Chris Horner responds to the EPA statement today on the question of them running a black-ops program

Earlier today I posted this story linking to the IBD editorial:

Is the EPA running a black-ops program?

I got this direct email statement from the EPA, to which Horner responds.

This email was sent directly to me this morning, my comments follow.

============================================================

From: Johnson.Alisha@xxxxxx.epa.gov
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:16 AM
To: awatts@xxxxxx.xxx
Subject: EPA Statement

Want to make sure you have EPA’s statement on your story this a.m. This is attributable to EPA, the Agency.

For more than a decade, EPA Administrators have been assigned two official, government-issued email accounts: a public account and an internal account. The email address for the public account is posted on EPA’s website and is used by hundreds of thousands of Americans to send messages to the Administrator. The internal account is an everyday, working email account of the Administrator to communicate with staff and other government officials.

Given the large volume of emails sent to the public account –more than 1.5 million in fiscal year 2012, for instance – the internal email account is necessary for effective management and communication between the Administrator and agency colleagues.

In the case of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, both the public and internal accounts are reviewed for responsive records, and responsive records from both accounts are provided to FOIA requesters.

=============================================================

That may be so, but it doesn’t explain these things.

1. Why is the account named “Richard Windsor” instead of something like headadmin.internal@internalmail.epa.gov

2. Why there’s no “Richard Windsor” listed at EPA

3. The reticence at making emails public, as required by law.

The EPA has failed to convince.

###

Now Chris Horner, the man behind the FOIA requests and lawsuit, sends this via email:

There’s a little more to the story than the anodyne “for more than a decade”, now isn’t there? See http://cei.org/legal-briefs/cei-v-epa-complaint-re-secret-accounts paras 2-5 incl FN 1 (or for a more detailed treatment, my book, which revealed these and the EPA memo acknowledging they found the problem, that the alias account was created with the active participation of Carol “I didn’t use my computer for email/I had my computer hard drive and backup tapes being sought in court erased” Browner, and that it oddly was set on “auto-delete” until discovered).

And, why it might be regarding Jackson, consider the following:

That’s nice of them to say that they search and produce from her alias account(s). Now we will allow them to prove it with the assistance of judicial supervision. In fact, for reasons I explain a little below (at “*”), specifically past, exposed practices by secretive bureaucrats looking to keep public information from the public, we do not in fact know and need to confirm whether EPA has been searching and producing “Richard Windsor” email as appropriate in response to FOIA requests for Lisa Jackson email. That is a key issue relating to the discovery of this practice (along with what Browner emails existed, but her copies of which, only, were destroyed due to the account’s auto-delete setting that was only corrected in 2008, and they did not bother to try and reconstruct them).

This will come out in our suit (http://cei.org/news-releases/cei-sues-epa-administrators-secret-email-account-related-records), or our subsequent Windsor-specific FOIA request, or the investigations instigated by the House chairmen (http://science.house.gov/press-release/members-question-use-secret-email-accounts-top-obama-administration-officials).

We do have information leading us to suspect they’ve been redacting the address, improperly, when the request/production would have revealed that it was her alias, while actually acknowledging that that is not a lawful application of FOIA by releasing it (thereby acknowledging the information is not in fact properly withheld) when the production would not indicate to the requester that it was Jackson’s (attached production).

* We need to recognize the possibility that EPA was not searching the account(s): if a non-Jackson employee conducted the search, they’d not know about them; if Jackson or her aide did it, it is possible they chose not to, rationalizing that, well, the requester could not have know about the account and so couldn’t possibly have been thinking of it when asking for records from her EPA email. This would not be inconsistent with recently exposed practices of activist bureaucrats.

For example, as I explain in detail (including the problems this has caused) in  The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information “Criminal” — irony alert: it was Jackson who called my FOIAing criminal — a major flaw with the way they implement FOIA is that the employee whose records are sought is the employee agencies task with producing potentially responsive records. They have the greatest incentive to hide records (as such, I suggest the first court we ask will conclude that all such searches are prima facie insufficient).

