
35. The basic time limit for responding to an appeal is 20 workdays after receipt of the
20 appeal. If the Department is unable to reach a decision on an appeal within the time
21 limit for response, the appropriate deciding official for FOIA appeals must notify
22 the appealer the right to seek review in the United States District Court. 43 CFR §
2.62.
23
24 36. An Agency’s failure to comply with any timing requirements is deemed
25 constructive denial and satisfies the requestor’s requirement to exhaust
administrative remedies. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
26
27
28

8
1 37. A FOIA requester who exhausts administrative remedies may petition the court
2 for injunctive and declaratory relief from the agency’s continued withholding of
public records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
3
4 38.Alternatively, an agency’s response to a Privacy Act or FOIA request and/or a
5 Privacy Act or FOIA appeal is subject to judicial review under the APA, which
confers a right of judicial review on any person who is adversely affected by
6
agency action, 5 U.S.C. § 702, and authorizes District Courts to compel agency
7 action that is unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. Id § 706(1). District
8 courts must set aside any agency action that is found to be “arbitrary, capricious,
and abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id § 706(2)(A).
9
10 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11 Request 1
12
39. In 1999 the BIA provided correspondence to Mr. Roy Fierro; a Gabrielino and
13 Cahuilla descendant, stating that his tribal affiliation would change with no reason
14 from Gabrielino to Diegueño. According to the BIA’s correspondence signed by
15 Frances L. Muncy, this was based on “recent research” by their Agency.

16
40. As a result, the BIA provided a new Certificate Degree of Indian Blood (“CDIB”)
17 signed by Ms. Muncy, in which Mr. Fierro and about 200+ other family members
18 would be ineligible for enrollment in the Gabrielino Tribe.
19
41. Therefore, to review the BIA’s research and to determine if the BIA acted in an
20 arbitrary and capricious manner, a FOIA request was submitted to the BIA.
21
Request 2
22
23 42. In 1909 the Trask family who is affiliated with the Mesa Grande Tribe, were
relocated to the San Pasqual Indian Reservation.
24
25 43. During Plaintiff’s extensive research, it was confirmed that the BIA has always
26 claimed the Trask family relinquished their rights from Mesa Grande, however, no
27 record in the National Archives exists today substantiating this information.

28

9
1 44. Therefore, to review the records in the possession of the BIA, a FOIA request was
2 submitted to the BIA requesting this information.

3
Request 3
4
5 45.Approximately in the 1960’s, Mrs. Irene Basquez Scearse, a Pechanga descendant
and a former employee of the Southern California Agency of the BIA; without
6
Superintendent or Regional Director approval increased her blood degree from 1/2
7 to 4/4. This amendment on her personal records would make her grandchildren
8 eligible for programs and services at the BIA.
9
46. As a result of the misconduct, Mrs. Scearse was transferred from one Department
10 to another within the same BIA Office.
11
12 47.Therefore, to review the blood degree of Mrs. Scearse and disciplinary actions, a
FOIA request was submitted to the BIA.
13
14 Request 4
15
48. In 2016 descendants of Marcus Alto; affiliated with the San Pasqual Tribe were
16
wrongfully disenrolled.
17
18 49. The decision of the disenrollment was brought by the Trask descendants who are
affiliated with the Mesa Grande Tribe although enrolled in the San Pasqual Tribe.
19
20 50. The claims on the disenrollment were based on the paternity of Marcus Alto.
21
22 51. Even though it was determined that Marcus Alto was adopted by Maria Sonoma
Duro Alto, some of the Alto descendants would still be eligible for enrollment
23 using the lineage of the biological father, Jose Alto, because the minimum blood
24 degree to enroll in the tribe is 1/8.
25
52. Although some individuals would be eligible for enrollment based on their blood
26
degree, the BIA determined to disenroll ALL Marcus Alto descendants.
27
28

10
1 53. Furthermore, the decision of the disenrollment of the the Alto family brings many
2 questions as the Trask family have a similar situation of adoption with current
Chairman; Allen Ernest Lawson.
3
4 54.Therefore, to determine the actions of the BIA, a FOIA request was submitted to
5 the BIA.
Request 5
6
7 55. California is the leading State on tribal disenrollment. It is estimated about 12,000
8 Individuals have lost their tribal citizenship including their right to vote on tribal
matters and other services offered thru the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
9
10 56. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible to uphold their “Federal Indian Trust
11 Responsibility” over Native Americans. However, in cases of tribal disenrollment,
12 the Public is unaware on how the BIA handles this “trust responsibility” to protect
bona fide Native Americans.
13
14 57. Therefore, to determine the actions of the BIA on tribal disenrollment, a FOIA
15 request was submitted to the Pacific Regional Office of the BIA.

16 Request 6, Request 7 and Request 8


17
58.The members of the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians claim that the Elliot family;
18
who are members of the tribe and part of their Tribal Government are actually not
19 Hopland but in fact, Ukiah and Cahuilla.
20
59. The patriarch Rayfield Elliot is factually from Ukiah/Guidiville listed on census
21
records.
22
23 60. The matriarch Alice Connor is believed to be from Cahuilla. She is nowhere to be
found until 1917 on Hopland, married to a Hopland Sanel Indian named Pete
24
(Pedro) Jack.
25
26 61. Matriarch Alice Connor was denied Hopland land assignment after her husband
27 Pete Jack died in 1917.

