Initial Request

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 06146239
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: July 11, 2023
• Document Release Date: February 17, 2022
• Case Number: F-2014-02028
• Publication Date: January 14, 2014

Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 CO6146239
r 114 -0010 I I
Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts request:
To: Information and Privacy Coordinator
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, DC 20505
This is a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. � 552
and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. � 552a. This request should be considered under both statutes
to maximize the release of records.
REQUESTER INFORMATION
Name: J7 on Leopold
Address:
Email:
RECORDS SOUGTIT
I request disclosure of any and all records that were prepared, received, transmitted, collected and/
or maintained by the CIA mentioning or referring to the deceased person Jang Sung-taek (also
spelled Jang Sung-Taek Chang, Jang Seong-taek, alleAl, Chang Sifingt'aek,or
Song-t'aek). An obituary is attached.
Date of birth: January or February 1946
Place of birth: Kangwon-do, People's Republic of Korea
Date of death: December 13, 2013
Place of death: Pyongyang, North Korea
ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION
Jang Sung-taek was a leading figure in the government of North Korea. He was married to
Kim Kyong-hui, the only sister of former North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong-il and the
aunt of Kim Jong-un, the supreme leader of North Korea.
Although the precise extent of Jang Sung-taek's power and position cannot be confirmed,
in 2008 South Korean government officials and academic North Korea experts suggested
that he may have taken on de facto leadership over North Korea when Kim Jong-il's health
began declining and when Kim subsequently died. Jang was vice-chairman of the National
Defence Commission, a position considered second only to that of the Supreme Leader. It
is believed he was promoted to four-star general around the time of Kim Jong-il's death as
1
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
I
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239 1
his first appearance in uniform was while visiting Kim lying in state. Jang was considered a
"key policy adviser" to Kim Jong-un.
In December 2013, he was abruptly accused of being a counter-revolutionary and was
stripped of all his posts and expelled from the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK). His photos
were retroactively removed from official media and his image digitally removed from
photos with other Korean leaders. On December 13, 2013, North Korea state media
announced he had been executed.
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING
Under 32 C.F.R. 1900.34(c), a request is to be given expedited processing when "a
compelling need is established to the satisfaction of the Agency." A compelling need is deemed
to exist "[w]hen the request is made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information
and the information is relevant to a subject of public urgency concerning an actual or alleged
Federal government activity." 32 C.F.R. 1900.34(c)(2).
I am seeking expedited treatment for this request.
1. The requested information is relevant to a subject of public urgency concerning an actual
or alleged Federal government activity.
The requested information involves an actual Federal government activity �the CIA's
potential surveillance of a high-ranking foreign government official � and there exists an urgent
need to inform the public about this activity.
2. I am a person primarily engaged in disseminating information
I am a full-time member of the news media and as a contributor to Al Jazeera America,'
an Editor at Large for the online publication, The Public Record,2 and a widely published
independent investigative reporter who has had his journalism published in dozens of domestic
and international publications, I am a person primarily engaged in disseminating information.
3. Certification pursuant to 32 C.F.R. 1900.34(c)
I certify the foregoing to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I http://america.aljazeera.com/profiles/l/jason-leopold.html
2 www.pubrecord.org
2
pproved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
1.
Instructions Regarding "Leads":
As required by the relevant case law, the CIA should follow any leads it discovers during
the conduct of its searches and perform additional searches when said leads indicate that
records may be located in another system. Failure to follow clear leads is a violation of
FOIA.
2. Request for Public Records:
Please search for any records even if they are already publicly available.
3. Request for Electronic and Paper/Manual Searches:
I request that searches of all electronic and paper/manual indices, filing systems, and
locations for any and all records relating or referring to the subject of my request be
conducted. I further request that the CIA conduct a search of its "soft files."
4. Request for Search of Filing Systems, Indices, and Locations:
I request that the CIA conduct a search of all of its directorates. Specifically, I request
that the search conducted by the CIA include, but not be limited to, the following filing
systems, indices, and locations: Training Records; Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI)
Records; CIA Declassifications Center (CDC) External Liaison Records; Manuscript Review
Records; Security Operations Records; Information Release Records; Official Personnel
Files; Personnel Security Records; Polygraph Records; Office of the Director Action
Center Records; Office of General Counsel Records; Congressional Liaison Records; Public
Affairs Records; Inspector General Research Records; Inspector General Investigation
and Interview Records; Office of the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (DDCI)
for Community Management Records; Directorate of Science & Technology (DS&T)
Private Sector Contact Information; Alumni Communications Records; Directorate of
Operations Records; Academic and Business Contact Records; Customer Relations Records;
Research System Records; Intelligence Analysis Records; Guest Speaker Records; National
Intelligence Council (NIC) Records; Arms Control Records; CREST; employees' official files;
CIA's daily diary of its activity; and monthly progress reports.
