Freedom of Information
Freedom of Information
The Freedom of Information system was setup by the Freedom Of Information Act 2019. It is there for any member of Habbo to request any data or information from any department, agency, service or office of the Executive Branch.
You may submit a Freedom of Information request to obtain information.
You must fill in the form by clicking the link on the right,
Wait for a reply from the relevant person within 5 days.
Submitted by AlastairT to Executive Office of the President on 23/11/2020 9:18 PM GMT
Response received on 23/11/2020 9:27 PM GMT by Justln.
Can you please, if possible attach the document that outlines the tasks of the members of the eop, please. Thanks :)
Submitted by [email protected] to Department of Justice on 19/11/2020 7:31 PM GMT
Response received on 19/11/2020 11:27 PM GMT by Someone-dodo
Hello! So I'm wondering, why do people that go from employee to non-employee that have a submitted case get their case declined cause they don't work here anymore but Clarus that is a Consultatory Veteran (Non-Employee) not get his case declined???
Looking forward to your answer :)
At least from the start of my tenure as Attorney General, Departmental Policy is to not decline matters based solely on whether or not a person is an employee. If the site allows the lodging of the matter then we will treat it as normal.
Submitted by :QwertyCH to Department of Veteran Affairs on 17/11/2020 11:03 PM GMT
Response received on 18/11/2020 7:36 AM GMT by trish89
Just to clarify things in your response to Request #129, is Clarus a Consultatory Veteran for Congress? If not, when was his termination/resignation and for what reason?
Yes, Clarus is still a Consultatory Veteran for Congress. Apologies for the inaccuracy of my record, but if you want to see the more accurate list of the consultatory veterans, you can go to "Explore" > "Our Consultatory Veterans".
Submitted by Faaaaiiitthh to National Archives and Records Administration on 17/11/2020 12:35 AM GMT
Response received on 17/11/2020 12:46 AM GMT by Aaron.5D
Tommeh. has been on LoA for the last 2 weeks and had recently been back. He claims that he deleted all of his notifications and not read a single message received during the duration of his LoA. If there's a log in finding out such cases, is it true that he hasn't read the last 2 messages Nobeliums sent? Can I have legal evidence for such log please?
According to the access records stored, he has not opened the messages. (For reference the only page that isn't recorded is Anonymous Tips)
Evidence has been sent via Discord.
Submitted by Hjjjhgn to Department of Veteran Affairs on 13/11/2020 2:51 PM GMT
Response received on 13/11/2020 4:46 PM GMT by trish89
who are the current consultatory veterans and their branches
Here are the current Consultatory Veterans:
Congress: UsernameisinUse and AmiAmi.
Judicial: htak and leslieeee.,.,.
Secret Service: johnua16 and Dreyer
Submitted by Freddyisready to Department of Defense on 11/11/2020 10:57 PM GMT
Response received on 12/11/2020 1:47 PM GMT by Avanzati
It has been 2 weeks ago since you made the choice to put us on DEFCON 3. Has there not been any improvements of lately to alter the DEFCON?
The department has spent the last couple of weeks working to ensure the DEFCON level is changed at a suitable time. Due to the severity of the situation that put us up there in the first place, on top of the increased mafia presence we faced, the DEFCON level has not yet been altered.
However, in this last week, the department has seen a decrease in said mafia presence so a change in the DEFCON level can be expected in the near future.
Submitted by [email protected] to Secret Service Leadership on 11/11/2020 5:37 PM GMT
Response received on 11/11/2020 6:50 PM GMT by .::.Chelsea.::.
Hello! Could link the evidence that was used for Koshy addition for TKoS
Submitted by AlastairT to Office of Public Engagement on 11/11/2020 6:22 PM GMT
Response received on 11/11/2020 6:46 PM GMT by :QwertyCH
What (if any) events are OoPE planning with any of our esteemed allies at this moment of time?
Only 1; it was already mentioned in the #DoS-OoPE channel within the Office of Public Engagement's discord server. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/543146657638907924/776155689873047602/Screen_Shot_2020-11-11_at_1.34.07_PM.png
Submitted by [email protected] to Judicial Leadership on 06/11/2020 12:48 AM GMT
Response received on 06/11/2020 12:50 AM GMT by shanebrekot
What Italian food do you like the most?
Lasagna by far
Submitted by Jacobcrs to Supreme Court of the White House on 05/11/2020 11:05 PM GMT
Response received on 05/11/2020 11:11 PM GMT by shanebrekot
What is the more superior pasta sauce, in your opinion? Tomato based? Alfredo? Pesto?
I'm a huge fan of tomato-based, however, my favourite is carbonara.
I hate pesto with all myself and I had to google what Alfredo sauce is, which is "Burro and Parmigiano" here, the most basic pasta we have.
So, to answer your question, my favourite pasta is carbonara, but I love tomato-based too. On that note I suggest Spaghetti all'Amatriciana ;)
Submitted by [email protected] to Board of Trustees on 05/11/2020 7:17 PM GMT
Response received on 05/11/2020 9:39 PM GMT by Dreyer
Heey! Wheres the result from the Confirmation referendum and BoT Candidacy Requirement Adjustment Referendum??
