[Asmodeus]

"Now, because of defects in the descriptions of the documents Lahr had requested that original request for documents has been voided... and his NEW request, with the corrected information, starts the FOIA statute of limitations running again. It is as though the first request did not occur."

Please provide the readers with your reference source URL.

[FormerLurker]

Please provide the readers with your reference source URL.

You're kidding, right? Since when have you EVER posted a reference link to anything other than your own website?

[Swordmaker]

"It is as though the first request did not occur."

Please provide the readers with your reference source URL.

Asmodeus. This is LOGIC 101.

The original suit was dismissed without prejudice. IT NO LONGER EXISTS. In the eyes of the court, it never happened. The Freedom of Information Act request that triggered the suit was flawed in that it did not specify certain things that have now been learned.

A NEW Freedom of Information Request (not an amendment of a previous request) demanding the release of named and described documents has been sent to the NTSB. This new request is NOT the same request as the first... and it will have its own initiation date with its own statute of limitations for follow-up.

In any case, because the case was dismissed without prejudice, an amended suit could be brought on the VERY SAME, ORIGINAL request if Lahr chooses. He has instead apparently decided to forego that option and file a new request based on information developed during the original request and suit.

[JohnFiorentino]

What is your keen interest in this subject anyway Asmodeus?........Lahr is PROCEEDING.......NTSB will respond favorably or not........he will then PROCEED further based on that response......end of story.

The only thing you're doing here (as usual) is taking up bandwidth by beating a dead horse.

Minutia is the keyword.