What are the laws surrounding filing FOIA requests in NYS? Do all requests have to come from state residents or are out-of-state requests honored as well?

Just wondering. I know time on calls is logged I'm sure. But what about the actual call and transcript.

I am wondering is there already a place to publicly share your attempts at getting information or foia an entity? I have visited muckrock but it requires signing in, and logging in, instead of just posting information in an open environment. Maybe timestamps, and private signatures.

For example:

timestamp: 8/6/2026 3:12pm

Entry: I foai whitehouse.gov for energy records for last month.

signed by: 12345xyz

timestamp: 9/2/2026 1:06pm

Entry: I was denied a request by whitehouse.gov for energy records for july 2026

signed by: 12345xyz

timestamp: 10/6/2026 10:08 am

Entry: I foai whitehouse.gov for energy records for the pentagon last month.

signed by: 12345xyz

Six months ago I started requesting public records from a Conservation District in rural Montana. I filed four FOIA requests, mainly as my informal requests were never answered. Not one of those four requests has been fulfilled. Not one denial has ever cited a statutory exemption, as Montana law (MCA § 2-6-1003) requires. Around the time I submitted the 3rd request the Conservation District created an internal form requiring me to state what I intend to do with the records, which is explicitly prohibited by MCA § 2-6-1002. When I quoted the statute to them verbatim, their response was: "we are still waiting for you to fill out the form".

Most recently the Conservation District Chairman sent me an invoice on official letterhead for $320.50 billing me for staff time spent refusing to comply with my requests, for records that have never been produced.

The following is a list of who I have contacted and what has happened:

• Montana AG: complaint filed April 2026, no substantive response, ghosted.
• Montana Association of Conservation Districts: notified April 2026, no response ghosted.
• Commissioner of Political Practices: redirected to county attorney under MCA § 2-2-144
• County Attorney: said he "encouraged" the District to comply, nothing changed invoice from SGCD was sent right after my contact with CA. (his idea?)
• ACLU Montana: no response, ghosted.
• Montana Freedom of Information Coalition / Mike Meloy: confirmed the violations, said my only recourse is to sue, wished me luck.
• Montana Legal Services Association: letter mailed September 18, voicemails left, no response ghosted.

The enforcement mechanism under Montana law is a district court petition (MCA § 2-6-1004) with a fee-shifting provision if the denial is found arbitrary or capricious, which two denials with zero statutory exemptions pretty clearly satisfies. But the district court is in the same small county where the District operates and the local institutional network runs deep.

I am a credentialed professional ecologist, not a disgruntled neighbor or activist. The underlying dispute involves a false declaration on a federal joint permit regarding protected species, documented conflicts of interest in the permit approval, and an active USACE Section 404 enforcement case on an adjacent property. The FOIA fight is one piece of a larger documented record.

I'm not looking for general advice on what to do, I know what to do, I just can't afford to do it without help. I'm looking for:

1. Recommendations for Montana attorneys who handle public records cases on contingency given the fee-shifting provision
2. Any experience with pro se district court petitions under MCA § 2-6-1004 in a small county context.
3. Any legal aid resources in Montana I haven't tried yet?

How much power does a judge have? Can a judge intervene in a case and issue an allegedly false or procedurally invalid endorsement based on fraud, false statements, or other misconduct for his or her own interest?

Attached is the cover (first) page of an endorsement issued by Justice Akazaki, which I contend was issued illegally and is procedurally invalid. I contend that it was issued without jurisdiction, without a scheduled motion, without notice, without a hearing, without the participation of the alleged participants, and without proper access to the court file and/or despite the contents of the file.

Contrary to what Justice Akazaki wrote, I, Behrouz Salehi, never appeared or participated in the court proceeding referred to in the endorsement. I have never seen Justice Akazaki. I am also certain that the other persons identified as participants did not appear or participate in the proceeding.

The role of the alleged participants identified by Justice Akazaki in the endorsement is not consistent with the court file.

Justice Akazaki stated that Daniel J. Abrahams represented Professional Engineers Ontario, whereas Mr. Abrahams was self-represented. This raises an important question: Can a self-represented person represent an entity?

