Now that you’ve brought it on the forums, yes he denied to give you that information. Personally, I’m not a legal expert so I don’t know if he’s obligated to do so.
In my own opinion, the law seems a little controversial.
SECTION X.
All citizens have the freedom of information. Should a citizen request for information that is actively collected to be released, the relevant department, agency, entity, etc. shall be obligated
to release the requested information, if possible.
“Actively collected to be released”
“If possible” as in if they have the means to do so, in this case he does. So that part is irrelevant. But the “to be released” part is what confuses me.
SECTION X.
All citizens have the freedom of information. Should a citizen request for information (that is
actively collected) to be released, the relevant department, agency, entity, etc. shall be obligated
to release the requested information, if possible.
No offense, saying it makes more sense when you read it in a way it’s not written doesn’t show anything. IF it was meant to be interpreted that way it’d be written that way. Adding your own parenthesis and wording means nothing as it’s not how it’s written into law. It’s possible to change how things are written yes, but not by adding something in the comment section of a forum post.
No you actively removed words and restructured a sentence, language is vital to legislation as a single word can effect the entire legislation and what it does. None the less this does specify that the information is meant to be collected to be released I don’t see you winning a court case in which an anonymous report is what you’re seeking as it’s not actively collected to be released. But then again, the judges unfortunately don’t always rule based on what’s written in firestone law. I’ve seen them come to decisions based on U.S law and cite wiki among other things so i suppose you have a chance.
Again, the way I phrased it was to emphasize the way I interpreted the order of the words, which is a matter of context and should be taken to the Supreme Court. I did not intend to bend the BoR.
As a judge, and seeing this will be an SC matter, let me give my legal opinion: you are wrong. The whole point of an anonymous complaint is that the submitter’s information isn’t actively collected for release. Having served on the Supreme Court and hear cases similar to this, I can tell you that you aren’t winning this, and are just going to make yourself look like ass. The BOR is clear in that the information must be actively collected in a releasable fashion: incident reports, court documents, disciplinary logs, etc. These are set, well defined, and properly collected materials that are releasable. But the name of an anonymous submitter is something inherently not meant for this purpose. You have no legal ground to stand on.