28

11
1 62.Pete Jack’s land assignment went to a homeless Ukiah Indian named William
2 Benson according to BIA Superintendent Correspondence dated May 8, 1922.

3
63. This makes the entire family literally not from the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians.
4
5 64. The Elliot family are current employees of the BIA; Central California Agency,
and are responsible of major conflicts of interest between the tribe and the BIA,
6
including an illegal pot farm, and other illicit practices occurring on the Hopland
7 Indian Reservation.
8
65. Therefore, to determine the actions of the BIA on this enrollment, a FOIA request
9
was submitted to the BIA.
10
11 Request 9 and Request 10

12 66.The Burris family are listed on the 1928 California Indian Applications as
13 “Unknown Tribe” on enrollment applications #2925, #2926 and # 2912.
14
67. The Burris family are ancestors of the Hendricks and Ramsey family. At least 2
15 individuals of this family are currently employed in the same BIA Office, which
16 creates a conflict of interest.
17
68. This family has been involved on disputes related to tribal enrollment and other
18
conflicts of interests with other California Indian Tribes.
19
20 69. The family in question is listed on the Act of 1928 as “Unknown Tribe,” however,
the BIA amended their tribal affiliation to reflect Ione Band of Miwok Indians, and
21
most recently this was changed to Toulumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians.
22
23 70. Therefore, to review the BIA’s actions in amending a tribal affiliation on two
separate occasions from BIA employees, and to prove the ongoing discrimination
24
actions against other individuals listed on the 1928 Act as Unknown Tribe, a FOIA
25 Request was submitted to the BIA.
26
Request 11
27
28

12
1 71.On January 15, 2015 and January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff provided a copy of his
2 incorrect Certificate Degree of Indian Blood (“CDIB”) and other family members
CDIB’s per the request of Attorney Alexandra Riona McIntosh (aka Lesa Green)
3
to “write to the BIA showing them what they have done” against the Plaintiff and
4 his family members.
5
72. In a matter of months, Plaintiff learned that Ms. McIntosh’s real intentions were to
6
disenroll part of Plaintiff’s family from the San Pasqual Tribe; the Orosco family
7 and to use these records against the Plaintiff for supporting the Orosco’s.
8
73. As a result, Plaintiff distanced himself due to this matter and other political
9
disagreements. Ms. McIntosh then violated attorney-client privilege and turned
10 over these records to Genealogist, Lorraine Escobar which resulted in a report to
11 the BIA and the Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”).
12
74. On about September 25, 2017 Plaintiff submitted a Harassment Complaint to the
13 South County of the Superior Court of California complaining about Mr. Andrew
14 Salas of the Kizh Nation [Case No. 37-2017-00035577-CU-HR-SC], Lorraine
15 Escobar [Case No. 37-2017-00035568-CU-HR-SC] and Alexandra R. McIntosh
[Case No. 37-2017-00035558-CU-HR-SC]. The Court determined that at the time
16
of filing this Complaint the Petitioner [Plaintiff] did not have enough evidence, as
17 a report was not known to the Plaintiff, therefore, the 3 harassment complaints
18 were dismissed by the Court without prejudice.
19
75. On July 2018, Plaintiff was informed that the Report titled: “The Case of Maria
20 (nee: Grijalva) Bega, Guillermo Grijalva, and Aurelia [aka Amelia] (nee: Grijalva)
21 Orsoco)” was created and published around October 13, 2017 in the Kizh Website.
22
76.The report full of confidential information relating to Plaintiff’s personal
23 information and of family members, without consent; was published in the World
24 Wide Web of the non-profit group Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians, LLC; aka
25 Kizh Nation.

26
77. Ms. Escobar who is known to be the “fraud police” along with the Kizh Nation,
27 the “imposter’s police,” have been known to defame other Gabrielino Indians
28

13
1 despite Escobar’s recent fraud conducting genealogy. [Erin K Rivera v. Lorraine
2 Escobar, Case No. SMCFS1600184].

3
78. After Ms. McIntosh’s criminal case in The People of the State of California v.
4 Alexandra Riona McIntosh; Case No. CN310912 in the North County Division of
5 the Superior Court of California; Ms. McIntosh was ordered not to be involved in
any future misconduct, therefore, she manipulates other individuals, to write
6
letters, reports, or any necessary means to accomplish her personal needs even
7 though this misconduct was suspected to have never been reported to the State Bar
8 of California. It is also known that Ms. McIntosh uses fake social media accounts,
including her boyfriend’s accounts, and Facebook Page REZTALK, to disseminate
9
slanderous materials and statements against anyone who disagrees with her.
10
11 79. Ms. McIntosh and Ms. Escobar have an apparent mutual agreement of both
12 sharing and benefiting from a mutual referral process. Both have defrauded many
individuals. Ms. McIntosh accepts payments from the QuisQuis San Pasqual
13 descendants for legal help, yet does not follow thru in her legal aid. Instead, Ms.
14 McIntosh refers to Ms. Escobar‘s services, and Ms. Escobar overcharges
15 individuals for research not agreed to in their contracts. Individuals who have
worked with both, Ms. McIntosh and Ms. Escobar, are afraid to come forward due
16
to harassment that is known to be done by both individuals.
17
18 80.Ms. McIntosh is not a stranger to allegations of this nature. Currently, Ms.
McIntosh is the subject of a Federal lawsuit where she is being sued for fraud and
19
abusing her authority as an Officer of the Court. [Erik Hutchinson v. San Diego
20 Superior Court, et al.; 19-CV-0059-GPC-NLS]. Additionally, Ms. McIntosh’s
21 unethical behavior is demonstrated in Alegre v. Contreras; 16-CV-02442-AJB-
22 MSB. In Alegre v. Contreras, Ms. McIntosh represents three females who are
allegedly related to Joe Villalobos, a San Pasqual descendant. Joe Villalobos is
23 also Ms. McIntosh’s boyfriend. Following DNA testing, these three females were
24 deemed unrelated to Mr. Villalobos; therefore, ineligible for tribal enrollment.
25 Nevertheless, Ms. McIntosh ignores the evidence and continues to represent these
females as San Pasqual descendants, due to her personal relationship and potential
26
financial gain.
27
28

