Well, a lot has happened, hasn’t it, since we last discussed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his falconry records only a couple of weeks ago. See “RFK Jr.’s Falconry Records Still Secret—For Now” (Sept. 6, 2024). Having dropped out of the presidential race (obviously because of the falconry scandal), Kennedy has endorsed Trump and started working on his campaign. Not coincidentally, Kennedy is fighting to get his name off the ballots in some states but also to get his name back on the New York ballot, the latter fight seeming especially unusual for somebody who’s not running. A reporter covering his campaign got suspended for not disclosing her relationship with him, which came to light partly because he bragged about all the nude photos she was sending; and a federal agency said it’s investigating allegations that Kennedy cut the head off an endangered whale with a chainsaw to add it to his skull collection.

And this is just in the last two weeks, so it doesn’t include stuff about the dead bear or anti-vaccine and chemtrail theories or anything more recent that I might have missed.

Well, most of this is none of my business, but especially since he’s trying to get back on the New York ballot I still want the falconry records (if any). You will recall that the agency denied my Freedom of Information Law request on the grounds that disclosing the information would be an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” and might “endanger the life or safety of any person.” It didn’t explain how falconry records might do that, instead just citing a 2005 decision in its favor. But it turns out that case involved a database containing a vast amount of personal information for each of 1.1 million people. I just want a handful of falconry reports filed by one guy. Or confirmation that he didn’t file any, which I suspect is the case. So I think I’m entitled to these records.

Thanks to reader and lawyer David Porter, who sent me a copy of a letter he wrote to the agency supporting my request. His letter correctly noted, among other things, that Kennedy has “firmly and vigorously placed himself in the public eye,” and also put the falconry records directly at issue by making them part of his residency claim and thereby “waived any right to confidentiality” for them. This is greatly appreciated. I’m certainly not suggesting a letter-writing campaign, even if I did coincidentally include the agency’s address in my previous article and now seem to have linked to that article again in this sentence. After all, most of you have probably sent a similar letter already but just didn’t copy me on it. Either way, don’t feel obligated.

While I’m not buying the agency’s explanation, such as it was, the prior request might have been too broad. I did send a follow-up email on that one, but have heard nothing. For both reasons, I decided to file a second and much narrower request, and in the interest of time, and not wanting to have to appeal, I included some legal analysis in this one:

Freedom of Information Law Request W136653-092324

Records Requested:

(1) Copies of any New York state falconry or hunting licenses issued to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., that were valid at any time after 2013.

(2) Copies of any annual New York state falconry reports filed by or on behalf of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., since 2013.

——————–

Because these requests concern a very limited amount of information pertaining to a single individual, they are consistent with New York precedent on the Department’s disclosure of similar records. See Goyer v. DEC, 12 Misc. 3d 261, 813 N.Y.S.2d 628 (2005).

In Goyer, the court upheld DEC’s denial of a request that sought a far broader range of personal information about all holders of a New York hunting, fishing, and trapping license (about 1.1 million people). Primarily because the information would include the residential addresses of those people, many of whom presumably kept firearms at those addresses, the court agreed that the request was an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy that posed a risk to life or safety. The court was also concerned that disclosure of the database sought in electronic form posed a risk of identity theft.

None of that is true of the very limited information sought here pertaining to a single person, especially under these unique circumstances.

Our understanding is that the only personal information contained in the requested documents would be (at most) a name, birth date, and/or address. Mr. Kennedy is a public figure whose name and birth date (Jan. 17, 1954), along with many other remarkably personal facts, are already public. As for his claimed New York addresses, a court has already found that Mr. Kennedy is not a New York resident and has not been since 2014 (when he moved to California), finding he had repeatedly and deliberately misstated his address when trying to qualify for the New York ballot and in proceedings before the court. Cartwright v. Kennedy, Index No. 906349-24 (Albany Supreme Court Aug. 13, 2024). He could hardly be put at risk by disclosure of past or incorrect addresses, locations where by definition he is unlikely to be found today. These addresses (including his California address) are also already public information, because Mr. Kennedy himself or others disclosed them as part of the Cartwright litigation. Disclosing them would not pose any additional risk to any person for that reason.

Further, the addresses (correct or otherwise) as set forth in the requested documents are a primary reason the documents are relevant. Mr. Kennedy is a former presidential candidate, and although he has suspended his campaign, he is still active in politics. In fact, he recently sought an emergency order to put his name back on the New York ballot, even though he is no longer running for president. Not coincidentally, he has also endorsed one of the remaining candidates, is working with that campaign, and might well be part of that candidate’s administration if elected. Mr. Kennedy also maintains a license to practice law in New York. Evidence that he is willing to misstate facts—including in court proceedings—is therefore material, and the requested documents are relevant to show that. Indeed, Mr. Kennedy himself pointed to his New York hunting and falconry licenses in support of his claim to be a New York resident. If he misstated facts regarding those licenses, or did not meet the requirements to hold valid licenses, that is relevant information.

In any event, as you know, it is not the requester’s burden to show disclosure is justified. An agency’s records are presumptively open to public inspection, without regard to need or purpose of the applicant; any exemptions are to be narrowly construed; and it is the agency’s burden to show the requested material qualifies for an exemption. Goyer, 12 Misc. 3d at 267. But for the reasons above, we do not believe any exemption applies here.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.

More to come.