Washington Dancers Sue To Prevent Identity Disclosure 461
An anonymous reader writes with this BBC story about a Washington open-records law that is having some controversial consequences for some unlikely people. "Government open-records requests can be boring. Government open-records requests made by a man who wants to obtain information about 70 licensed strippers in his town so he can 'pray for them', on the other hand... The godly citizen in question is David Allen Van Vleet of Tacoma, Washington. In September he filed court papers to obtain personal information on 70 government-licensed nude dancers at a nightclub in his area — including their full names, addresses, photos and dates of birth. (Yes, Washington requires nude dancers to pay a $75 a year license fee.) The county auditor granted his request under the state's open-records law - although she also notified area dancers and club managers of her action. On 21 October two licensees sued to block the release of the information. Two days later a county judge issued a temporary order blocking the release, with a final decision scheduled for 15 December."
In the uk (Score:3, Insightful)
Under the freedom of information act this would be refused likely on the grounds of data protection or No discernible public interest. Does the US law not have an equivalent?
Re:In the uk (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't be allowed to record it then. In general, if it's available to someone (presumably a government worker), it should be available to the public.
Re:In the uk (Score:5, Insightful)
Mind you, I consider myself to be an extremist libertarian bordering on anarchist, and I still think there is lots of information which (if it exists in the first place) should never be publicly revealed.
Re: (Score:3)
Then how will they be able to find an expert witness when they need one?
Re: (Score:2)
Federally, yes, that exists. The open records law in question is a state law.
Re: (Score:3)
Under federal law it could be denied on grounds of national security with no other reason needed. There is no penalty on the federal level for needlessly classifying information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically this isn't FOIA, but the Public Records Act of Washington (state).
That said... just look at the shit-ton of exemptions in there already from industries with strong lobbying groups:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/defa... [wa.gov]
Anybody who defends this guy - his intentions are clearly not that as honorable as simply wishing to pray for these strippers - on grounds of "what are they going to block next?" should have a look at that list, and realize that their concerns materialized before they ever realized they
I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the state's database only include actual strippers? In Ohio, police stole a woman's drivers license information [archive.org] and assigned it to an undercover officer, who then got hired on as a stripper as part of a sting operation. It sure would suck if, after being victimized by the police in that manner, a woman was then subjected to who knows what sort of harassment from a random citizen who just wanted to "pray for" her.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine what happens when a background check turns up that she has an active stripper's license. That's some screwed up funny business.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, if I were in charge, I'd deny the request and tell the guy if he wanted to pray for the strippers, he can do that anonymously because "God knows who they are." And if he wants to pray to the strippers, he'd better bring a lot of dollar bills for the sacrifice.
I can't see the legitmiacy here. (Score:3)
I cannot see how the argument for 'prayer' is legit on logistical or supernatural grounds. There is no clear public benefit here to release this information to this person for the purposes of his own (I guess) spiritual needs. I'd even be hard pressed to make the case if he wanted to do direct health outreach. The licensees can be reached via the places of employ.
Furthermore, one can readily presume that if you are prying for someone to an allegedly omniscient being, he/she/it would be able to work out the details.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think God wants him to know or he'd tell him. He's trying to thwart God's will for his own ends. Some of these guys forget they are servants of God not his advisers.
Re: (Score:3)
If I saw a public records request like that I'd tell the cops to check on the cadaver dog; because it is going to be real busy in the near future.
Re: (Score:3)
You shouldn't have to register your employment choice with the government, unless you provide a professional service that could impact public health and safety and requires verifiable skills (e.g., doctor, lawyer, plumber, etc.). It's not any of the government's business.
There. FTFY.
Why ask the government? (Score:2)
If your deity has all the info already?
If your deity doesn't want to divulge the information, you shouldn't be asking the government for it, should you?
You can always pray for Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 etc. Your deity will know for whom the prayers are meant and will change his plan, just for you.