14
1 81. Despite Ms. McIntosh’s declaration under penalty of perjury about Plaintiff
2 belonging to the Gabrieleno Tribe in Cindy Alegre v. U.S. Dept. of Interior (S.D.
Case No. 16-CV-2442-AJB-KSC), Ms. McIntosh has used Plaintiff’s extensive
3
research to embarrass him and publish Plaintiff’s family records on Reztalk, a
4 Facebook Page Ms. McIntosh administers to defame the Trask family and other
5 San Pasqual descendants. Ms. McItosh is the reason the “The Case of Maria (nee:
Grijalva) Bega, Guillermo Grijalva, and Aurelia [aka Amelia] (nee: Grijalva)
6
Orsoco)” was created and published.
7
8
82. And as expected based on Ms. Escobar’s and Ms. McIntosh’s past experience, a
9
letter full of lies would be sent to the BIA, including a copy of the report to
10 damage Plaintiff’s reputation just as done in: “The Lineage of Cindi M. Alvitre,
11 The True Lineage of Desiree Renee Martinez, The Truth of Robert F. Dorame’s
12 Claimed Indian Lineage, The Lineage of Gloria Arellanes, The Lineage of John
Carlos Lassos, The Lineage of Matthew John Lovio, The Lineage of Mark Acuña,
13 Preliminary Assessment of Existing Documentation of Patrick Orozco’s
14 Genealogy, The Lineage of Jose Engracia Patricio Sanchez-Colima, A Mother
15 Knows [Trask family],” and other reports unknown to the Plaintiff.

16
83. Therefore, to review this correspondence and to substantiate Plaintiff’s claims in a
17 pending defamation lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court [BC724250]; a
18 FOIA request was submitted to the BIA.
19
Plaintiff FOIA Request 1
20
21 84.Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on August 23, 2017. On this Request, Plaintiff
22 seeks the following:

23
85.“All correspondence and related records from the Pacific Regional Office and the
24 Southern California Agency of the BIA, regarding the incorrect degree of Indian
25 blood certification issued to Gabrielino and Cahuilla descendant Roy Fierro and
immediate family members. Please include all related records to the Certificate
26
Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) dated August 14, 1997 and September 29, 1999,
27 including but not limited to; all research documents in which the BIA claims to
28

15
1 have done to determine the current tribal affiliation for Roy Fierro and immediate
2 family members.”

3
86. On August 24, 2017, a statement of permission to access Mr. Fierro’s personal
4 files from the BIA was provided to the BIA FOIA Office and the Pacific Regional
5 Office of the BIA. Plaintiff also provided death records for Roy John Fierro, Esther
Aguilar Martinez, Concepcion Bega Aguilar, John Aguilar, and Maria Bega.
6
7 87. On October 14, 2017, an email was sent to the FOIA coordinator of the BIA, since
8 no responsive records had been provided at the time.
9
88. It was not until November 6, 2017, long after the 20 working day deadline, that
10 the BIA located 31 pages of responsive records, in which 12 pages were provided
11 partially redacted.
12
89. On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an administrative FOIA appeal to DOI;
13
in accordance to 43 CFR 2.57(a)(3).
14
15 90. In its appeal, Plaintiff argued that:
16 90.1 BIA inconsistent and inadequate FOIA procedures are in complete
17 violation of FOIA.
18 90.2 Plaintiff submitted permission to access the requested records, including
19 proof of death to receive greater access to those records.
20 90.3 Plaintiff believes that the BIA’s search is incorrect, inadequate as is
21 missing additional responsive records related to this FOIA request.
22 90.4 The BIA cannot redact records related to the 1928 California Indian
23 Applications; because those are records available in the public domain of the
24 National Archives and in the World Wide Web.
25
90.5 Disclosure under FOIA or the Privacy Act does not occur if the
26
27 communication is to a person who is already aware of the information, therefore,

28 the redactions do not apply.