Additionally, please search all of your indices, filing systems, and locations, including those
I have not specified by name and those of which I may not be aware.
3
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
5. Request regarding Photographs and other Visual Materials:
I request that any photographs or other visual materials responsive to my request be
released to me in their original or comparable forms, quality, and resolution. For example,
if a photograph was taken digitally, or if the CIA maintains a photograph digitally, I request
disclosure of the original digital image file, not a reduced resolution version of that image
file nor a printout and scan of that image file. Likewise, if a photograph was originally taken
as a color photograph, I request disclosure of that photograph as a color image, not a black
and white image. Please contact me for any clarification on this point.
6. Request for Duplicate Pages:
I request disclosure of any and all supposedly "duplicate" pages. Scholars analyze records
not only for the information available on any given page, but also for the relationships
between that information and information on pages surrounding it. As such, though certain
pages may have been previously released to me, the existence of those pages within new
context renders them functionally new pages. As such, the only way to properly analyze
released information is to analyze that information within its proper context. Therefore, I
request disclosure of all "duplicate" pages.
7. Request for Search of Operational Files:
I request that in conducting its search, the CIA include "operational files," as that term is
defined in 50 U.S.C. � 431(b).
8. Request to Search Emails:
Please search for emails relating to the subject matter of my request.
9. Request for Search of Records Transferred to Other Agencies:
I request that in conducting its search, the CIA disclose releasable records even if they are
available publicly through other sources outside the CIA, such as NARA.
10. Regarding Destroyed Records
4
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
If any records responsive or potentially responsive to my request have been destroyed,
my request include, but is not limited to, any and all records relating or referring to the
destruction of those records. This includes, but is not limited to, any and all records relating
or referring to the events leading to the destruction of those records.
INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING SCOPE AND BREADTH OF REQUESTS
Please interpret the scope of this request broadly. The CIA is instructed to interpret the
scope of this request in the most liberal manner possible short of an interpretation that
would lead to a conclusion that the request does not reasonably describe the records
sought.
EXEMPTIONS AND SEGREGABJLITY
I call your attention to President Obama's 21 January 2009 Memorandum concerning the
Freedom of Information Act, in which he states:
All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew
their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA [....] The presumption of
disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.3
In the same Memorandum, President Obama added that government information should
not be kept confidential "merely because public officials might be embarrassed by
disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or
abstract fears."
Finally, President Obama ordered that "The Freedom of Information Act should be
administered with a clear presumption: In the case of doubt, openness prevails."
Nonetheless, if any responsive record or portion thereof is claimed to be exempt from
production, FOIA/PA statutes provide that even if some of the requested material is
properly exempt from mandatory disclosure, all segregable portions must be released.
If documents are denied in part or in whole, please specify which exemption(s) is (are)
claimed for each passage or whole document denied. Please provide a complete itemized
inventory and a detailed factual justification of total or partial denial of documents. Specify
the number of pages in each document and the total number of pages pertaining to this
request. For "classified" material denied, please include the following information: the
classification (confidential, secret or top secret); identity of the classifier; date or event for
automatic declassification or classification review or downgrading; if applicable, identity of
official authorizing extension of automatic declassification or review past six years; and, if
3 President Barack Obama, "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,
Subject: Freedom of Information Act," 21 January 2009;
5
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
applicable, the reason for extended classification beyond six years.
In excising material, please "black out" the material rather than "white out" or "cut out." I
expect, as provided by FOIA, that the remaining non-exempt portions of documents will be
released.
Please release all pages regardless of the extent of excising, even if all that remains are the
stationery headings or administrative markings.
In addition, I ask that your agency exercise its discretion to release records which may be
technically exempt, but where withholding serves no important public interest.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING REQUEST
Please produce all records with administrative markings and pagination included.
Please send a memo (copy to me) to the appropriate units in your office to assure that no
records related to this request are destroyed. Please advise of any destruction of records
and include the date of and authority for such destruction.
FORMAT
I request that any releases stemming from this request be provided to me in digital format
(soft-copy) on a compact disk or other like media.
FEE CATEGORY AND REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER
I am willing to pay any reasonable expenses associated with this request, however, as the
purpose of the requested disclosure is in full conformity with the statutory requirements
for a waiver of fees, I formally request such a waiver. I request a waiver of all costs
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. �552(a)(4)(A)(iii) ("Documents shall be furnished without any
charge ... if disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to
contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the
government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester."). Disclosure
in this case meets the statutory criteria, and a fee waiver would fulfill Congress's legislative
intent in amending FOIA. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir.