Bert
Gov't still doesn't get privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's very simple: "open government" means that the government should disclose information on the details of their own operation, but never information that can be tied to individuals, except where it concerns information on holders of public office that is relevant to the right of the public to monitor them. Only aggregated data on citizens should be disclosed. And for civil servants or elected officials, relevant data means stuff like expense claims, not stuff like their address, records of previous employment or registered religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gov't still doesn't get privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on the nature of the information. A licence to take your clothes off at a private venue is probably not something that should be shared, but there is a clear public interest angle for a waste processing license or a planning application. In simple terms it depends on how much of a risk the licensed actions have to the general public, and usually the reason they are licensed is because they a re risky.
Open records isn't the issue here (Score:5, Insightful)
The open records request and fulfillment isn't the issue here. If the government licenses someone, you should be able to request the information of everyone with that license (although I'm not sure home information should be included since it is a professional license). This would be the easiest way to see who is and isn't a licensed professional.
The issue is why in the bloody hell is the government licensing dancers? There is no reason to do that other than they want to collect some extra fees from people. There is no professional service being offered that a license would effect. The purpose of licensing professionals is to ensure that the person meets some basic requirements. Unless they are going to try and require a minimum cup size or dancing ability, there isn't anything to license here.
Re: (Score:3)
The licensing office should be able to, given the licensee's information, say whether that person has a valid license. There is no reason to make all the information public. It is not a license to spam people with job offers, prayers, or harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Less than a week after I got plates for a used vehicle I had bought, I had a postcard in the mail to warn me that my "manufacturer's warranty was expired or was about to expire" and to contact them to get it extended.
They're already vacuuming up the public records for marketing. This isn't any different. Why does it matter if its for a stripper's license or a vehicle registration license? Why should someone be able to suck up one list and not another?
The only reason this is in the news is because someone
Re: (Score:3)
They shouldn't be able to do that either. Just because they can doesn't mean we should extend it.
The only reason this is in the news is because it's plainly obvious the end result is not going to be religious tracts, but stalking and harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably someone (or some people) has the job of validating the licences and that the dancers are indeed dancing, nude, and capable of providing entertainment to an acceptable standard in that category.
Probably that person/people don't want to lose that job... [which , when you look carefully enough, is the reason why government does 90% of what it does].
Licensing (Score:2)
Ideally, a licensing should be to verify that a particular individual has a licence in good standing. The person supplies the already-known information and the government only confirms that it's valid.
It's not the same as other public records where there is a public interest in having all the information.
Re:Open records isn't the issue here (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue is why in the bloody hell is the government licensing dancers?
Actually, there is. Its to keep underage dancers and those with criminal (prostitution) records out of the clubs. The way it works (is supposed to work) is that dancers are issued licenses in their real names by the state. These licenses must be presented to 'adult cabaret' operators (who are also licensed) as a prerequisite to working on the premises.
At one time, the actual license had to be held by the cabaret. Supposedly, this allowed law enforcement to 'pull' the license of anyone convicted of various offenses (prostitution). In fact, this law was written under the guidance of the Colacurcio [wikipedia.org] family regime as a means to tie dancers to their clubs. This is very similar to how women in some countries are forced into prostitution (sometimes by surrendering passports instead of licenses). The licensing process may have been changed since many Seattle politicians were caught in Frank's back pocket.
Fundamentally, the licensing laws are a good idea. But possession of a license is a matter between a dancer and a cabaret.
One thing that this whole thread might be missing: Since the death of Frank Sr and the ejection of his family from the Seattle strip club scene, the business has really taken off with several new clubs opening. This is in part due to corrupt politicians having been tossed out who helped the Colacurcios maintain their near monopoly. Now, there is a huge demand for dancers in these new clubs and I'm just wondering out loud to myself: Is Van Vleet actually trying to round up the names and addresses of dancers to open his own club?