16
1 91. Evidently, the BIA failed to provide any responsive records in their possession
2 that would help determine the wrongful tribal affiliation to Mr. Roy Fierro and his
descendants; consequently, affecting Mr. Fierro and his family members.
3
4 92. Plaintiff insists that the search on this FOIA request was inadequate, arbitrary and
5 capricious as the BIA cannot produce any responsive records related to their
“recent research” on a wrongful tribal affiliation.
6
7 93.As of the date of this Complaint, long after DOI; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
8 working day deadline, Plaintiff has received no decision on its appeal.
9 Plaintiff FOIA Request 2
10
94. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on August 1, 2017 as a representative of the
11 news media for Plaintiff’s organization; Stop Tribal Genocide, as a news gathering
12 effort.
13
95.On this Request, Plaintiff sought the following:
14
15 95.1 “All records in the possession of the Pacific Regional Office and the
16 Southern California Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in regards to Frank
Trask, Leonora (La Chappa) Trask and descendants; relinquishing their rights from
17
the Mesa Grande Tribe and approved by the Department and Secretary of the
18 Interior to be recognized as San Pasqual tribal members. Please include all
19 recommendation issued by Department for this tribal affiliation correction. Please
also include all records of petitions and recommendations by the Bureau of Indian
20
Affairs and the adult members of the San Pasqual Band, recommending and
21 approving the adoption and enrollment for membership of Theophillus McKinnon,
22 AKA, Allen Ernest Lawson SR, in the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians.”
23
96.On August 28, 2017, an acknowledgement letter was received by the BIA.
24
25 97.On October 12, 2017, Plaintiff contacted the BIA FOIA Public Liaison to assist in
26 this FOIA request as was over 20 workdays of the BIA’s deadline to provide all
responsive records.
27
28

17
1 98.On October 27, 2017, long after the BIA’s deadline, the BIA located 4 page(s) of
2 responsive documents.

3
99. The 4 responsive pages were partially redacted, even though in multiple previous
4 FOIA Requests, Plaintiff has provided proof of death for the listed individuals.
5
100. Mr. Patrick Taber of the BIA Southern California Agency was responsible
6
for redactions on and according to the correspondence. Mr. Kevin Mack, Assistant
7 Regional Solicitor, was consulted in invoking Exemption 6 on these records.
8
101. On November 14, 2017, Plaintiff contacted the FOIA Public Liaison of the
9
BIA.
10
11 102. In its dispute, it was argued that the Exemption 6 was wrongfully claimed as
12 the records provided do not have any privacy concerns.

13 103. The BIA FOIA Public Liaison ignored Plaintiff’s dispute, failing to comply
14 with the obligations under FOIA to “increase transparency.”
15
104. On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an administrative FOIA appeal to DOI
16
challenging BIA, arguing that the exemption claimed was misapplied.
17
18 105. In its appeal, Plaintiff argued that:
19
105.1 The individuals listed on the responsive records are now deceased. Therefore,
20 the responsive records do not violate the privacy of living individuals.
21
22 105.2 The BIA inconsistent and inadequate FOIA procedures are in complete
violation of FOIA.
23
24 105.3 The BIA failed to consult and inform the Solicitor that the individuals are
25 deceased in accordance to 43 CFR § 2.13.

26
105.4 FOIA requires agencies of the federal government to release records to the
27 public upon request, unless the agency “demonstrates” that one of the nine
28 exemptions applies, in this case, the exemptions do not apply.

18
1 105.5 FOIA encourages accountability through transparency and is the most
2 prominent to ensuring an open government.

3
105.6 The BIA cannot redact information known to the public and published in the
4 World Wide Web [Ancestry.com – San Pasqual Indian Census] or in the public
5 domain of the National Archives.
6
106. As of the date of this Complaint, long after DOI; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
7 working day deadline, Plaintiff has received no decision on its appeal.
8
Plaintiff’s FOIA Request 3
9
10 107. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on October 11, 2017 as a representative of the
news media for Plaintiff’s organization; Stop Tribal Genocide, as a news gathering
11
effort.
12
13 108. In this Request, Plaintiff seeks the following: “All related records to the blood
14 degree of Irene Benita Basquez Scearce from the Pechanga Indian Tribe.

15 109. The BIA was then provided proof of death on October 11, 2017 to receive greater
16 access on the records.
17
110. The BIA Pacific Regional Office forwarded this request to the incorrect BIA
18
agency, providing a “no records found” response letter dated October 16, 2017.
19
20 111. By email communication on October 21, 2017, Plaintiff informed the BIA Pacific
Regional Office that this request was sent incorrectly and requested to re-process
21
this FOIA request.
22
23 112. It was not until November 8, 2017 that the Southern California Agency provided 2
pages of responsive records; redacted in full.
24
25 113. On January 13, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an administrative FOIA appeal to DOI
26 challenging BIA, arguing that the exemption claimed was misapplied.
27
114. In its appeal, Plaintiff argued that:
28

19
1 114.1 The requested records in the Defendant’s possession have been improperly
2 redacted.

3
114.2 The Plaintiff provided proof of death to receive greater access on these
4 records.
5
114.3 The BIA failed to consult and inform the Solicitor that the individual listed on
6
these records is now deceased in accordance to 43 CFR § 2.13.
7
8 115. As of the date of this Complaint, long after DOI; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
working day deadline, Plaintiff has received no decision on its appeal.
9
10 Plaintiff’s FOIA Request 4
11
116. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on September 8, 2017 as a representative of the
12 news media for Plaintiff’s organization; Stop Tribal Genocide, as a news gathering
13 effort.
14
117. On this Request, Plaintiff sought the following: “All records related to the
15 probates, estate, will and IMM of Marcus Roberto Alto, SR of the San Pasqual
16 Indian Tribe.”
17
118. Not until October 26, 2017, long after BIA’s 20 day deadline, the BIA provided
18
an acknowledgement letter and on November 8, 2017, the Bureau provided 14
19 responsive pages, partially redacted, and withheld 17 pages in full.
20
119. The responsive records included Marcus Alto’s death certificate, which was also
21
redacted.
22
23 120. On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an administrative FOIA appeal to DOI
challenging BIA, arguing that the exemption claimed was misapplied.
24
25 121. In its appeal, Plaintiff argued that:
26
27 121.1 Marcus Alto is a deceased individual. The responsive records include
a death certificate for Marcus Alto. Furthermore, the redactions on the death
28

20
1 certificate were also wrongfully placed pursuant Code of Civil Procedure Section
2 130(h).