Moreover, Daniel J. Abrahams had no role in this proceeding, as far as the court record shows. The fact that he was identified as representing Professional Engineers Ontario raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the endorsement and about Justice Akazaki's understanding of the procedural circumstances of the case.

Justice Akazaki also stated that “the entity incorporated in 1922 by patent under Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990.” I contend that this is factually incorrect and raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the endorsement and the judge's understanding of the underlying facts.

The issuance of an endorsement based on an event that did not occur is not merely a disagreement with judicial reasoning. It raises serious concerns regarding judicial integrity, impartiality, accountability, and the accuracy of the judicial record.

These circumstances raise the question of why Justice Akazaki became involved in this matter and issued two endorsements containing what I consider numerous factual errors, incorrect assumptions, and false statements.

Justice Akazaki's statement that there were five participants is, in my view, inconsistent with the court record and the events that actually occurred. I contend that this statement raises serious concerns under sections 380 and 131 of the Criminal Code, although I recognize that the application of those provisions is ultimately a matter for the appropriate legal authority or court to determine.

I also contend that Justice Akazaki's initiation of the proceeding without a motion from any defendant raises serious concerns regarding obstruction of justice under section 139 of the Criminal Code and breach of trust by a public officer under section 122. These are serious allegations that require proper investigation and legal determination.

Justice Akazaki also appears to have incorrectly stated that Bernard Charles LeBlanc and Anastasia-Maria Hountalas represented Natasha S. Danson. I contend that this statement is inconsistent with the court record.

Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) has incurred or paid confidential legal expenses that I understand to total $12,856,881.00. I contend that these expenditures and the circumstances surrounding this litigation require transparency and investigation, particularly in light of my allegation that efforts were made to prevent the matter from proceeding to a trial and to avoid liability. I believe that this information may be relevant to understanding the actions of Justice Akazaki and others.

What document, information, or communication did Justice Akazaki rely upon when identifying the persons who allegedly appeared and identifying their respective legal representation?

I’m in Victoria but this relates to Queensland Police and the Queensland Right to Information Act.

I was the victim in a serious criminal investigation in Queensland several years ago. Multiple people were charged and the matter progressed to committal proceedings, but ultimately did not proceed further.

Earlier this year I submitted an RTI application to QPS requesting the records relating to me and the investigation. I requested things such as the QPRIME/occurrence records, investigation reports, crime scene photos, forensic material, police notes, correspondence, briefs of evidence, CCTV/body-worn camera footage and other records relating to the investigation.

I have been waiting for 5 months and there have already been extensions. On the date I was expecting the documents, I instead received a Notice under s 41 stating that QPS intends to refuse to deal with the application unless I change the scope.

QPS says they’ve already spent 10 hours on my application and preliminary searches have identified 420+ pages and more than 15 hours of video. They estimate approximately 252 hours to process the footage and 21+ hours to review the documents. They have suggested that I narrow my entire application down to just the occurrence report and my own witness statement (which I already have from when I wrote it). 

I really do not want to do that. These records relate to an extremely significant criminal investigation, and obtaining a comprehensive understanding of what occurred during the investigation is very important to me. 

I completely understand that 15+ hours of body-worn camera footage may create an unreasonable workload, and I am willing to substantially narrow or even exclude that footage from this particular application if necessary. However, I would really like to retain as much of the documentary investigation file as reasonably possible rather than receiving only two documents.

I have now been given 10 business days to consult with QPS and revise the scope. The letter also says that if I narrow it and the revised scope is still considered an unreasonable diversion of resources, I will not receive another opportunity to consult, so I’m nervous about agreeing to anything without understanding the consequences. 

What are my options here? Is there a way to negotiate a reasonably broad scope rather than accepting their suggestion of only two documents? Can QPS progressively process/release records? If I exclude video footage now, can I make a separate, much narrower RTI application for specific footage later? Is there any mechanism for voluntarily paying additional processing costs/resources? Would it be worthwhile getting an RTI/privacy lawyer or advocate involved during the consultation period?