In one case, at NOAA, a senior official charged with leading the US involvement in the UN IPCC repeatedly failed to search for records or farm out requests for them, to staff who would possess responsive records, by stating that, really, any such records would have been produced or received by them while working for the UN (an IG affirmed, no, they weren’t). So any records in the office, well, they’d really be UN records (an IG affirmed, no, they wouldn’t). They pulled this for years, as an Inspector General acknowledged and condemned, until I called them on it. Soon, this now-former senior employee’s home computer and email account were being searched by the IT chief in response to my FOIA for “IPCC” records.

Now, with that said, note that I possess FOIA’d Jackson email showing that the Agency on at least one occasion has withheld her address. Possible reasons include, e.g., it is an alias account (“Windsor”, or other), another EPA account in her name but not her public one, or her personal account (which we’ve established this team widely also use for sensitive comms). This came in a 2010 production to Judicial Watch of several emails with Jackson’s address redacted, citing the (b)(2) exemption, claiming that the address relates to an “Internal Personnel Rule (or) Practice”. That is improper/unlawful. It is just secretive.

About these ads
This entry was posted in EPA, FOI, Government idiocy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Chris Horner responds to the EPA statement today on the question of them running a black-ops program

  1. Lance Wallace says:

    Both links in Horner’s fourth paragraph (beginning “This will come out…”) are broken.

  2. John Day says:

    Of course nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but why did you say “…but it doesn’t explain two things” but you listed three things?

  3. omnologos says:

    Funny to see this happen on the back of 28Gate. FOI legislation had been a long-standing leftist dream. Check who celebrated its coming into law both in the USA and the UK.

    Also remember who helped Wikileaks get the story out. Now outlets like The Guardian drown in hypocrisy having published not a single piece of news from the Palin emails but keeping mum and coward pretending 28Gate is not news.

    Likewise the Great EPA is reduced under Obama to humiliating half-ways in its desperate attempt at concealing itself.

    I have learnt to pre-judge these situations. Any attempt at hiding is a confession of malfeasance against ethics if not against the Law.

  4. Zeke says:

    Best wishes to Chris Horner in this important inquiry. It would be most interesting to read her emails from the Rio +20 meetings with foreign governments and officials.

  5. oldseadog says:

    The fact that they sent you an e-mail shows that they, EPA, think WUWT is now important enough to communicate with on an official basis.
    The content indicates that they are rattled.
    I wonder if they will explain the 3 points you make.

  6. Berényi Péter says:

    So. Lisa Jackson used an internal email account nicknamed “Richard Windsor” for effective management and communication with colleagues, did she? I am looking forward to such time when she’ll be forced to explicate the issue under oath.

    “Crossing a bluff when he [Richard Windsor] was with Lewis, he slipped and fell. Lewis ran to the edge and told him to dig his knife in and climb up. He did so, and escaped death.”

    Would she escape likewise, digging her knife in?

  7. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    Add your thoughts here… (optional)

  8. Coach Springer says:

    They did not say that Windsor was the name of either one of the two official accounts. They just said that two official accounts are provided for two different purposes.

    They certainly don’t explain why it makes any sense whatsoever to name either one of the official accounts Richard Windsor. Is Richard the pet name amongst the whole staff or is it just what the White House calls her? Or was it just the one she used to proofread CIA intellgence reports for Gen. Petraeus while sending shirtless photos of herself to Eric Holder? Sorry, the higher the BS, the higher my sarcasm level.

  9. knr says:

    Just who do they think they are kidding , the idea its ‘normal’ to have a second e-mail but using another name its really nonsense . Its interesting to speculate how many other used this ‘idea ‘ and how many other times FOI requests are be by passed by using the ‘we looked under the name you give us ‘ trick which this is clearly designed to make use of .

  10. beesaman says:

    So no problems in this era of transparency of handing over the emails then?

  11. Chuck Nolan says:

    I’m sure Holder will jump right on this as soon as he finishes the Fast and Furious case.
    cn

  12. john robertson says:

    Did something change at WUWT? I am experiencing weird effects like being unable to exit an opened article. Like this one it will not clear my screen.