Re: (Score:3)
No, I want to see old wrinkly ones with tits that hang to their knees.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember when the Deja Vu club [dejavu-tacoma.com] tag line used to be "50 beautiful women. And 3 ugly ones."
Re: (Score:2)
You can check someone's age without licensing them.
Re: (Score:2)
You can perform background checks without the need for a government issued license.
So who is performing this background check? If not the government, then the strip club? Because if the girl is bringing in money the strip club isn't going to care.
Re: (Score:2)
They are going to care if the girl is underage, aren't they?
Nope .. douchebag strip club owner near me is now in jail for using underage dancers.
Re: Open records isn't the issue here (Score:4, Insightful)
And I'm sure a licensing requirement would have totally stopped that. I mean, he might have been willing to flaunt federal laws against sexual exploitation of a minor, but he would totally have respected state licensing requirements. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
The licence is to verify you have a valid reason for being naked in public, which would otherwise be illegal.
In particular I suspect that it's to make sure that once you're naked you only fulfil that valid reason, and don't hand out any "extras" that might get your license revoked....
Let's hope he doesn't prey on them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:a historic relic no longer tolerated. (Score:5, Insightful)
strip clubs...they dont exist in Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea ...
Oh, you can be sure strip clubs exist there too. It's just that the average Schmoe is not rich enough or well connected enough to swing an invite. The same economic rules apply everywhere: money can buy anything and corrupt religious hypocrites can usually be found living it up in the local red light district.
Are driver license records public in Washington? (Score:2)
Can you make a request and get the state drivers license records in Washington?
Re: (Score:2)
Or a request for the particulars on all people with concealed carry permits.
I call bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that you actually don't need someone's personal details just to pray for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this. Provided there is a god and he's the all-mighty one, he should have no problem finding out the strippers' identities, or I call bullshit on his all-mightiness.
Re: (Score:2)
And who does he think he is praying for them without their consent? To a spiritual person, surely that's the greater breach of privacy.
Tell me more about those photos (Score:2)
including their full names, addresses, photos and dates of birth
I want to know more about those photos. Do that clearly document how suitable these young women are to be in this profession? If so, maybe I need a copy so that I can pray for then too. And clearly you need all of this information to pray for them, God would have no idea who to credit the prayers to if you didn't have their full name, address and date of birth.
What does God need with a starship? (Score:2)
Ummm, why does he need the names and addresses to pray for them? Sort of like “what does God need with a starship?” Surely this man's all seeing deity can take care of these wayward soles by just know this man cares about the state of their immortal souls.
Of course maybe this is a more impotent rather than Omnipotent God, in which case I guess this man has to carry God's message in person, to do what God can't.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, that first soles was also supposed to be souls.
Seems there trouble with my soul (sole) as well.
Re:What does God need with a starship? (Score:5, Funny)
If only the licenses were easier to get.... (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, if I did this my wife might actually demand that I dance for her and that could just be ugly all around. I am not a man built for a stripper pole.
Jade (Score:5, Funny)
I'm interested in the real identity of Jaquie from the Industrial Strip Gentleman's Club in Hammond, IN. Sweetie, if you see this, call me. Daddy's been bad again.
Don't look at me like that. She's working her way through law school, you know.
Looks like the "holy" pervert misspelt "prey" (Score:3)
Re:This should be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but I believe you can hire a lawyer to file a suit as an anonymous plaintiff, for a legally justifiable reason of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This should be interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Its called filing under seal.
Re:This should be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously: who or what interest does the state imagine it is "protecting" with this license? It isn't there for practical purposes, it's there for the purposes of intimidation and control.
The licensing law is bad because it is the licensing law itself that led to this conflict between public's right to know and an individual's privacy. I do agree that the individual has a right to privacy away from the workplace... but it is the STATE that is violating it with this STUPID law.
The funny thing is that under most circumstances, nudity is not legal in Washington... except, I guess, when you're on stage without a license.