3
121.2 BIA inconsistent and inadequate FOIA procedures are in complete
4 violation of FOIA.
5
121.3 After the disenrollment on the Alto’s, the Public has a special interest
6
on these records.
7
8 121.4 The requested records in the Defendant’s possession have been
improperly redacted.
9
10 121.5 The BIA failed to consult and inform the Solicitor that Marcus Alto is
11 deceased in accordance to 43 CFR § 2.13, to provide greater access to his
records.
12
13 122. As of the date of this Complaint, long after DOI; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
14 working day deadline, Plaintiff has received no decision on its appeal.
15 Plaintiff’s FOIA Request 5
16
17 123. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on December 5, 2017, as a representative of
the news media for Plaintiff’s organization; Stop Tribal Genocide, as a news
18 gathering effort.
19
20 124. In this Request Plaintiff seeks the following: “All records in regards to
procedures and guidelines the BIA follows when a California Indian tribal
21
council requests the removal of a citizen from their Indian tribe. Please provide
22 any reports of the BIA PRO/NCA/CCA/PSA/SCA keeps in regards to tribal
23 disenrollment and any statistical data on disenrolles from 1987 to today’s date.”
24
125. Two previous similar FOIA requests were submitted to the BIA on July 18,
25 2017 and assigned BIA-2017-01705; and on August 21, 2017 and assigned BIA-
26 2017-01870.
27
28

21
1 126. The Request BIA-2017-01705 was closed as the BIA requested to narrow the
2 scope of the request by indicating the names of specific individuals, name of a
specific tribe, and/or the specific date or year.
3
4 127. The Request BIA-2017-01870 was closed as the BIA considered for a second
5 time, that the additional information provided to narrow down the request did
not provide the requested information to process Plaintiff’s FOIA Request.
6
7 128. Although both requests were narrowed down as much as possible, the BIA took
8 the information provided via email on August 24, 2017 as a waiver to process
BIA-2017-01870. Further, the BIA failed to request what additional information
9
was needed to process the FOIA request as a waiver, or as a Representative of
10 the News and Media.
11
12 129. For a third time this request was submitted to the BIA on December 5, 2017 and
assigned BIA-2018-00360.
13
14 130. The BIA provided a bill for collection dated December 21, 2017, with a $300 fee
15 for 2,100 responsive records.

16
131. Furthermore, the BIA Offices in California have constantly failed to
17 acknowledge Plaintiff as a Representative of the News and Nedia. Their
18 correspondence dated December 21, 2017 stated this was a result of
correspondence in another FOIA request dated October 17, 2017, which a copy
19
was not provided as the Agency claims.
20
21 132. On January 16, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an administrative FOIA appeal to DOI
22 challenging BIA, arguing that the Plaintiff’s requestor category was misapplied.

23 133. In its appeal, Plaintiff argued that:


24
25 133.1 BIA inconsistent and inadequate FOIA procedures are in complete
violation of FOIA.
26
27
28

22
1 133.2 Pursuant 43 C.F.R. 2.57(a)(5) the BIA placed Plaintiff in the wrong fee
2 category and the BIA has constantly failed to acknowledge Plaintiff as a
Representative of the News and Media.
3
4 133.3 The BIA has received multiple similar requests in which they have failed
5 to properly communicate with Plaintiff pursuant 43 C.F.R. 2.5(d), on narrowing
down the previous FOIA Requests.
6
7 134. As of the date of this Complaint, long after DOI; OFFICE OF THE
8 SOLICITOR working day deadline, Plaintiff has received no decision on its
appeal.
9
10 Plaintiff’s FOIA Request 6
11
135. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on August 6, 2018, as a representative of the
12 news media for Plaintiff’s organization; Stop Tribal Genocide, as a news gathering
13 effort.
14
136. In this Request Plaintiff seeks the following: “Enrollment applications and related
15 records of Alice Connor, Jack Elliot, and Rayfield Elliot of the Hopland Band of
16 Pomo Indians. Please include all adoption records in regards to Alice Connor Elliot,
17 including the approval of all adult tribal members of the Hopland Band of Pomo
Indians and the approval and final decision from the Secretary of the Interior of
18
Indian Affairs to be eligible and accepted as tribal citizen of the band.”
19
20 137. On October 17, 2018, the BIA Central California Agency provided one page of
responsive records and withheld 54 pages in full claiming Exemption 6.
21
22 138. On November 12, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an administrative FOIA appeal to DOI
23 challenging BIA, arguing that the exemptions claimed do not apply.
24
139. In its appeal, Plaintiff argued that:
25
26 139.1 The BIA failed to request proof of death pursuant 43 CFR 2.9(a)(2).
27
28

23
1 139.2 The records are in the public domain of the National Archives and similar
2 records are available in the World Wide Web [Ancestry.com].

