Opportunity Digs; Spirit Advances

On the contrary, I have no first hand knowledge of an actionable crime by a Federal Agent (called a Blevins action iirc). Making legal accusations without factual basis is not the intent of those dictates. I, for one, at this point have doubts of the true citizenship of Elifritz, and if he is a reliable witness concerning the data availability. But I would certainly encourage anyone having first hand knowledge to follow through as their conscience dictates.

I am happy to fade back into the woodwork and leave you in your ensconced state of self-imposed ignorance. George Washington himself advised it was better to be alone, than in bad company.

Perhaps these light colored, soft rocks are an evaporite from an ancient dried up sea, high in sulfates like magnesium sulfate evaporites on Earth. That would allow for the possibility that the spherules settled into the salt deposit as it formed, from the brine layer, over a long period of time.

It is certainly a possibility. At this point, until more data is released, it is all conjecture. One thing I think is it safe to say that it isn't: It's not limestone. :-)

So they can split it to provide fuel for a return journey.

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message news:c189i0$3pe$ snipped-for-privacy@hood.uits.indiana.edu...

Have you read Public Law 105-277? or just this snippet from the OMB Federal Register posting? If not, I finally found it here.

The part applying to "Office of Management and Budget

" For necessary expenses of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), including hire of passenger motor vehicles and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $60,617,000, of which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available to carry out the provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code: Provided, That, as provided in 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this Act for the Office of Management and Budget may be used for the purpose of reviewing any agricultural marketing orders or any activities or regulations under the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.): Provided further, That none of the funds made available for the Office of Management and Budget by this Act may be expended for the altering of the transcript of actual testimony of witnesses, except for testimony of officials of the Office of Management and Budget, before the Committees on Appropriations or the Committees on Veterans' Affairs or their subcommittees: Provided further, That the receding shall not apply to printed hearings released by the ommittees on Appropriations or the Committees on Veterans' affairs: Provided further, That the Director of OMB amends Section __.36 of OMB Circular A-110 to require Federal awarding agencies to ensure that all data produced under an award will be made available to the public through the procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act: Provided further, That if the agency obtaining the data does so solely at the request of a private party, the agency may authorize a reasonable user fee equaling the incremental cost of obtaining the data: Provided further, That OMB is directed to submit a report by March 31, 1999, to the Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight that: (1) identifies specific paperwork reduction accomplishments expected, constituting annual five percent reductions in paperwork expected in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year

2000; and (2) issues guidance on the requirements of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(a)(1) and (3); sections 804(3), and 808(2), including a standard new rule reporting form for use under section 801(a)(1)(A)-(B)."

Now if you can find support for "In directing OMB to revise the circular, Congress entrusted OMB with the authority to resolve statutory ambiguities, the obligation to address implementation issues the statute did not address, and the discretion to balance the need for public access to research data with protections of the research process." you're a magician. There's not "entrusting" there. None.

Look how the whitehouse describes Public Law 105-227

"Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998 (GPEA) Public Law No: 105-277 The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) requires Federal agencies to allow the option of submitting information or transacting business with them electronically. Agencies must implement this electronic option by October 21, 2003.

"GPEA is intended to help citizens gain one-stop access to existing Government information and services, provide better, more efficient service, and increase Government accountability to citizens. Also, the law encourages Federal agencies to use a range of electronic alternatives"

You have to read the FOIA, which is what Congress wrote, to know what Congress meant.

Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall--

(i) determine within ten days twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; ...

You see what I mean? Congress did give a very exact time.

Don't have to. Congress is way ahead of you. Now, how about we all write our Federal Judges? and the U.S. Attorney General? and insist on an investigation. Follow your own conscience. For my part, I've written NASA FOIA PO for clarification of the situation as a starting point.

No. I am not essentially saying what is suggested.

I am essentially saying regulations must follow the law as written, and failure to do so amounts to a usurpation of authority and stands in violation of the Constitution, as well as rule of law and democratic principle.

The 14th Amendment provides all citizens must be equal under the law, which is an amplification of the original 5th Amendment and extention to the States as well. On the principles of equal protection and equal access, the Freedom of Information Act requires the government to deliver information to requesting citizens, the only possible exception is when it falls into one of nine clearly listed categories.

"With the passage of the FOIA, the burden of proof shifted from the individual to the government. Those seeking information are no longer required to show a need for information. Instead, the ``need to know'' standard has been replaced by a ``right to know'' doctrine. The government now has to justify the need for secrecy."

Not one of those 9 categories of exceptions applies the OMB Federal Register publications suggesting anything to the contrary,

"In developing this revision to the Circular, OMB seeks to implement the statutory language fairly, in the context of its legislative history. This requires a balanced approach that (1) furthers the interest of the public in obtaining the information needed to validate Federally-funded research findings, (2) ensures that research can continue to be conducted in accordance with the traditional scientific process, and (3) implements a public access process that will be workable in practice."

This looks to me to be "color or law" "cut from whole cloth", rather than any empowerd body with legistlative authority.

Now to reiterate my position, while I have lost respect for Elifritz as a person and find his behavior immature, repugnant and personally insulting, I do say, if he is a citizen, he has rights that are violated. If our government has collected data (even having paid someone else to do it for them) they must share that data equally with all citizens, now, not later. To do otherwise gives unequal access, which is prohibited by law.

If we don't care about the rights of all, we shouldn't expect our rights cared about at all either.

This time limit applies to records under paragraph 1, 2, or 3. I don't see mention there of scientific data obtained under federal-funding.

That is one reason. The primary reasona are to determine if life ever existed, or exists, or CAN exist on Mars.

My hat is off to you, Randy! My eyes turn glassy after about 100 words into that winding, nearly 400 word!, run-on sentence. But somehow you are able to decipher the meaning of that linguistic abomination! Not to mention the fact that you probably had to wade through a seemingly endless quagmire just to find that "juicy" tid-bit :-)

I'm at home with the most technical of microprocssor data sheets, but this stuff makes those seem like children's early reader books. I understand that they are written as they are to attempt to convey an unambiguous meaning. But frankly, how's anyone supposed to know what their rights are without first going to law school?

Thanks for digging this up. I don't know if it applies or not, but it sure makes for interesting reading :-)

Cheers,

-Brian

-- Brian Dean, snipped-for-privacy@bdmicro.com BDMICRO - MAVRIC & MAVRIC-II ATmega128 Based Dev Boards

I said spectrograms and spectrographs, trivially reducible from the raw data, usually automated.

Sure, like news conferences where they present the same spectrograph that the presented on day 1, but decline to present spectrographs which are clearly in their possession, or post them on their website, a trivial operation. Only an elitist would call anyone a layperson, and only an asshole like you would call people who wish to learn something new in science - wannabes.

America - Obese, Ignorant and Stupid, and proud of it.

Hey NASA, Fuck You. Stronger verbiage will follow.

Thomas Lee Elifritz