Re: (Score:3)
The last sentence should have said "public nudity is LEGAL" in Washington. The exception is when a person is nude for the purposes of shock or intimidation, or overt sex acts. Of course, a stage in an establishment with a closed door is not "public".
Washington used to be a rather "liberal" state, in the social sense of the word. But over the years, for some reason, it has become more prudish and also more oppressive. I blame the "progressives", who in fact have done pretty mu
Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:5, Informative)
The last sentence should have said "public nudity is LEGAL" in Washington
I found this:
(1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.
which seems not to indicate that "the exception is when a person is nude for the purposes of shock or intimidation."
"knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront" seems likely to cover most cases of public nudity.
Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:4, Funny)
"I am shocked, shocked, to find there is nudity in here."
Only Claude Rains could pull that off.
Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:5, Funny)
Depends.... One could be walking into a stripclub and then realize, too late, that it's called The Blue Oyster Bar....
Re: (Score:3)
"knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront" seems likely to cover most cases of public nudity.
Again, quite the contrary, as the courts have repeatedly affirmed. Most current cases of public nudity are people sunbathing, such as at a nude beach (or not).
The fact is, in that state somebody can sunbathe in the nude in any public park if they want. As long as their purpose is sunbathing, rather than intentionally causing alarm or offense.
It may surprise you to learn that most people in the U.S. today are not "offended" by simple nudity.
Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:4, Informative)
Washington used to be a rather "liberal" state, in the social sense of the word. But over the years, for some reason, it has become more prudish and also more oppressive.
Are we talking about the same Washington State that I live in? Because being the only (I believe) state in the US where you can both get a same-sex wedding and legally buy recreational (not medical) marijuana at a retail store does not scream "prudish" or "oppressive" to me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Same-sex marriage has absolutely nothing to do with prudishness, nor does marijuana.
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "prudishness?"
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of many local licenses is to raise money.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, $75/annum is only six bucks a month. I'd get one if I lived there, just for the novelty value....
In 2002 I found the same licensing regime in Houston, Texas. One of the dancers I talked to said she worked illegally because she knew that registration created a public record, which could follow her the rest of her life. In response, I registered as a nude dancer. The people at the licensing bureau were remarkably polite, even though an audience would pay to not see me nude. I still have the identity card: call me 007735 Robert.
Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are other, sensible reasons for such a law. Many strippers engage in prostitution, and many have a history of drug problems. Education and safety training, and simple disease control, can be profoundly eased by reaching out to the registered strippers. It's also a way to check the age of employees, and try to keep children, especially runaways, out of that dangerous line of work.
Such a registry is certainly subject to abuse. Sex workers are certainly subject to stalking, and many families or former sexual partners who would harass or even endanger them. Others are just trying to make ends meet to take care of family and don't want their families to discover how they're paying the bills.
Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine that's also why they charge $75 for the license - to protect the poor and abused?
Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming that a stripper will engage in drug use or prostitution is a violation of one of the fundamental principles of American law, "Innocent until proven guilty." And don't give me any bullshit about "It's only a correlation, we're not actually assuming they'll misbehave", because the state assumes misbehavior. If the state actually takes any action based on the simple act of being a stripper, it will quickly become harassment.
It's none of the state's damn business. any more than sugary carbonated beverages or nose-picking.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It certainly can be "the state's damn business", when the "nose picking" is in food preparation areas or in hospital wards where infections are a large risk. Look up the history of "Typhoid Mary" and the resulting changes in food preparation regulations and laws. It's also the state's business when "sugary carbonated drinks" lie about their ingredients or their health benefits, such as selling aspartame based diet soda past its "sell by date", or making fraudulent health claims for "acai berries". You may n
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously: who or what interest does the state imagine it is "protecting" with this license? It isn't there for practical purposes, it's there for the purposes of intimidation and control.
How about keeping underage girls out of strip clubs? That would be something reasonable to achieve?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to maintain dancers' license records to check someone's age.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to maintain dancers' license records to check someone's age.
