#eastsussexcountycouncil — Public Fediverse posts

https://www.europesays.com/gbr/esx/1124/ East Sussex carbon emissions target could be scrapped #ClimateChange #EastSussex #EastSussexCountyCouncil #ReformUK

The question everyone is asking

Under Public Law 119–38 (Nov. 19, 2025), records relating to Jeffrey Epstein’s detention or death—including internal communications—are subject to disclosure requirements. The law specifies that records may not be withheld or redacted for reasons such as avoiding embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.

To oigfoia, CRM.FOIA, oversightgop, olaf-fmb, oversight.republicans, oversight.democrats, oversight_committee, oversight_clerks, oversight.gop.119, oversightpress

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General   &  DOJ

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to request clarification and, if necessary, to formally appeal the redactions applied to documents identified as EFTA01656139–41, which include an email chain dated July 6, 2021 referencing an individual identified as “Epstein.”

The records contain statements including “Epstein does live in Colorado” and references to coordinating a debrief and contacting counsel. However, the identity of the individual referred to as “Epstein” appears to be redacted or otherwise obscured.

Under Public Law 119–38 (Nov. 19, 2025), records relating to Jeffrey Epstein’s detention or death—including emails and internal communications—are subject to disclosure requirements. The law explicitly states that records may not be withheld or redacted for the purpose of avoiding embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.

While I recognize that limited redactions may be permissible under specific exemptions (e.g., personal privacy, active investigations, or properly classified material), I request that your office clarify:

1. Whether the “Epstein” referenced in EFTA01656139–41 is Jeffrey Epstein (deceased August 10, 2019) or a different individual;
2. The specific legal basis (FOIA exemption or statutory authority) used to justify any redaction of identifying information;
3. Whether the redactions comply with the segregation and justification requirements outlined in Public Law 119–38, including written justification where applicable.

If the redacted information does not fall within a valid exemption, I respectfully request that the records be re-reviewed and released in a less-redacted form.

This request is made in the interest of ensuring compliance with federal transparency requirements and accurate public understanding of the records.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warm regards,
Martin Newbold
http://www.martinnewbold.co.uk
 www.thestealingofemily.co.uk stealingofemily.world

Attachments

Type your email…

Subscribe

Related Posts

• The question everyone is asking
• More Epstein Flight Data
• Implications of McSweeney’s Phones how does it impact with missing children.
• Emily’s Case: A Family’s Fight for Truth
• Sussex Police will not investigate missing people

This is a pretty frequent occurrence all over the place. Some negative experience with East Sussex, but in neighbouring Kent it's truly abysmal - both blocked access issues but more noticeably missing/broken signposting, stiles and wooden bridges. #walking #countryside #EastSussexCountyCouncil #KentCountyCouncil #rightsofway https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67937253

[#Tory] #EastSussexCountyCouncil to continue using controversial #WeedKiller - #BBC News - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckmpgy1g137o #Environment #Carcinogenic #ToryPoliciesInAction #glyphosate