3
140. As of the date of this Complaint, long after DOI; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
4 working day deadline, Plaintiff has received no decision on its appeal.
5
Plaintiff’s FOIA Request 7
6
7 141. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on July 24, 2018 as a representative of the
news media for Plaintiff’s organization; Stop Tribal Genocide, as a news
8
gathering effort.
9
10 142. In this Request Plaintiff seeks the following: “1928 California Indian applications
for Rayfield Elliot #5385, Alice Connor Elliot #5386 and Mitchell Jack #5387.
11
12 143. On August 14, 2018, the BIA Pacific Regional Office responded via letter that
13 their Office has located 12 pages of responsive records and all records would be
14 withheld in accordance to Exemption 6.

15 144. On November 1, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an administrative FOIA appeal to DOI


16 challenging BIA, arguing that the exemptions claimed do not apply.
17
145. In its appeal, Plaintiff argued that:
18
19 145.1 Exemption 6 does not apply to records available in the public domain of the
20 National Archives and the World Wide Web.
21
145.2 The records in this request were created at least 86 years ago; therefore,
22 privacy interests do not apply.
23
145.3 A similar FOIA action was presented to the District Court in S.D. Cal Case
24
No. 17-CV-1612 JAH (RBB) - Reyes v. BIA; Defendants produced the 1928
25 California Indian applications to the Plaintiff without any redactions.
26
27 146. As of the date of this Complaint, long after DOI; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
working day deadline, Plaintiff has received no decision on its appeal.
28

24
1 Plaintiff’s FOIA Request 8
2
147. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on May 9, 2017 seeking the following: “All
3 correspondence and related records to the entitlement of parcel rights in the Hopland
4 Band of Pomo Indians for: John Knight – Parcel 2, Orville Elliot – Parcel 5, Fleming
5 Knight – Parcel 9, Michael Knight – Parcel 12, William Elliot – Parcel 23, William
Knight – Parcel 25, Angelo Knight – Parcel 29, Alice Connor Elliot – Parcel 30,
6
Mitchell Jack – Parcel 31, Delphine Elliot Gascon – Parcel 32, Florence Elliot –
7 Parcel 34, Huberta Elliott Carrillo – Parcel 35, Maud Knight – Parcel 41, Arthur
8 Knight – Parcel 47, Rayfield Elliot JR – Parcel 48, Richard Knight – Parcel 52,
Juanita Knight – Parcel 53 and Josie Knight – Parcel 55.”
9
10 148. On July 19, 2017, long after the 20 days deadline, Ms. Kimberly Yearyean of the
11 BIA Central California Agency called the Requestor to narrow the request.
12
149. Ongoing communication occurred between Ms. Yearyean and Plaintiff during July
13 2017 to February 14, 2018 and on February 14, 2018 proof of death were provided
14 for the individuals listed on these records.
15
150. On February 21, 2018, 9 months after the initial FOIA request; the BIA provided
16
80 pages of responsive records. These documents were partially redacted claiming
17 Exemption 6, and the BIA’s correspondence mentioned that “this request did not
18 meet the timeframe criteria, therefore, there is no billable fee for the processing of
this request.”
19
20 151. On March 7, 2018 the Plaintiff emailed the BIA California Central Agency and
21 informed them that the exemptions claimed did not apply. Furthermore, the Plaintiff
provided proof of death to receive greater access to these records. Additionally,
22
Plaintiff informed the BIA that these records are in the public domain of the
23 National Archives and the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), therefore the
24 exemptions claimed do not apply.
25
152. The BIA failed to provide a response or to resolve any disputes between the
26 Agency and the Requestor. This FOIA Request was not appealed at the Solicitor’s
27 Office; because “an Agency’s failure to comply with any timing requirements is
28 deemed constructive denial and satisfies the requestor’s requirement to exhaust

25
1 administrative remedies. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i), furthermore, the SOL has failed
2 to provide a response to 10 other FOIA appeals included in this Complaint,
therefore, a response was not expected even if an administrative appeal was
3
submitted for this FOIA request.
4
5 Plaintiff’s FOIA Request 9
6
153. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on October 25, 2018 as a representative of the
7 news media for Plaintiff’s organization; Stop Tribal Genocide, as a news
8 gathering effort.
9
154. In this Request Plaintiff seeks the following: “1928 California Indian enrollment
10 applications for Clarence Burris, No. 2925, Birdie Burris, No. 2926 and Effie
11 Burris, No. 2912.”
12
155. In correspondence dated November 29, 2018, the BIA Central California Agency
13 provided a response stating that their Office has located 18 pages of responsive
14 records; withholding all records claiming Exemption 6.
15
156. On December 12, 2018 Plaintiff submitted an administrative FOIA appeal to DOI
16
challenging BIA, arguing that the exemptions claimed do not apply.
17
18 157. In its appeal, Plaintiff argued that:
19
157.1 Exemption 6 does not apply to records available in the public domain of the
20 National Archives and in the World Wide Web.
21
22 157.2 The records in this request were created at least 86 years ago; therefore,
privacy interests do not apply.
23
24 157.3 A similar FOIA action was presented to the District Court in S.D. Cal Case
25 No. 17-CV-1612 JAH (RBB) - Reyes v. BIA; Defendants produced the 1928
California Indian applications to the Plaintiff without any redactions.
26
27 158. As of the date of this Complaint, long after DOI; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
28 working day deadline, Plaintiff has received no decision on its appeal.