    [no . . . mod]

  13. oldseadog says:

    John Day:
    Where does it say “two things”?
    I am reading “these things”.

  14. StuartMcL says:

    The “Richard Windsor” seems slightly irrelevant to me, it is just the “Display Name” for the email account. What I haven’t seen published anywhere is the actual email address. What is far more important is whether that address is @epa.gov and is it indicative of the position of the recipient.

    Anyone know?

  15. RockyRoad says:

    It would be laughable were it not so damn serious.

    (Excuse the French–it was the most polite word I could come up with.)

  16. Brad says:

    There is not a boogeyman behind every discrepancy, and making every one into a big deal will make any issues you do find smaller. I would recommend moving on, this seems petty.

  17. Tom O says:

    I don’t “buy” the explanation of the internet account. If I was running an email server for, say, 10,000 “public” listings, does that mean I would not use that same email system for running an additional 10,000 “in house” lisitngs? I don’t buy it. The setting up of an off government server email account, assuming that is what it was, is not to allow private communications within the agency as that could be done with intranet accounts. There has to be another reason, and that certainly would have nothing to do with accountability.

  18. Vincent says:

    The comments by Chris Horner sound incoherent. If he wants to stand up in court it would be better if what he said was intelligible.

    I’m on his side of the fence, but I don’t follow what he is trying to say. If a jury cannot either, what then?

  19. beesaman says:

    Dead easy Brad if there is nothing to hide then the emails will be released or?

  20. mfo says:

    “…why it makes any sense whatsoever to name either one of the official accounts Richard Windsor…”
    Lisa Jackson lives in East Windsor, New Jersey. Scroll down to ‘Notable People’-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Windsor_Township,_New_Jersey

  21. Steve McIntyre says:

    I agree with Coach Springer here. “They did not say that Windsor was the name of either one of the two official accounts. They just said that two official accounts are provided for two different purposes.”

    One always has to watch the pea. They said: “For more than a decade, EPA Administrators have been assigned two official, government-issued email accounts: a public account and an internal account.” It defies credulity that EPA would have assigned as her “internal account” an account in the name of Richard Windsor.

    It would be nice to see all documents pertaining to the assignment of Jackson’s internal account and any documents in which Jackson notified the FOI administrators of this external account.

  22. Robert A. Taylor says:

    The EPA answered two of your questions:

    “… The internal account is an everyday, working email account of the Administrator to communicate with staff and other government officials.”

    “1. Why is the account named “Richard Windsor” instead of something like headadmin.internal@internalmail.epa.gov?”

    Because any such standard account terminology would allow quick discovery, and clogging of the account with extraneous e-mails; “more than 1.5 million in fiscal year 2012”, for example, making the account useless for everyday internal use.

    2. Why there’s no “Richard Windsor” listed at EPA?
    There is no such person there, and listing the account would allow clogging with e-mails that should go to the public account as above.
    Ask the EPA directly, and see what they reply.
    Provided the EPA responds promptly and correctly with the FOI request, I see no substantial wrongdoing.

    But, KEEP THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE.

  23. more soylent green! says:

    Brad says:
    November 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm
    There is not a boogeyman behind every discrepancy, and making every one into a big deal will make any issues you do find smaller. I would recommend moving on, this seems petty.

    Actually, no it’s not. It seems to be an attempt to keep the public uninformed and it certainly appears to be illegal.

    This is an administration that from the top down has no regard to the letter of the law. The motto seems to be “try, lie and deny” until the story just fades away.

  24. Feel free to move on Brad, some of us will take our chances seeing this play out.

  25. Alvin W says:

    Re: StuartMcL at 12:15. I recall in dealing with phish/spam there is a header which on Yahoo
    looks like a gear cog which when you click (I don’t remember right or left) will display a lot of
    information on the actual sender. Hope it helps.

  26. Sean says:

    Has everyone filed a complaint with the FBI on their tip page yet?