2003) ("Congress amended FOIA to ensure that it be 'liberally construed in favor of waivers
for noncommercial requesters.").
Under 32 C.F.R. 1900.13(b), "Records will be furnished without charge or at a reduced rate
whenever the Agency determines... (2) That it is in the public interest because it is likely
to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the operations or activities of the
United States Government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester."
6
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Should my request for a fee waiver be denied, I request that I be categorized as a member
of the news media for fee purposes pursuant to 32 C.F.R. 1900.02(h)(3). According to
5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A)(ii), which codified the ruling of Nat'l Security Archive v. Dep't of
Defense, 880 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1989), the term "a representative of the news media"
means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment
of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and
distributes that work to an audience. This is consistent with the definition provided in 32
C.F.R. 1900.02(h)(3)
As the legislative history of FOIA reveals, "It is critical that the phrase 'representative of the
news media' be broadly interpreted if the act is to work as expected. ... In fact, any person
or organization which regularly publishes or disseminates information to the public...
should qualify for waivers as a 'representative of the news media." 132 Cong. Rec. S14298
(daily ed. Sept. 30, 1986) (emphasis in original quotation); and 2) "A request by a reporter
or other person affiliated with a newspaper, magazine, television or radio station, or other
entity that is in the business of publishing or otherwise disseminating information to the
public qualifies under this provision." 132 Cong. Rec. H9463 (Oct. 8, 1986) (emphasis in
original quotation)). Therefore, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and
relevant case law, I, Jason Leopold, should be considered a representative of the news
media.
The CIA's regulations list six factors which the agency must consider in assessing whether
a requester is entitled to a fee waiver: "(i) Whether the subject of the request concerns
the operations or activities of the United States Government; and, if so, (ii) Whether the
disclosure of the requested documents is likely to contribute to an understanding of
United States Government operations or activities; and, if so, (iii) Whether the disclosure
of the requested documents will contribute to public understanding of United States
Government operations or activities; and, if so, (iv) Whether the disclosure of the requested
documents is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of United States
Government operations and activities; and (v) Whether the requester has a commercial
interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure; and, if so, (vi) Whether the
disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester." 32 C.F.R. 1900.13(b)
(2). Because the disclosure of the requested documents would contribute significantly to
public understanding of United States Government operations and activities and I do not
have a commercial interest in the requested disclosure, my request for a fee waiver must
be granted.
I. DISCLOSURE OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE
IT IS LIKELY TO CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING
OF THE OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT.
A. The subject of the requested records concerns the operations and activities of the
CIA and broader government. The subject of the requested records concerns identifiable
operations and activities of the CIA and broader government, specifically the CIA's
7
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
potential surveillance of a high-ranking foreign government official.
B. The disclosure is likely to contribute to an understanding of government operations and
activities because the disclosable portions of the requested records will be meaningfully
informative about those operations and activities. The vast majority of disclosable
information is not already in the public domain, in either a duplicative or a substantially
identical form, and therefore the disclosure would add substantial new information to
the public's understanding of the CIA's monitoring of high-ranking foreign government
officials, as well as the role of Jang in the United States' relationship with North Korea.
The overwhelming preponderance of records I need to conduct my study are in the
possession of the CIA and not in the public domain.
C. The disclosure of the requested records will contribute to the increased understanding
of a broad audience of persons interested in the subject, rather than merely my own
individual understanding. Further, I will be collaborating with professionals who have
great expertise in the subject area, and I have the ability and intention to effectively convey
information to the public.
As explained herein in more detail, the audience likely to be interested in the subject is
broad, and includes, historians of modern American government, politics, culture, and
national security; journalists reporting on American politics, government, national security,
and society; civil liberties attorneys; and the general public.
i) I firmly intend to analyze the requested records in order to facilitate significant
expansion of public understanding of government operations. I am well qualified to
perform this analysis.
I spent three and a half years as lead investigative reporter of Truthout.org, a nonprofit
newsroom. I am currently an investigative journalist under contract with Al Jazeera
America. As a regular contributor to Al Jazeera America, I cover Guantanamo, national
security, counterterrorism, civil liberties, human rights and open government. Additionally,
I am editor-at-large for The Public Record. My reporting has previously appeared in The
Nation, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Salon, CBS Marketwatch, The Los
Angeles Times, and numerous other domestic and international publications.