26
1 Plaintiff’s FOIA Request 10
2
159. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on October 23, 2018 and November 5, 2018
3
as a representative of the news media for Plaintiff’s organization; Stop Tribal
4 Genocide, as a news gathering effort.
5
160. In this Request Plaintiff seeks the following: “All records and related
6
correspondence from Dennis Lee Hendricks JR, Kathryn Norma (Hendricks)
7 Ramsey, David Andrew Ramsey and Mallory Ramsey in regards to the
8 relinquishment from the Ione Band of Miwok Indians to Toulumne Band of Me-
Wuk Indians.”
9
10 161. In correspondence dated December 11, 2018, long after the BIA’s 20 days
11 deadline; BIA stated that after a thorough search in their files, the “Central
12 California Agency did not locate records responsive to this Request.”

13 162. On December 17, 2018 Plaintiff submitted an administrative FOIA appeal to DOI
14 challenging BIA, arguing that the search was inadequately made.
15
163. In its appeal, Plaintiff argued that:
16
17 163.1 The BIA did not search in the records of the BIA Pacific Regional Office or
18 the Office of Indian Services in Washington.
19
163.2 The original FOIA request was submitted to the BIA on October 23, 2018
20 and November 5, 2018 and not until December 11, 2018; long after the 20
21 working days deadline, the BIA failed to provide responsive records.
22
164. As of the date of this Complaint, long after DOI; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
23 working day deadline, Plaintiff has received no decision on its appeal.
24
Plaintiff’s FOIA Request 11
25
26 165. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request on October 11, 2018 and November 5, 2018
27 as a representative of the news media for Plaintiff’s organization; Stop Tribal
Genocide, as a news gathering effort.
28

27
1 166. In this Request Plaintiff seeks the following: “All records of correspondence
2 from January 2016 to the date of this request, from Genealogist Lorraine Escobar
to the Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Regional Office and the
3
Southern California Agency in regards to Emilio Reyes’ tribal affiliation.”
4
5 167. In correspondence dated November 5, 2018, Plaintiff provided permission to
release to him all responsive records under the Privacy Act.
6
7 168. On December 7, 2018, the BIA Pacific Regional Office provided 9 pages of
8 redacted responsive records, and 44 pages were withheld in full claiming
Exemption 6.
9
10 169. On December 17, 2018 Plaintiff submitted an administrative FOIA appeal to DOI
11 challenging BIA, arguing that the exemptions claimed do not apply.
12
170. In its appeal, Plaintiff argued that:
13
14 170.1 Exemption 6 does not apply to records available in the public domain of the
15 World Wide Web [Kizh Nation Website and Google]. Plaintiff obtained a full
copy of the records seeking in this request thru the Kizh Nation website.
16
17 170.2 The documents redacted and withheld pertain to Requestor’s personal and
18 ancestors’ information; therefore under the Privacy Act with Requestor’s
authorization, all information should be released in full.
19
20 170.3 The address listed on the report is a P O BOX and is in the public domain of
21 the world wide web [Ancestry.com and lorrainescobar.wordpress.com]
22
170.4 The original FOIA request was submitted to the BIA on October 11, 2018
23 and November 5, 2018 and not until December 7, 2018; long after the 20
24 working days deadline, the BIA provided part of these records redacted.
25
170.5 The BIA cannot withhold information that pertains to the Plaintiff under the
26
Privacy Act; because disclosure does not occur if the communication is to a
27 person who is already aware of this information.
28

28
1 170.6 The records sought in this FOIA request are necessary to substantiate
2 litigation in a Complaint for damages, negligence, defamation, invasion of
privacy, and unfair business practices at the Superior Court in the County of
3
Los Angeles.
4
5 170.7 The FOIA appeal was submitted with an expedited processing request. On
December 26, 2018, the SOL Office, via email correspondence denied its
6
request.
7
8 171. As of the date of this Complaint, long after DOI; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
working day deadline, Plaintiff has received no decision on its appeal.
9
10 CAUSES OF ACTION
11 172. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 thought 171.
12
13 173. Defendant’s (“BIA”) failure to grant Plaintiff full disclosure of the records
violates 43 CFR § 2.13(b)(1), 43 CFR § 2.23(c) and 43 CFR § 2.25 as the agency
14 failed to consult with the Office of the Solicitor before denying and redacting
15 responsive documents.
16
174. Defendant’s (“BIA”) failure to deny access of the records sought by these
17
Request’s violates 43 CFR § 2.24(3) and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) as disclosure
18 would not harm an interest protected by the applied exemption(s) or disclosure as
19 the BIA claims.
20
175. Defendant (“BIA”) failed to provide a greater access to the records by not
21 communicating with the Plaintiff pursuant 43 CFR § 2.9(a)(2) and 43 CFR 2.39.
22
176. Defendant (“BIA”) cannot withhold information that pertains to the Plaintiff
23
under the Privacy Act; because disclosure does not occur if the communication is
24 to a person who is already aware of this information. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(1);
25 Reyes v. DEA, 834 F.2d 1093, 1096 n.1 (1st Cir. 1987).
26
177. Defendant’s (“SOL”) failure to grant a decision within 20 workdays after receipt
27
of the appeal violates 43 CFR § 2.62(a)(b) and statutory duties under the APA. 5
28 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(B)(ii).

29
1 178. Defendants BIA and SOL failure and refusal to: (1) issue a timely final
2 determination on Plaintiff’s FOIA requests; and (2) provide Plaintiff with a valid
estimated completion date for its request and appeals, constitute the agencies
3
actions unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed and are therefore
4 actionable pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
5
179. Plaintiff is entitled to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
6
U.S.C. § 702, 706.
7
8 180. Unless enjoined and made subject to a declaration of Plaintiff’s legal rights by
this Court. BIA and SOL will continue to violate the rights of Plaintiff and others
9
entrusted to serve to receive public records under FOIA or the Privacy Act.
10
11 181. In addition to violating FOIA itself, Defendant’s refusal to supply information
12 violates President Obama’s Memorandum regarding FOIA, which provides in
pertinent part:
13
14 181.1 “The Government should not keep information confidential merely
15 because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and
failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.
16
Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests
17 of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In
18 responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act
promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are
19
servants of the public.” President Barack Obama, Memorandum for the Heads of
20 Executive Department and Agencies, 74 Fed. Reg. 4693 (Jan 21, 2009).
21
22 REQUESTED RELIEF

23 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff in Pro Se respectfully requests that judgment be entered


24 against Defendant Department of the Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
25 Office of the Solicitor and that this court:

26
A. Declare that Defendant BIA violated FOIA by unlawfully withholding and
27 redacting the requested records;
28

30
1 B. Declare that Defendant BIA withholdings were internally inconsistent and
2 inadequately explained, in violation of FOIA;

3
C. Declare that the BIA is obligated to make attemptable efforts to search in their
4 records based on the Requestor category, to locate proof of death before
5 denying or redacting records pursuant 43 CFR § 2.39;
6
D. Declare that the BIA must communicate with the Requestor and make a
7 reasonable effort to receive proof of death if necessary, after searching their
8 records; to provide greater access of FOIA records pursuant 43 CFR § 2.9;
9
E. Declare that Defendant SOL failed to verify the redactions by the BIA pursuant
10 43 CFR § 2.23(c) and 43 CFR § 2.25;
11
12 F. Declare that Defendant SOL violated appealing procedures and Declare that
SOL must comply with acknowledgement upon receipt of an appeal; and
13 process appeals accordingly within the 20 workdays limit pursuant 5 U.S.C. §
14 552(a)(6)(A)(ii) and 43 CFR § 2.62;
15 G. Declare that the BIA FOIA Public Liaison's obligation is to increase
16 transparency in disputes by verifying the BIA claims on redactions and denials;
verifying the communications between the BIA and the SOL, and by making
17 the proper recommendations pursuant 43 CFR § 2.66(c);
18
H. Declare that the BIA’s actions are arbitrary and capricious; issue a written
19 finding and refer to the Merit System Protection Board of Investigation
20 pursuant 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(F), that the circumstances surrounding the
withholdings have no legal basis;
21
I. Order Defendant BIA to establish rules and make reasonable guidelines to
22
release in full all DOI similar records upon the public’s request using NARA
23 standards pursuant 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1);
24 J. Relief pursuant to this Court’s equitable powers, as recognized in Payne
25 Enterprises, INC. v United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 D.C. Cir 1988 (citing
Renegotiation Bd. v Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1974);
26
McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1983), including a Declaration that
27 Defendants have implemented an impermissible practice and noncompliant
28

31
1 responses to FOIA requests and an order enjoining Defendants from continuing
2 to implement that practice;

3
K. Issue a written finding, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(F), that the
4 circumstances surrounding the withholding was arbitrary and capricious act
5 having no basis in law;
6
L. Order that Defendant BIA produce, by a date certain, any and all non-exempt
7 records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and a Vaughn index of any
8 responsive records, or potions thereof, withheld under claims of exemption
pursuant 32 C.F.R 701.39;
9
10 M. Order that Defendant BIA publishes Request 5 as “Frequently Requested
11 Records” pursuant 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2)(D), as the records are likely to become
12 subject of subsequent requests;

13 N. Declare that Defendant BIA CANNOT withhold information under the Privacy
14 Act or FOIA for information already aware to the Plaintiff pursuant Quinn v.
15 Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 134 (3d Cir. 1992) (dictum);

16
O. Award Plaintiff its reasonable costs pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(i); and as
17 recognized in Manos v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 829 F. Supp. 1191, 1193 (N.D.
18 Cal. 1993) (stating that “fairness and sound policy” compel same treatment of
attorney and non-attorney pro se FOIA plaintiffs); Whalen v. IRS, No. 92C
19
4841 1993 WL 532506, at *11 (N.D. lll. Dec. 20, 1993) (finding “no
20 satisfactory distinction between pro se FOIA litigants who are lawyers and
21 those who are not for the propose of awarding fees”); Kuzma v. IRS, 821 F.2d
22 930, 931-934 (2d Cir. 1987) (finding that costs may include photocopying,
postage, covers, exhibits, typing, transportation, and parking fees, but not “cost
23
of law books readily available in libraries”);
24
25 P. Award Plaintiff the sum of no less than $1,000 for the refusal and failure for
each Privacy Act Requests. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A); Doe. V. Chao, 540 U.S.
26
614 (2004);
27
28 Q. Expedite this action in every way pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a); and

32
1 R. Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
2 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to plead new parties, claims and/or
3 allegations.
4
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of January 2019.
5
6
7 ______________

8 Emilio Reyes
9
Plaintiff in Pro Se
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

33