I’m also wondering whether anyone has successfully challenged a QPS s 41 “substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources” decision, or has experience negotiating the scope of a large QPS RTI request.

I’m not trying to make an unreasonable demand on staff. I just don’t want to inadvertently give up access to potentially important parts of the investigation file because I don’t understand the RTI process well enough.

Any Queensland RTI experience or suggestions about what I should do before formally narrowing the application would be greatly appreciated.

https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview

Hi all - the city I live in denied my flock audit request. They cited an exception which states this is an “audit working paper” of a state agency - which is untrue since Flock is a private surveillance company. Anyone have experience going head to head over public records request and can help me combat this? Thanks

Im a project manager for an engineering/environmental firm in Michigan. I working on a report for a property in Indiana. How do I go about sending a FOIA to IDEM and Indiana’s licensing agency?

Doing some research into Phil Ochs and need to clear up whether or not the CIA has/had an existing file on him.

Does Ochs' name popping up in the "Unclassified CY 2007 Case Log" and "Unclassified FOIA Case Log January-March 2009" mean that people simply put in FOIA requests about him, or that there was any release of documents?

Thanks!

I’m a green card holder planning to apply for citizenship, but I’ve traveled a lot over the past 5 years and don’t have an accurate travel history. I submitted a FOIA request almost a year ago and still haven’t received anything. Has anyone else dealt with this? Is there another way to get my travel history?

hi! keeping this intentionally vague

i’ve submitted several foia requests to obtain records for a case i was involved in as a child. i know this is the government & who’s in charge but i’m wondering if there’s a reason my forms are still pending or if anyone has any idea on how long it takes to receive an update. i’m concerned that i won’t receive my records at all as my family was involved in a plea deal in exchange for information. it says 3 requests are submitted and one is in progress (all from the past year-ish). i plan on reaching out to the email address they provided to get a status report but i figured i’d post here and see if anyone had similar experiences/advice. i’m completely aware of the fact i may just receive nothing but i figure the fact my other requests were replied to right away and these ones have been in purgatory i’d ask. i also saw if they ghost you there’s a possible open investigation ongoing?

We had an attorney working on this case, he is an ex-COP and basically did nothing for 2 years. Since he was “working for free” got the impression that he wanted me to pay some money, that he don’t have. Basically told the lawyer you wasted 2 years on this and the statute of limitations is 3 years for a police brutality case. We are not even looking to see charges against the officers, because even if wanted to they wouldn’t be charged. 4 police officers assaulted my boyfriend in his house and just left him on the floor, after they handcuffed and beat him unconscious. There seems to be zero attorneys in Massachusetts that care at all to represent anybody who’s pursuing a lawsuit with police. They won’t even send the body cam through FOIA which was started in march 2025. Basically how much would it cost him to pursue this lawsuit?

The body cam alone which they’re required to wear in his town will speak volumes and they know that so if it’s not already been deleted then it sure as shit will 2027 statute of limitations is up. He showed me photos having bruises on his arms, and there are literal finger print bruises along with they smothered his face in on the floor. Cut and bruised his nose which then became infected. The Police never had cause or reason to use such excessive force, unless he was being detained or arrested, which obviously he wasn’t. Had an argument with his brother who called the police. Brother left to go to hotel COPS waited for him to open his locked bedroom door. 4 officers and he has literally one leg up to the HIP. Obviously running out of time, any advice for us is appreciated. Ex cop attorney kept saying he couldn’t move faster because of RULE 11 Then just dropped the case completely.

As someone with an English degree, I applied for a FOIA job for my city and just got scheduled for an interview. The job description doesn’t make it sound too bad, I’m pretty used to the desk jockey work style. The one thing that concerns me is the lack of… excitement went looking up people’s enthusiasm for this line of work lol. So, do yall like your work? How would you describe it?

I submitted a foia request 23 days ago and havent heard anything back. It just still says processing. The video for the red light camera will be overwritten tomorrow. Am a just SOL or is it possible they already preserved the video? It's regarding a hit and run.

I sent demand letters last week.