    The more complaints they get the harder it will be to sweep this under the carpet.

    We have to get smart at using the Obama tactics of community organizing and using the system against itself.

    [Reply: Link to tip page would be helpfuul. — mod.]

  27. phlogiston says:

    OT, but the BOM Nino 3.4 SST index is currently 0.12 degrees and falling, for more than a week:

    The Nino 3 index has just fallen below zero:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml

    But the WUWT ENSO dial shows the value just increased from 0.5 to 0.7 degrees. Do we have a closet warmist controlling this dial?

  28. mfo says:

    The name ‘Richard’ in Richard Windsor could be from Richard Nixon who founded the EPA.

  29. Jan says:

    Because any such standard account terminology would allow quick discovery, and clogging of the account with extraneous e-mails; “more than 1.5 million in fiscal year 2012”, for example, making the account useless for everyday internal use.

    Are they not capable of blocking external addresses from accessing their internal system?

  30. Gamecock says:

    Reading between the lines in Ms. Alisha’s note, it is clear to me that there are more email accounts. 3, 4, who knows?

  31. Brad says November 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm ” … making every one into a big deal will make any issues you do find smaller… recommend moving on, this seems petty. …”

    Many will understand your good intentions. But back in 1972, the weird instance of some inept burglars caught at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex initially seemed like a petty thing to unravel, too.

  32. Random Thoughts says:

    Typical liberal dodge. Don’t answer the question asked but give a response that can only be labeled non-responsive. This is the world where everything depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.

  33. troe says:

    An earlier post alluded to the sublime irony here… The Left championed and celebrated FOIA. Like land reform they like it less looking back from the heights. Keep pressing.

  34. Bill from Ottawa says:

    Lisa Jackson alias Richard Windsor analysis

    When someone is trying to hide their identity, they may pick a name that has the same number of letters in their first name and the same number of letters in their last name. As an example, Windsor has 7 letters in the name as does Jackson. Now for the first name there’s a problem. Richard is 7 letters similar to Windsor, but Lisa has only 4 letters. The EPA email admin is very sneaky, but I think I figured it out. First I had to try and shorten Richard down to 4 letters…..thinking…..thinking…How about Dick. Ya, I think Dick would work.
    /sarc off

  35. slow to follow says:

    Given the spam which internet published email ids attract, it would be interesting to know how many of those 4000 or so emails a day were actual correspondence either making a point or requiring a response. It would also be interesting to know how many of them received a simple “email received” acknowledgement, a standard response to a predefined category of query and how many actually required a personalised reply. Additinally for each case it would be interesting to know the EPA email accounts involved in the reply chain.

    Presumably a well structured FOI request can reveal all this, along with a separate simple FOI: “What are the two official, government-issued email accounts in use by the Administrator?”

    (maybe some of these points are covered already but the links in the story didn’t work for me)

  36. John Whitman says:

    From: Johnson.Alisha@xxxxxx.epa.gov
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:16 AM
    To: awatts@xxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: EPA Statement

    That email from the EPA does not say that the ‘Richard Windsor’ potentially aliased address belonged to either of the EPA email systems mention in it. The EPA email does not preclude that the potentially aliased ‘Richard Windsor’ address is from a third email system outside of the EPA’s domain (like gmail or hotmail, etc.).

    If the intent of that EPA email was to provide assurance to skeptics that the EPA is open in the issues at hand and can be trustworthy, then the email failed its purpose. That email worsened the EPA situation in my view.

    Further parallel investigations should proceed; by the media, the US House of Representatives, CEI and the skeptical blogosphere. Maybe also investigation by the FBI if it is within its charter, I do not know if it is.

    John

  37. Jan says:

    In the case of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, both the public and internal accounts are reviewed for responsive records, and responsive records from both accounts are provided to FOIA requesters.

    Yes, Random Thoughts, it seems like a dodge. According to “the Agency” FOIA requests generate review of the official government assigned accounts for responsive records. The question then becomes, “Is richardwindsor@… the assigned official internal government account for Lisa Jackson?” If so, it presumably would be searched. If not, I assume by the wording of the email from Johnson.Alisha@… it would not be searched.

