Bertram D. Wolfe v. Robert F. Froehlke, Secretary of the United States Army

D.C. Circuit

Bertram D. Wolfe v. Robert F. Froehlke, Secretary of the United States Army

510 F.2d 654, 166 U.S. App. D.C. 274, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6392

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 23, 1974

Docket73--1913

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 510 F.2d 654 (Bertram D. Wolfe v. Robert F. Froehlke, Secretary of the United States Army) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bertram D. Wolfe v. Robert F. Froehlke, Secretary of the United States Army, 510 F.2d 654, 166 U.S. App. D.C. 274, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6392 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, to obtain disclosure of the “Operation Keelhaul” file, generated in the 1940’s by Allied Force Headquarters (AFHQ) and now in the possession of the Department of Defense. The file concerns the forced repatriation of Russian citizens after World War II, and its disclosure is sought by three scholars who are presently conducting research on that subject. One of them, Julius Epstein, was unsuccessful in an earlier action to obtain disclosure of the file.

The matters at issue have been thoroughly canvassed by the District Court, which held that Appellants were not barred, as the Government argues, by principles of res judicata. The District Court, looking at the matter afresh, held that Appellants were not entitled to disclosure, for the documents requested fell within Exemption 1 of the Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1). We affirm on both issues on the basis of the reasoning found in the opinion of the District Court. Wolfe v. Froehlke, 358 F.Supp. 1318 (D.D.C. 1973).

We should add that Appellants sought from this court a remand that would require Army personnel to review all the documents in the file to determine whether any of them originated outside AFHQ. Appellants themselves set forth, as a statement of fact about which there is no genuine issue, that “[t]he documents at issue were originated in 1946 and 1947 by an international organization, the Allied Force Headquarters.” (A. 33) It is immaterial for, present purposes whether the documents were gathered in the first instance by officers of the United States Army, of the British Army, or, for that matter, by the Yugoslavs. When the Army received the copies of the documents now in its custody, 1 these documents were under the aegis of the AFHQ.

Appellants have also asked this court to defer consideration of this case pending the enactment of proposed amendments to § 552. The proposed amendments 2 would explicitly authorize the courts to inspect documents in camera even where the agency claimed an exemption under § 552(b)(1). Since the basis of the § 552(b)(1) exemption claimed by Appellees is not the nature of the withheld documents, but British failure to reclassify them, in camera review could add nothing relevant to the determination of this case. No purpose would be served by deferring our decision.

Affirmed.

1

. Indeed, the United States received only microfilm reproductions of the documents. The originals were given to the British government.

2

. S. 2543, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974); H.R. 12471, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, to obtain disclosure of the “Operation Keelhaul” file, generated in the 1940’s by Allied Force Headquarters (AFHQ) and now in the possession of the Department of Defense. The file concerns the forced repatriation of Russian citizens after World War II, and its disclosure is sought by three scholars who are presently conducting research on that subject. One of them, Julius Epstein, was unsuccessful in an earlier action to obtain disclosure of the file.

The matters at issue have been thoroughly canvassed by the District Court, which held that Appellants were not barred, as the Government argues, by principles of res judicata. The District Court, looking at the matter afresh, held that Appellants were not entitled to disclosure, for the documents requested fell within Exemption 1 of the Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1). We affirm on both issues on the basis of the reasoning found in the opinion of the District Court. Wolfe v. Froehlke, 358 F.Supp. 1318 (D.D.C. 1973).

We should add that Appellants sought from this court a remand that would require Army personnel to review all the documents in the file to determine whether any of them originated outside AFHQ. Appellants themselves set forth, as a statement of fact about which there is no genuine issue, that “[t]he documents at issue were originated in 1946 and 1947 by an international organization, the Allied Force Headquarters.” (A. 33) It is immaterial for, present purposes whether the documents were gathered in the first instance by officers of the United States Army, of the British Army, or, for that matter, by the Yugoslavs. When the Army received the copies of the documents now in its custody, 1 these documents were under the aegis of the AFHQ.

Appellants have also asked this court to defer consideration of this case pending the enactment of proposed amendments to § 552. The proposed amendments 2 would explicitly authorize the courts to inspect documents in camera even where the agency claimed an exemption under § 552(b)(1). Since the basis of the § 552(b)(1) exemption claimed by Appellees is not the nature of the withheld documents, but British failure to reclassify them, in camera review could add nothing relevant to the determination of this case. No purpose would be served by deferring our decision.

Affirmed.

1

. Indeed, the United States received only microfilm reproductions of the documents. The originals were given to the British government.

2

. S. 2543, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974); H.R. 12471, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 F.2d 654, 166 U.S. App. D.C. 274, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bertram-d-wolfe-v-robert-f-froehlke-secretary-of-the-united-states-army-cadc-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack