Grusch's answers in his DOPSR reviewed manuscript (obtained by The Black Vault via FOIA) were redacted using privacy exemptions (b)(6). Here are alternatives to the redactions stemming from the manuscript being a personal product.

The use of the (b)(6) clause to redact answers and bio in Grusch's manuscript to the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR) is very strange and lacks an explanation. Recently, John Greenewald, who obtained the documents, suggested the redactions in this seemingly agency record was because it constituted Grusch's personal product. Other viable alternatives include that the unredacted version could lead to embarrassment, disgrace, harassment and retaliation, or that the information pertains to a controversial criminal investigation.

Background

John Greenewald who operates The Black Vault (TBV) is a firebrand Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) activist who has collected and organized more than 3 million pages of FOIA records, estimating about half are about UAP. People inside the government consider him someone who operates a paranormal conspiracy website. John refers to himself as a skeptic. He summarizes government secrecy, in particular on UFO/UAP, as being a US government coverup. His nearly four hour Theory of Everything interview is very fascinating and dives into very specific cases, and I encourage anyone (including newcomers) to give it a view to educate yourself on UAP. It will likely also make you appreciate his efforts over the past 23 years filing more than 10000 FOIA requests.

His more recent efforts uncovered more facts about David Grusch's DOPSR reviews of a manuscript (Q/A) pertaining to (at least) the original The Debrief article, and potentially all (TBV has more FOIA requests in the pipeline to determine this) public interviews and hearing by Grusch. In the response all Grusch's answers and his bio in the manuscript are redacted citing exemption (b)(6) used when the released material is personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The cited reason is confounding. TBV has filed an appeal, though I don't believe that is publicly available at this time.

I wrote critically about the TBV's misguided editorial decisions, using the release as yet another occasion to call for Grusch to release the manuscript, which Grusch is certainly free to do, and has also done to at least The Debrief, Leslie Kean and Ross Coulthart. I argued the focus should be on the elastic clause (b)(6) and why it was applied. In making my post, I regrettably also indicated a motive that was in poor taste and detracted from important part of the debate, namely what we learned from the (b)(6) exemption employed by the FOIA officer in responding to the TBV filing. I hope this speculation of motive is kept out of this post, but feel free to speculate on Grusch's motives for not releasing the manuscript. It could be (positively) keeping his cards close to the vest for legal reasons or reasons related to disinformation campaigns, or because (negatively) it damages Grusch's allegations and credibility.

Since that post Greenewald's video covering the release is out, and here a hypothesis for the (b)(6) redactions is put forth. What's more, Greenewald stresses the relevancy point that paraphrasing what Grusch has stated has to be unfit for public release/classified (if there's truth to it), given it references recovered and reverse engineered NHI craft. Yet Security Reviewer Whigham approves it for public release, citing it's not divulge specific sensitive information and only makes references to sensitive areas, so the manuscript contents must be extremely vague. This is Greenewald's itch based on his knowledge of just how secretive the government is on anything UAP.

Consider watching the final edited version of Greenewald's presentation.

The (b)(6) privacy exemption: Personal Product hypothesis

Putting aside other discussions, let's hone in on the use of (b)(6) the "privacy exemption" which I find to the novel development of the "UAP whistleblower saga", because these (b)(6) redactions informs us how the government interprets Grusch's manuscript. Since the manuscript is neither personal nor medical in nature, it is the elastic nature of the similar files language that must have been put to use, which isn't defined in FOIA legislation but rather interpreted by precedence (courts rulings). In explaining the use of (b)(6) Greenewald puts forth the hypothesis that, even though this is an official agency record, the manuscript is Grusch's Personal Product and so that allows it to be (b)(6) redacted. Here's the quote for the hypothesis (39m10s):

Nor is it what this is [personnel or medical], so I think that this really kind of extended the arm of what (b)(6) actually was, and they just redacted everything that David Grusch wrote. It's technically not a government document so ergo it's not technically FOIAable, until he submits it to the U.S government then that, that product per se, is FOIAable. But sometimes the same protocol to release information doesn't apply.

So for example if you're looking at a biography of a public official, you could get all that it's FOIAable, and on top of that they wouldn't (b)(6) it. Why? Because it's a government document created as a bio for a government official. This however is a personal product from the mind of David Grusch ergo his property. So I think what the legal argument was, or is, even though I'm appealing it, to try and give that that opposing view, I think they saw this as a product of his and it's up to him to release it to the General Public. So it is private and personal to him even though DOPSR approved it.