As should be clear from the above, I have the ability and firm intention to disseminate to
the public significant expansions of understanding ofgovernment operations based on my
analysis of the requested disclosures.
ii) Additional Note on Journalistic Research and the Public Interest:
The case law on this matter is emphatically clear that journalistic inquiry alone satisfies the
FOIPA public interest requirement. National Treasury Employees Union v. Griffin, 811 F.2d,
644, 649 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
8
pproved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Further, as articulated in the amendments to FOIA established by the OPEN Government
Act of 2007, I solidly meet the applicable definition of "a representative of the news
media[.]" The OPEN Government Act of 2007 established that for FOIA purposes,
'a representative of the news media' means any person or entity that gathers
information of potential interest to the public, uses its editorial skills to turn
the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.
552(a) (4) (A) (ii)
Based on my completed and firmly intended research, analysis, and information
dissemination activities detailed at length herein, I clearly satisfy this description.
Further, the OPEN Government Act of 2007's definition of "a representative of the
news media" is taken nearly verbatim from language used by the United States Court of
Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit in the court's 1989 FOIA fee waiver-oriented ruling
in National Security Archive v. Department of Defense.4 As the court also relatedly found
in National Security Archive v. Department of Defense, a requester need not already have
published numerous works in order to qualify as a representative of the news media. The
court found that the express "intention" to publish or disseminate analysis of requested
documents amply satisfies the above noted requirement for journalists to "publish or
disseminat[e] information to the public." National Security Archive v. Department of
Defense, 880 F.2d 1386, (D.C. Cir, 1989). I have expressed a firm intention to continue
disseminating significant analysis of documents obtained through FOIPA requests. And I
have demonstrated my ability to continue disseminating significant analysis of documents
obtained through FOIPA requests.
Therefore, in that I am "person or entity that gathers information of potential interest
to the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work,
and distributes that work to an audience," I solidly meet the applicable definition of
"a representative of the news media." As such, I have again more than satisfied the
4 The language in National Security Archive v. Department of Defense reads, "A representative of
the news media is, in essence, a person or entity that gathers information of potential interest
to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn raw materials into a distinct work, and
distributes that work to an audience." National Security Archive v. Department of Defense, 880 F.2d
1381, 1387 (D.C. Cir, 1989).
9
pproved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
requirement for a fee waiver.5
D. The disclosure of the requested records is likely to contribute "significantly" to public
understanding of government operations and activities because disclosure would enhance
to a significant extent the public's understanding of the subject in question as compared to
the level of public understanding existing prior to the disclosure
i) See above Section I.
ii) As noted above, the overwhelming preponderance of records I need to conduct my study
are in the possession of the CIA and not in the public domain.
IL DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION IS NOT PRIMARILY IN MY COMMERCIAL
INTEREST.
Any commercial interest that I have which would be furthered by the requested disclosure
is de minimis.
I am requesting the release of records to analyze for use in the dissemination of news
articles. Though journalists do get paid for writing news articles, payment is not the
primary purpose for which such work is conducted. As the D.C. Circuit explained in
National Treasury Employees Union v. Griffin, 811 F.2d, 644,649 (D.C. Cir. 1987), "While
private interests clearly drive journalists (and journals) in their search for news, they
advance those interests almost exclusively by dissemination of news, so that the public
benefit from news distribution necessarily rises with any private benefit. Thus it is
reasonable to presume that furnishing journalists with information will primarily benefit
the general public[.]"
The disclosure of records will significantly benefit the public interest, and this benefit to
the public is of vastly greater magnitude than my minimal commercial interest.
5 Though the courts have subsequently narrowed the applicability of the National Security
Archive v. Department of Defense ruling in terms of requirements to qualify as a representative
of the news media (most notably in Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department OfJustice),
I still solidly satisfy even this narrowed understanding of "representative of the news media."
In contrast to Judicial Watch, I have clearly demonstrated a firm intention to disseminate to the
public my analysis of requested information. I have identified articles, an exhibit, and a book
within which I firmly intend to, and in some cases already have, disseminated my analysis of
requested information. I have identified other news media representative whom I have already
fruitfully provided my analysis of requested information, and with whom I firmly intend to continue
collaborating on future disseminations of requested information. Ultimately, in contrast to Judicial
Watch, which the court found to "merely make available [] the requested information," I have
established "a firm intention to disseminate" my analysis of the requested information. See Judicial
Watch, Inc. v. United States Department ofJustice, 185 F.Supp. 2d 54, 59 (D.D.C. 2002).
10
pproved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
The disclosure of records will significantly benefit the public interest, and this benefit to the
public is of vastly greater magnitude than my minimal commercial interest.
