abcabc321321123

> My understanding is that there's somewhat of a gray area for requests that do not accurately enough specify the information desired. The agency in question can basically say "We don't understand what you're requesting, so there is no information."

This is essentially correct. Under 5 U.S.C § 552(a)(3)(a)(i), the request for records must reasonably describe such records. In addition, the 9th circuit has declared that "reasonable description relates not only to subject matter, but also relates to place of search..."

> The commerce clause just says that the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

This is not completely correct. Let me expand a little bit even though it is not applicable here. There is something called the "dormant" commerce clause (also referred to as the "negative" commerce clause) doctrine. This doctrine basically prohibits states from favoring in state commercial actors at the expense of out of state actors. Think protectionist legislation. Therefore, there is a lot more to the commerce clause than simply allowing the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

Yes, that statute requires a warrant. However, the exclusionary rule is only applicable to one with a "reasonable expectation of privacy." In the hypothetical, C does not have such an expectation, and therefore C cannot challenge the admissibility of the evidence notwithstanding the statute.

That is correct, but the warrant requirement does not follow common sense. Let me try to explain further with an example. A sends a letter to B with information in the letter that implicates C in a crime. The FBI does not have a warrant to open and search the letter. The FBI goes ahead and searches it anyway. Now, the FBI has evidence that C was involved in a crime. C, obviously, would like to challenge the search based on the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment. It is here where the warrant requirement diverges from common sense. C does not have "standing", which is a legal term of art that basically means the court can hear and decide the case, to challenge the search because the mail was not his. Therefore, without standing, C cannot challenge the search even though the FBI did not have a warrant for the initial search. In contrast, A would have standing because he has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in his own mail (assuming there was incriminating information against A in the letter).

This is something that a significant amount of people do not understand. The fiduciary duty in this situation runs to the company not to individual employees.

The same thing happened to me.

>stealing from your fellow citizens who are paying their taxes.

You are confusing who is stealing from whom.

That is not a fair comparison. California's gas tax (including excise tax) is higher than Oregon. In addition, California requires a more expensive blend of gasoline. A better comparison would be to a state that has similar taxes and gasoline requirements. As a bonus, the availability of refineries is a significant factor in gasoline prices.

From Tesla's 10-k, "While our plan is to attempt to produce lithium-ion cells and finished battery packs for our Gen III vehicles at a new Tesla Gigafactory, our plans for such production are at a very early stage. We have no experience in the production of lithium-ion cells, and accordingly we intend to engage partners with significant experience in cell production and to date we have not formalized such partnerships. In addition, the cost of building and operating the Tesla Gigafactory could exceed our current expectations and the Tesla Gigafactory may take longer to bring online than we anticipate."