So many asked, well this is a fully cleared document why can't they release it. Well they, meaning the DoD, can't because FOIA exemptions apply when they give this non-government document out and (b)(6) in their mind applies to this in toto. The incomplete, excuse me uh completely.

Why? again I think that that's their logic. So it's all based on personal identifying information or Privacy Information that is all (b)(6). Now, why I went through that is it's very important because it plays into the appeal.

So Greenewald states this a government record due to its submission to DOPSR, but then later states (at least parts) are non-government. Therefore redactions are allowed in the mind of the DoD, because the content comes from Grusch's mind making it private and personal, so a "similar file" in (b)(6) jargon. So that's the apparent legal argument in play and the apparent grounds on which TBV is appealing.

The courts say (page 6-7) this manuscript is an agency record, as it was obtained by DOPSR even though it didn't create the record, if the Burka test to determine control is met. This test considers "the intent of the document’s creator to retain or relinquish control over the records". I think this test is core to Greenewald's argument, namely Grusch never relinquished control in handing it over for DOPSR.

Still, there are inconsistencies with the FOIA response. If an agency record (the manuscript) fails the Burka test, it is effectively non-government and so fully non FOIAable. As the response shows the questions in the record, the FOIA officer did consider at least parts of the manuscript (the questions) as an agency record. But the questions are also personal product from Grusch's mind that he's not relinquished control of, given he's the apparent sole author of the manuscript and sole submitter to DOPSR.

Now, I somehow get that I probably can't just can't FOIA my way to John Bolton's security reviewed book (nor would I) just because it went through a government agency. What is evident is that if this was a matter of copyright (which things comes from one's mind into writing often is), then if that would at all apply, it would be a case of (b)(4) exemption not (b)(6).

Of course, it should be noted as a threshold matter that the mere fact that a record is copyrighted does not per se remove it from "agency record" status under the FOIA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit flatly rejected such a notion [...]. To be sure, it remains possible that the circumstances surrounding an agency's custody of a copyrighted document might amount to sufficient lack of "possession" or "control" [Burka test] to support an argument in a particular case that the document is not an "agency record." [...] But absent any such special circumstances, a copyrighted document must be regarded as an "agency record" and the resolution of the problem must be found within the FOIA's exemptions.

In sum, agencies should carefully examine all copyrighted materials encompassed within FOIA requests to determine whether they qualify for Exemption 4 protection as set forth above. As for those copyrighted materials to which Exemption 4 is inapplicable, the position of the Department of Justice is that the release of such materials under the FOIA is a defensible "fair use."

Observe this means a document can be "so copyrighted" it's not an agency record at all. So with all of that, some questions to the "personal product" hypothesis, that were not covered by Greenewald's full live video, abound:

• Is the entire manuscript or only parts of it a personal product of Grusch? Are there examples of such a quasi (non-)government distinction in TBV already?
• What are examples of (b)(6) usage in TBV that extended to this "personal product" theory relating to FOIAable records?
• Are there any DOPSR (or other Prepublication Review) documents in TBV that share this commonality?
• How did the TBV formulate its appeal to FOIA? If the reason for (b)(6) isn't the personal product hypothesis, does that damage the appeal?

If things turn out as TBV expects the appeal will unfortunately be denied, and we'll be left to speculate why Mr. Paul Jacobsmeyer, Deputy Chief, DOPSR, ruled (b)(6) exemptions should be applied in this intransparent FOIA release.

The (b)(6) privacy exemption: Alternative hypotheses

While there's clearly merit to Greenewald's hypothesis as I illustrate above, I'm not fully convinced by the "personal product" hypothesis as it stands. This due to the inconclusiveness on whether the manuscript is an agency record at all, and in the event of a "personal product from Grusch's mind" I'd consider it an issue of copyright, in which case the (b)(6) exemption is misused and instead (b)(4) would apply. Additionally, "fair use" would allow parts to be unredacted. I therefore venture into some alternative hypotheses (speculations, theories) below for why (b)(6) was applied.

In this scenario we are looking for why the redacted answers in the manuscript constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under (b)(6). To this end The Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press made a FOIA wiki including a page dealing specifically with Exemption (b)(6) reasons.