    I’m also assuming that Johnson.Alisha@. . . is the ‘public’ email account. Not that it matters but I wonder what delightfully phoney name she has chosen for her internal account. If everybody at the EPA has an unrelated alias, it must be an awfully confusing. If I worked there, I’d make sure to be AngelinaJolie@ …

  38. Pat Frank says:

    Good point, John. The EPA email from Ms. Johnson is consistent with a classic misdirect, in which the question answered is not the question asked. She didn’t address at all the question of whether Lisa Jackson’s “Richard Windsor” email account was in fact licit, or an official internal EPA account belonging to Lisa Jackson (or anyone else).

  39. slow to follow says:

    John Whitman – my impression of the EPA mail was that it was taking a “protect the organisation” position, not a “protect Richard Windsor” position . .

  40. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:

    Looks like as a standard protocol FOI requests should probably include a statement that says something inclusive like (records under all email addresses used or monitored by xx) when requesting email as part of the requests.

    Larry

  41. Rober A. Taylor says:

    On question 3; HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE.

    IF RICHARD WINDSOR IS THE OFFICIAL INTERNAL ACCOUNT, and they are actually answering your question, not just replying; It seems to me the EPA have substantially answered your first two questions, at least through implication.

    1. Why is the account named “Richard Windsor” instead of something like headadmin.internal@internalmail.epa.gov
    2. Why there’s no “Richard Windsor” listed at EPA

    The EPA wrote:

    … EPA Administrators have been assigned two official, government-issued email accounts: a public account and an internal account. The email address for the public account is posted on EPA’s website and is used by hundreds of thousands of Americans to send messages to the Administrator. The internal account is an everyday, working email account of the Administrator to communicate with staff and other government officials.

    I would suggest “Richard Windsor” is used instead of something like “headadmin.internal@internalmail.epa.gov” in order to discourage unauthorized access to the account. Any account constructed by some set method is more likely to be discovered and improperly used.

    I would also suggest Richard Windsor is not listed because there is no such person there, and the designation of the account is not public knowledge. Again to discourage improper use.

    I do not know the set up at EPA, but knowing the internal account’s designation could allow it to become useless by being overwhelmed by external e-mails, “… more than 1.5 million in fiscal year 2012 …”.

    Again, IF RICHARD WINDSOR IS THE OFFICIAL INTERNAL ACCOUNT.

    Ask them directly if it is.

  42. Rober A. Taylor says:

    Moderator, if you can delete my previous post. I misspelled blockqoute.

    On question 3; HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE.

    IF RICHARD WINDSOR IS THE OFFICIAL INTERNAL ACCOUNT, and they are actually answering your question, not just replying; It seems to me the EPA have substantially answered your first two questions, at least through implication.

    1. Why is the account named “Richard Windsor” instead of something like headadmin.internal@internalmail.epa.gov
    2. Why there’s no “Richard Windsor” listed at EPA

    The EPA wrote:

    … EPA Administrators have been assigned two official, government-issued email accounts: a public account and an internal account. The email address for the public account is posted on EPA’s website and is used by hundreds of thousands of Americans to send messages to the Administrator. The internal account is an everyday, working email account of the Administrator to communicate with staff and other government officials.

    I would suggest “Richard Windsor” is used instead of something like “headadmin.internal@internalmail.epa.gov” in order to discourage unauthorized access to the account. Any account constructed by some set method is more likely to be discovered and improperly used.

    I would also suggest Richard Windsor is not listed because there is no such person there, and the designation of the account is not public knowledge. Again to discourage improper use.

    I do not know the set up at EPA, but knowing the internal account’s designation could allow it to become useless by being overwhelmed by external e-mails, “… more than 1.5 million in fiscal year 2012 …”.

    Again, IF RICHARD WINDSOR IS THE OFFICIAL INTERNAL ACCOUNT.

    Ask them directly if it is.