So who is doing the checking? The strip club doesn't care who dances as long as money comes in. At least with licensing you can have some sort of auditing.
Re: (Score:3)
The same person who checks it now. Police or some bureaucrat. Once someone proves their age, they get a certificate that they've proven their age. If there's any question about their age, they present the certificate. No public records or occupational licensing are needed.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's any question about their age, they present the certificate.
And how do you validate the certificate if there is no record of its existence?
Re: (Score:2)
Its not very important. But it's easy to provide anonymous authentication. If you really cared, you could store a key of some kind to validate the certificate. The key would not need to contain any identity information for the dancer -- it would just be used to validate the certificate, like a password hash.
At some point, it's a lot easier to find 18-year-old dancers than to forge complex certificates and fight the authorities all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
If you really cared, you could store a key of some kind to validate the certificate.
Congratulations .. you just invented licensing with a central authority!
But I will give you that the hash technique would be useful for anonymous validation licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Certification is not necessarily licensing. You wouldn't even need to require the certificates -- just use them as an easy way to prove girls are over 18. If you don't have a certificate, get one after the fact. Government policing of dancers has very limited public benefit, and dancing is free speech. The government should tread very lightly.
If releasing the records is a privacy or other rights violation, then the recording the information to begin with should be the same violation.
Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:5, Insightful)
Certification is not necessarily licensing. You wouldn't even need to require the certificates -- just use them as an easy way to prove girls are over 18.
Of course, because the strip clubs have no other way to verify someone's age without a state registration declaring intent to remove their clothes for money.
I mean, they never do that sort of thing when they allow people to enter such a club, or allow them to buy alcohol. We need age verification registration for alcohol purchases too! You'd think we'd have figured something like that out by now.
It's a travesty! Think of the children!
If only we had some sort of state-issued document that verifies your age -- maybe even with a picture on it. I guess that's just a pipe dream, huh?
Are you folks being deliberately obtuse, or have just not looked in your wallet recently? Sigh.
Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored. (Score:5, Interesting)
If only we had some sort of state-issued document that verifies your age -- maybe even with a picture on it. I guess that's just a pipe dream, huh?
Look, I think this is a stupid law, but it's not hard to see past your objections and see where the state is coming from.
It's not all that terribly hard to get a fake ID that will pass muster at a bar. (It's a different issue to get one that will pass muster at a TSA check, or passport application, for example.)
You accidentally let a 19-year-old in to drink with a fake ID, not a huge deal in terms of liability, right? You will probably get fined if he/she gets caught in a sting, worse if they get a DUI, but it's pretty understandable and unlikely to put your strip club out of business.
But let's say a 17-year-old has a good fake ID and gets a job stripping at your club. What is your liability if someone takes pictures and you are the source of "child porn?" What about if she is doing tricks on the side and, worse than abetting prostitution, you are abetting "child prostitution?" Repeat this same exercise for any number of potential legal violations.
It is in the interest of all the strip club owners that saying "this person is OK to be a person who shows their boobies for money" is in the hands of the state rather than the bartender or bouncer who interviewed her/him on their first day of work. (And also theoretically in the interest of anyone who goes to that club and wishes to film, proposition or otherwise engage them.) It sounds puritanical at first, but from a liability limitation perspective I think it is very defensible.
Re: (Score:3)
Because otherwise, there *is* something wrong with prostitutes to begin with: they are engaging in an illegal activity, the solicitation and sale of sexual acts for money.
Immoral != illegal.
I look forward to seeing you campaign for Washington state office on your platform of "hookers and underage strippers are totally legit, and we should stop ostracizing them."
I don't see your point. It would probably fail, because most people in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" aren't brave and don't want to be free. Examples include the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, the drug war, FCC censorship, bans on swearing in certain occasions, bans on public nudity, suspicionless border searches, the existence of constitution-free zones, and other nonsense. So yes, if they put up with all that unjust/unconstitutional nonsense, I would probably lose
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A: Counterfeitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Strip club dancing is not a bank. Some problems don't need perfect solutions. (But see above for a near perfect solution they could use if they decided it mattered.)