First, some examples of information that detail reasons why (b)(6) exemptions do not apply to this manuscript:

1. Potential harm from media contact is unlikely to allow for (b)(6) as Grusch's role is far beyond "mere happenstance":

[The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia] explained that "the mere threat of media attention does not suffice to draw the protective cloak of Exemption 6 over information that happens to be newsworthy.""

2. If the information is public domain, which we expect due to The Debrief/Leslie Kean/Ross Coulthart reporting, (b)(6) should not apply. The following is likely part of TBV's appeal (though I've not seen it made public, if that's even feasible as this point):

As a general matter, "[o]ne can have no privacy interest in information that is already in the public domain, especially when the person asserting his privacy is himself responsible for placing that information into the public domain." Where you have proof that the information sought is already in the public domain, you should argue this point and provide any supporting documentation.

2a. On appealing (b)(6) muckrock.com says:

[Y]ou can make the case that the person’s status as an important public or historical figure supersedes their right to privacy.

3. Grusch voluntarily participates in public discourse and deserve less privacy interests than others.

[P]ersons who have placed themselves in the public light, e.g., through politics, or voluntarily participate in the public arena have a significantly diminished privacy interest than others.”[70]

4. This is arguably a "central purpose" of FOIA, namely to open government operations to public review (though it does differ in that Grusch's manuscript has not been part of DoD investigations):

Likewise, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found it "difficult to understand how there could not be a substantial public interest in disclosure of documents regarding the manner in which [the Department of Justice] handled high profile allegations of public corruption about an elected official." In that case, the court found a significant public interest in records relating to the agency’s investigation of a member of the U.S. House of Representative on allegations of bribery and other illegal behavior where legislation had been passed specifically directing the Justice Department to investigate those claims.

5. It is very hard to understand there's no segregable information in the redacted answers, as per DoJ:

In applying Exemption 6, it must be remembered that all reasonably segregable, nonexempt portions of requested records must be released.

Second, examples of why (b)(6) might apply:

6. FOIA was introduced in 1966 and a 1974 Attorney General Memorandum spoke to (b)(6) making it clear adverse effects constituted an invasion of privacy:

[The] privacy interest does not extend only to types of information that people generally do not make public. Rather, in the present context it must be deemed generally to include information about an individual which he could reasonably assert an option to withhold from the public at large because of its intimacy or its possible adverse effects upon himself or his family.

7. If the information could lead to embarrassment or retaliation, privacy interests may be found and (b)(6) apply.

A “substantial” privacy interest will be more likely found if disclosure of the information would potentially lead to some form of embarrassment or retaliation.

Courts have recognized a greater privacy interest where disclosure of the information would put identified individuals in danger of embarrassment or unwanted intrusions. [...] The Court explained that release would identify [Haitian nationals] as people who cooperated with a federal investigation of Haiti’s compliance with its promise not to prosecute certain returnees, and could subject them to “retaliatory action” and embarrass them, [...]

I therefore arrive at these alternative hypotheses for the use of (b)(6), referencing the above supporting information in parentheses:

• There is non-public and explosive material in the manuscript answers and this information is non-segregable from that which has been made public. (2, 5)
• The answers, as a whole, suggest a mentally ill individual person wrote them, and making them public would disgrace and embarrass Grusch. (6, 7)
• The answers, as a whole, could lead to retaliation against Grusch because it sufficiently identifies individuals who have committed crimes. (7)
• The answers, as a whole, could worsen Grusch's legal standing in ongoing legal matters. (None)
• The FOIA processing of this request is a sham, and Jakobsmeyer abused the (b)(6) exemption to perpetrate a coverup. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

The first is the "Grusch still has bombs to drop publicly" which isn't intuitive since he had the chance at the UAP hearing; alternatively he'll write a book (NdGT argument). The second is weird given Grusch's claims for months about the biggest story and coverup in human history. The third is in part at odds with the first, but it would clearly motivate Grusch's reason to not release the manuscript. The fourth would not be covered by (b)(6). The fifth is dangerous for Mr. Jakobsmeyer (appeals, Grusch making it public and revealing misuse).

So why care about the (b)(6) exemptions?

I investigate and write on this matter to become smarter on the "UFO whistleblower saga" and to get community input on the above hypotheses for (b)(6) redactions by DoD, and to hopefully facilitate a discussion and theorizing as to why Mr. Paul Jacobsmeyer made the determination he did. I'll end with a big h/t and acknowledgement of John Greenewald as he's the individual who made such a discussion possible in the first place.