Posted on 08/19/2008 12:57:43 PM PDT by SmithL
Is that a real interview or some kind of spoof?
Unfortunately the problem here is that although the University has custody, it does not “own” the papers yet. Think of this as the contents of a safe deposit box, you valuables are in the custody of the bank, but they do not have ownership of the contents of the box.
Whether or not you like it, there are legalities involved in this. Because the university does not yet “own” the papers, they are NOT subject to the state of Illinois FOIA laws.
I have spent the last 10 years dealing with FOIA and am writing from experience, not from political position.
The records are in a cardboard box with Clintons medical files and Kerrys military discharge.
....There are several important unanswered questions here.
1) On what basis would a public university, after agreeing to allow Dr. Kurtz access to the Annenberg Challenge archives in its possession, alert the donor of the documents?
The only possible answer is that somewhere along the chain of command someone set off an alarm bell because of the conservative affiliations of Dr. Kurtz.
2) Is it merely coincidence that one of the board members of the Annenberg Challenge was Stanley Ikenberry, a former University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) President and currently Regent Professor and President Emeritus of the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) College of Education?
3) Did the general counsel of the university invent the excuse that absent a “deed of gift” the university could not claim possession of the archives?
4) How could the University make a detailed “finding aid” available to Dr. Kurtz for a collection that it did not legally possess?
Finding aids are detailed outlines of the archival material prepared by a library staff to aid researchers in their work. They are prepared only at the end of the “process” by which donated materials come into the legitimate possession of the library. There would be no reason to prepare a finding aid, now fortunately in the possession of Dr. Kurtz, unless the material was legitimately in the library's possession....
Of course, the larger question here is - why the concern? why the alarm bells? why the cover-up? is it simply because Dr. Kurtz is with National Review, the conservative magazine founded by William F. Buckley?
One remaining possibility, of course, is that somehow word that there was interest in the materials was leaked to Bill Ayers, who conceived of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, co-authored the original successful $49.2 million grant proposal, and then co-chaired the key operative body of the CAC, the Chicago School Reform Collaborative. The original CAC offices were housed in the same building as Ayers’ office, rent free courtesy of the University. That was also where Ayers housed his Small Schools Workshop, headed by his old SDS buddy, the Maoist Mike Klonsky, which received a $175,000 grant from, you guessed it, the CAC, whose board was chaired by Barack Obama.
Ayers has been pretty mum of late and maybe quite nervous about the possibility that a close look at the day to day records of the CAC will reveal more about what I have already found out: that he and Barack Obama had a close working relationship during the life of the CAC. The CAC actively and aggressively intervened in a major political war going on in Chicago in the mid 90s over school reform - against the goals of the powerful Chicago mayor, Richard Daley.
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/08/annenberg-gate-its-not-crime-its-cover.html
PING!
He's a good man -- proof that there are still some liberals of principle out there.
Stalinist coverup. Of course they were for leaking the Pentagon Papers. All depends on which documents they want revealed.
It was above the Red Tape Czar’s pay grade to answer the friggin’ question about the cover up... < /S >
The bank is a private institution that you pay money to every month to hold your safety deposit box. If this person had wanted to put them into a safety deposit box, he would have.
He has given the posession of them to the university which receives taxpayer money. It is a public institution. And the owner has not “paid” the storage for these materials, some universities even PAY for materials.
So this is really apples and oranges when it comes to the banking analogy.
The copyright matter is something else altogether.
How many other documents have been released to the press without securing proper clearance (legal or otherwise)?
Again, discuss in context with the Pentagon Papers or the judge who cleared the bootlegging and sale of the STOLEN Pamela Anderson video because “it was newsworthy”.
Your privacy and your copyright may not have a block on something that is “newsworthy”.
And reading something that is not a matter of national security or sealed legal proceeding is not a violation of copyright (even if it would violate copyright to make a copy of it). Sit in the room at the university and read the materials. That is being denied too.
“What are the odds we will get to see these documents before the election??”
How far can you spit up-wind in a hurricane?
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/19/annenberg-gate-its-not-the-crime-its-the-cover-up/#more-4270
The bank analogy I used was to give a sense of what is involved with the law in this matter.
Until the University has full ownership of the collection, it has to abide by the access rules the donator of the collection made when it was deposited at the University. Right now the University is the custodian of the documents, not the owner, and thus must abide by any agreement it made with the owner until the ownership is transferred, whether or not you or I like this. Perhaps a better analogy would be to compare whether or not Presidential advisors should be exempt from being forced to testify to Congress about the advice they gave to the President. Dems want Dem advisors to be exempt but want Repub advisiors to have to testify, and vice-versa. The reality here being if a president of either party gives in then a precident has been set. In this case the University will be setting the precident that it will not abide by the agreements it made with the owners of the donated collections.
Right now they’re locked in a vault with John Kerrey’s 180 and Bill Clinton’s State Department file.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.