  43. Sean says:

    Make your complaint about Lisa and the EPA here at the FBI tip web page:

    https://tips.fbi.gov/

  44. John Whitman says:

    Pat Frank on November 20, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    – – – – – –

    Pat Frank,

    I agree.

    I am not being cynical right now when I suggest that email was crafted by legal council before being sent by ‘Johnson.Alisha’.

    I am not cynical yet, but with any more EPA communication obliqueness I will be.

    John

  45. Jan says:

    Robert A. Taylor, no matter how many times you write your explanation, it makes no sense to me that the EPA cannot control to limit outside access to internal email addresses. Can you explain this to me?

  46. Ian W says:

    So she is the head of the agency and they call her <Richard…..
    From a UK vernacular perspective, the juxtaposition of Richard and Head is very apt.

  47. John Whitman says:

    slow to follow on November 20, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    John Whitman – my impression of the EPA mail was that it was taking a “protect the organisation” position, not a “protect Richard Windsor” position . .

    – – – – –

    slow to follow,

    Agree.

    And the EPA ‘self-protection’ is from some illusory EPA imagined bogeyman. Are they circling the wagons? Why the need for blocking / delaying / evading FOI requests?

    The EPA needs a new leader and new mission with more openly verifiable mandates to look at all science and to cease the current over dependence on the biased info that is the so-called consensus science.

    John

  48. Owen in GA says:

    When I worked for the US federal government, I was very careful to only do official business on my .gov email address. If it was personal I did it on my hotmail account and if someone asked something work related I sent it to my .gov and answered it from there.

    I had to do 5 different searches for FOIA and 2 for lawsuit discovery in my 24 years. All seven were fishing trips for classified information from leftist groups, and I think I found one document that could be released and a whole bunch of excepted documents. (intelligence sources and methods stuff – we didn’t give that stuff out even in redacted form – don’t know what they are doing now days.) The fun part was we had to show the classified stuff to the lawyer [cleared] adjudicating the request to make sure we weren’t being overzealous.

    Compared to what we were dealing with, there shouldn’t be anything at the EPA that can’t be seen by anyone that asks, but they have always been a secretive bunch over at EPA. We tried to pry some chemical assays out of them once to verify some intelligence data against the science and it was like pulling teeth to get information out of them within the SAME GOVERNMENT!

  49. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Gee, what do you expect to find in these hidden emails? There’s probably just innocuous requests for information like:

    Which candidate in this specific election will best protect the environment per the EPA’s mandate?

    Which science authorities are advising this Democrat candidate?

    In return for providing campaign backing to this Democrat candidate advised by those progressive-left activist organizations supported by EPA per EPA’s mandate to support such organizations and individuals that support and advance EPA’s mission, which industries and/or companies will be benefiting that we can invest in?

    Sorry, that list wasn’t specific enough for our board. Just send us the list of companies the EPA is not planning on punishing until the next election and we’ll call it even, okay?

  50. Jeff Alberts says:

    Robert A. Taylor says:
    November 20, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    “1. Why is the account named “Richard Windsor” instead of something like headadmin.internal@internalmail.epa.gov?”

    Because any such standard account terminology would allow quick discovery, and clogging of the account with extraneous e-mails; “more than 1.5 million in fiscal year 2012”, for example, making the account useless for everyday internal use.

    Nonsense. Don’t know much about email systems, do ya.

    As a consultant, I worked on an IT project for a department VERY close to the White House (logistically, as well as geographically). Every one of the email addresses were based on the person’s name, from the mail room guys, to the administrator.

  51. Ch.E says:

    To answer the question, yes, it is most certainly possible to make certain email addresses inaccessible from the outside. There is no need to use sneaky aliases to prevent message overload. A proper firewall can simply bounce all emails to internal addresses.

    No cigar.

  52. Bill H says:

    If we learned anything from the EAU and those emails we would know that they will use any tactic to keep their agenda and lies hidden..
    \
    Then look at the tactics used by General Patreaus and his mistress where top secret info was sent.. and then stored on a private computer… one should get a real queasy feeling…

    The behavior is not a small instance or small practice.. It is wide spread and abusive to subvert FOIA laws..