Additionally, the courts and the legislature have been deeply invested in ensuring that
FOIPA duplication and search fees are not used by government agencies to deliberately or
otherwise thwart legitimate scholarly and journalistic research:
This was made clear in Better Government Ass'n v. Department of State, in which the court
ruled that, "The legislative history of the fee waiver provision reveals that it was added to
FOIA 'in an attempt to prevent government agencies from using high fees to discourage
certain types of requesters, and requests,' in particular those from journalists, scholars and
nonprofit public interest groups." Better Government Ass'n v. Department of State, 780 F.2d
86, 89 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
This point is further elaborated in Ettlinger v. FBI,
The legislative history of the FOIA clearly indicates that Congress intended that
the public interest standard for fee waivers embodied in 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)
(A) be liberally construed. In 1974, Congress added the fee waiver provision as
an amendment to the FOIA in an attempt to prevent government agencies from
using high fees to discourage certain types of requesters and requests. The 1974
Senate Report and the sources relied on in it make it clear that the public interest/
benefit test was consistently associated with requests from journalists, scholars
and non-profit public interest groups. There was a clear message from Congress
that "this public-interest standard should be liberally construed by the agencies."
The 1974 Conference Report, in which differences between the House and Senate
amendments were ironed out, retained the Senate-originated public-interest
fee waiver standard and further stated "the conferees intend that fees should not
be used for the purpose of discouraging requests for information or as obstacles
to disclosure of requested information." Further evidence of congressional intent
regarding the granting of fee waivers comes from a 1980 Senate Subcommittee
report. The report stated that "excessive fee charges ... and refusal to waive fees in
the public interest remain... 'toll gates' on the public access road to information."
The report noted that "most agencies have also been too restrictive with regard to
granting fee waivers for the indigent, news media, scholars ..." and recommended
that the Department of Justice develop guidelines to deal with these fee waiver
problems. The report concluded: The guidelines should recommend that each
agency authorize as part of its FOIA regulations fee waivers for the indigent, the
news media, researchers, scholars, and non-profit public interest groups. The
guidelines should note that the presumption should be that requesters in these
categories are entitled to fee waivers, especially if the requesters will publish the
information or otherwise make it available to the general public.
The court, in its Ettlinger v. FBI decision, continued that on 18 December 1980, a
11
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
policy statement was sent to the heads of all federal departments and agencies
accompanied by a cover memorandum from then United States Attorney General
Civiletti which stated that he had "concluded that the Federal Government often
fails to grant fee waivers under the Freedom of Information Act when requesters
have demonstrated that sufficient public interest exists to support such waivers."
The Attorney General went on to state: Examples of requesters who should
ordinarily receive consideration of partial fee waivers, at minimum, would be
representatives of the news media or public interest organizations, and historical
researchers. Such waivers should extend to both search and copying fees, and in
appropriate cases, complete rather than partial waivers should be granted.
III. ALTERNATIVELY, THE AGENCY SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO GRANT A
FEE WAIVER.
Although I am entitled to a waiver of fees under 32 C.F.R. 1900.13(b)(2), even if I were
not entitled to fees under that provision the agency should grant me a fee waiver in
the exercise of its discretion. Pursuant to 32 C.F.R. 1900.13(b)(1), "as a matter of
administrative discretion, the interest of the United States Government would be served."
The agency should exercise its discretion here to award a fee waiver because release of the
documents would be in the interest of the United States Government for the reasons stated
above.
IV. CONCLUSION.
As demonstrated above, the disclosure of the requested records will significantly
contribute to expanded public understanding of government operations. I have the intent
and ability to disseminate this significant expansion of public understanding of government
operations. The public interest in this significant expansion of public understanding
of government operations far outweighs any commercial interest of my own in the
requested release. Accordingly, my fee waiver request amply satisfies the rules of 32
C.F.R. 1900.13(b). Legislative history and judicial authority emphatically support this
determination. For these reasons, and based upon their extensive elaboration above, I
request a full waiver of fees be granted. I will appeal any denial of my request for a waiver
of fees, and I will take the issue to the courts if necessary.
***
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this request.
Jason Leopol
12
tim nd att ntion to this matter.
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 C06146239
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 CO6146239
PLACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT
OF THE RETURN ADDRESS, FOLD AT DOTTED UNE
CERTIFIED MAIL.,
II
7012 3460 0003 0275 7421
1000
Tri4r6f,g(iN-16i4. /4-p 17 MC/ (001.014,9
I 5:1-i-ft(l(ryN
AiNt ,
II
II iI
I T II I
20505
i(
U.S. POSTAGE
co.in4J-r
$61.97
0009d674-10
CT
CD
Approved for Release: 2021/12/06 CO6146239