Re: (Score:2)
If licensing is supposed to keep "underage" women from performing at these venues, then you have to send people out to check the licenses. And if you're going to do that, you can check other documents instead of a license. A license introduces nothing additional into the situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Why couldn't you have some sort of random audit the way restaurants are subject to random health inspections?
The stripper inspector arrives, flashes his badge, immediately sees all of the girls performing that night - double-checking to make sure they are of age - and perhaps makes sure other requirements are in order (e.g. liquor license is up to date, nothing illegal going on in the back rooms if you slip the girls some extra cash, etc).
Would this be a 100% effective solution to underage dancers? Of cour
Re: (Score:3)
> So who is doing the checking? The strip club doesn't care who dances as long as money comes in.
They do if you make them liable for it.
Dancer missing her ID? $20,000 fine per occurrence. Dancer with fake ID? $20,000 more on top of that fine. Dancer that turns out to be underage? $500,000 fine, plus they lose their liquor license for a year (for serving while minors are present). They'll care plenty.
This is also neatly handled by requiring dancers to be licensed. Then the state does all the ID checking, and the club only needs to verify the license.
Absolutely! And since no one ever carries any state-issued [wikipedia.org], verifiable [wikipedia.org] document [wikipedia.org] that has a person's age on it, it's really important to have such certificates, since there's absolutely no other way to verify age.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone should have a work license then. Any company could be employing underage persons.
Re: (Score:3)
Does it ensure that your Stripper name is protected akin to a business license? That would be a useful benefit of registering.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious answers: underage dancers, human trafficking, tax collection.
Another answer: prostitution. Think about it: if a strip club is just a front for a brothel (plenty are, plenty aren't) then such a law is a problem for the owners. If the dancers get hauled in for prostitution, do you think they're likely to get a stripper's license ever again? So the clubs have an incentive to stay legit, and the dancers have an incentive to walk out on a boss who asks them to risk their careers....
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that putting up barriers to women working on the streets getting off the streets is counter-productive.
Would you rather have your daughter working the streets as a prostitute for a pimp or dancing in a strip club with bouncers, etc.?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the prostitution angle is probably on the money.
The state can block licenses to girls with a prostitution history (thus encouraging them to avoid prostitution) and can probably yank the club's license if they hire unlicensed girls.
It probably helps the girls, too, in that the licensing reqirement probably limits the supply of dancers thus eliminating competition, making wages higher and working conditions better.
Re: (Score:2)
Selling the driver's license information and cat registration information is considered a revenue opportunity for states.
Re: (Score:2)
Washington State sells that as well. I used to license my vehicles at a PO Box. Then we had a state law passed* requiring vehicle records be registered to a physical address. So now all the dealers' junk mail** starts appearing at my home.
*People started ducking Seatle's high license tab fees by registering in outlying communities.
**"Our records show you have a year X model Y vehicle for which we have a number of interested buyers." Dealers have ownership databases supposedly to support sending recall not
Re: (Score:2)
If releasing the records to the public is a privacy or other civil rights violation, then creating them should be the same violation. If we can't make the data public, then find a way to regulate without collecting the data, or forego the regulation entirely.
Re:Live by the sword (Score:4, Funny)
How much of David Allen Van Vleet's personal information is now public record because he filed these court papers?
David Allen Van Vleet died in 2006 [findagrave.com], a good 8 years before he made his FOIA request.
Zombies don't usually worry about retaliation. They keep coming after their target, slowly but surely, filing out FOIA requests after FOIA requests, submitting court documents after court documents. They're relentless. Outside of updating their facebook page, playing the occasional farmville game, and voting in elections, they really have nothing else to do but pursue full-bosomed women.
Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
First they came for the strippers...
Then they needed about half an hour to recover.
Then they came for the strippers again.