  53. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Re previous comment:

    *sigh* Came up with odd spacing, last paragraph lost the italics…

    Note to self: Call out italics separately for each paragraph next time, see if it looks better.

  54. DirkH says:

    Brad says:
    November 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm
    “There is not a boogeyman behind every discrepancy, and making every one into a big deal will make any issues you do find smaller. I would recommend moving on, this seems petty.”

    Lisa, is that you?

  55. A. Scott says:

    EPA is clearly concerned – not only reaching out to Anthony, but also media such as Politico …

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84112.html?hp=r1

    At least we know the alleged reason for the name:

    “The name came from that of a family dog when Jackson lived in East Windsor Township, N.J., an EPA official said Tuesday”

  56. Billy says:

    If aliases were used for security/filtering then all authorised contacts would have to be issued with alias lists and the lists would have to be rolled over regularly, like the Enigma codes. It would be very cumbersome and ineffective, total nonsense. Filtering and secure login would be the way to go.
    Does anyone beleive the EPA and the gov’t use such childish system?

  57. pat says:

    A. Scott –

    thought u were joking til i read the politico piece. note it says:

    – “For more than a decade, EPA administrators have been assigned two official, government-issued email accounts: a public account and an internal account,” EPA said in a statement to POLITICO. “The email address for the public account is posted on EPA’s website and is used by hundreds of thousands of Americans to send messages to the administrator. The internal account is an everyday, working email account of the administrator to communicate with staff and other government officials.”
    High-ranking officials from George W. Bush’s EPA agree that the arrangement is nothing new, and say they were never under the impression that the internal account was a secret. Senior EPA leadership and EPA regional administrators had the email address, as did anyone to whom the administrator provided it, and the messages were all considered part of the public record.
    When it comes to public records and FOIA requests, “both the public and internal accounts are reviewed for responsive records, and responsive records from both accounts are provided to FOIA requesters,” EPA said. –
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84112.html#ixzz2CqPT3sAi

  58. More twists and turns than the plot of the ”Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” trilogy.

  59. ajstrata says:

    If you want to focus your search, request all email accounts for a person, not the name of the email address. Only Lisa Jackson has access to “Richard’s” email account. Request all accounts ‘owned, utilized and accessed for sending and receiving emails’. Make sure to request a list of email forwarding addresses. And request a search of all possible storage devices (e.g., crack-berries, personal PC’s that are forwarded to, office computers, laptop computers, file systems, etc).

  60. RichieP says:

    “Brad says:
    November 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm
    “There is not a boogeyman behind every discrepancy, and making every one into a big deal will make any issues you do find smaller. I would recommend moving on, this seems petty.””

    Thank you Brad. For most of us here, that probably confirms to us that it’s actually really important. And who do you work for then?

  61. Rob Crawford says:

    “There is not a boogeyman behind every discrepancy, and making every one into a big deal will make any issues you do find smaller. I would recommend moving on, this seems petty.”

    Weird… it was major news when people accused Karl Rove of having two email accounts…

  62. Gamecock says:

    I insist there’s another account. Richard Windsor ain’t it. No one would ever respond to an email from Richard. They’d see the name, wonder who it is, look it up in an agency directory, NOT FIND IT, then delete the email as bogus.

  63. Lars P. says:

    StuartMcL says:
    November 20, 2012 at 12:15 pm
    The “Richard Windsor” seems slightly irrelevant to me,

    I would suggest you setup your new work account at your office displaying “Roberta Windsor” instead your name and watch the results if you think it is irrelevant.

  64. Dave K says:

    I don’t know why the concern, it’s just her pornstar name:

    Pets name and area you lived.

    Cher Whitby x

  65. Michael W says:

    Those links in the text are broken because a parentheses was erroneously left in when the link was constructed. Paste it in your browser and delete the trailing parentheses and it is fine

Comments are closed.