It's been more than 5 days (120 hours) for both
Please see the news articles posted which contain the results of both referendums.
Submitted by -iElliott to National Archives and Records Administration on 03/11/2020 12:09 AM GMT
Response received on 03/11/2020 12:21 AM GMT by Aaron.5D
Can you confirm if there is an active vote for the granting of m:_:mz's Veteran status, and on which day the vote commenced?
If there is an active vote, can you confirm which member(s) of the Board of Trustees have not yet voted, and if they have acknowledged the notification for the vote?
There's an active motion for their veteran status created on October 4th 2020, at 10:14 AM BST.
Flame-Of-Furi is yet to vote, and all notifications have been marked as read.
Submitted by Someone-dodo to Department of Veteran Affairs on 21/10/2020 3:11 PM BST
Response received on 22/10/2020 2:46 AM BST by trish89
Please could you confirm who granted MeganHD101 veteran status, and under what basis was this granted?
Please refer to Request #117 for the response.
Submitted by :QwertyCH to National Archives and Records Administration on 21/10/2020 5:34 AM BST
Response received on 21/10/2020 5:49 AM BST by Aaron.5D
Can I have a glance at what Connect Post #605 was and what happened to Connect Post #605? WHO PERFORMED THE ACTION? What did [email protected]'s comment say? I GOT THE NOTIFICATION THT [email protected] MENTIONED ME IN IT, AND I RLY RLY RLY WANNA KNO WHT HE SAID IN IT TOO BUT IT'S GONE OMG :c
We do not hold the information you have requested.
Submitted by [email protected] to Department of Veteran Affairs on 19/10/2020 11:01 PM BST
Response received on 19/10/2020 11:09 PM BST by trish89
Who illegally authorized for Cuzz: to get Veteran ID ?
Submitted by [email protected] to Board of Trustees on 19/10/2020 12:38 PM BST
Response received on 19/10/2020 7:02 PM BST by ,97
Hello, Board of Trustee member answering this FoI req.
Back in June this year Board of Trustees (Candidacy Requirement Adjustment) Act 2020 was signed into law but it hasn't commenced yet cause it needs a referendum in accordance with Part 3, Section 1.1 of Board of Trustee Act 2019.
So my question is, when will this referendum happen??
Submitted by Hjjjhgn to Board of Trustees on 17/10/2020 11:00 PM BST
Response received on 19/10/2020 7:02 PM BST by ,97
What was the outcome of Uniform Policy Referendum?
Submitted by WH-DeletedUser-94 to Department of Veteran Affairs on 18/10/2020 8:49 PM BST
Response received on 18/10/2020 11:25 PM BST by trish89
Under the STAR (Presidential) Act 2020 it states the The Authority may request the Board of Trustees waive any of the requirements if the user is; A Former President, OR; A Former Vice President. On the 24th September 2020, MeganHD101 was accepted into the Veteran ID. Did the Authority request to the Board of Trustee the waive of her requirements. It also states that the Authority can waive the requirements for a "FORMER" Vice President, However MeganHD101 is the "CURRENT" Vice President. Why did these requirements get waived?
The Authority discussed the waiving of the requirements with Trustees, and the Department was given the go-ahead. The law does not require a formal motion for this approval to be given. The Department does not have access to any reasoning as to 'why' the requirements were waived, since that decision falls on the Trustees, but we can confirm that a number of past Vice Presidents have gained their Veteran ID during their tenure as Vice President.
Submitted by [email protected] to Department of State on 17/10/2020 1:28 PM BST
Response received on 17/10/2020 4:45 PM BST by Hjjjhgn
Hello Mr. Secretary of State.
I recently noticed on DoS page that OOA Division and higher in Secret Service can get Diplo ID in WH but I haven't seen an order amending the treaty we have with them of that change cause currently, it says Leadership and higher and Leadership Division in Secret Service is a higher division than OOA so I'm wondering.
When did that change occur?? Will you make sure to change the treaty in SLR now aswell??
Submitted by AlastairT to National Archives and Records Administration on 17/10/2020 9:57 AM BST
Response received on 17/10/2020 10:05 AM BST by Aaron.5D
What has happened to the ee:db of the user 'KatiePoo'
Erased in compliance with the Data Removal Act 2020.
Submitted by WH-DeletedUser-94 to Office of Public Engagement on 12/10/2020 10:39 PM BST
Response received on 13/10/2020 1:17 AM BST by :QwertyCH
Office of Public Engagement.
I am requesting the Engagement Budget Records and expenditure from the start of this Presidential Term to 12th October 2020. These should include individual reimbursements, Awards/Prizes Recruitment Centre Funding.
I look forward to your response.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MFUVyeRzNVugvoUwaDg_WkJjdwdfeBHLhrBHuDEZhsc/edit#gid=1205464293 https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/594772103056719884/765363225646596107/Screen_Shot_2020-10-12_at_7.56.37_PM.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/594772103056719884/765363258885668924/Screen_Shot_2020-10-12_at_7.58.40_PM.png
u good bro?
Submitted by [email protected] to Judicial Leadership on 05/10/2020 9:58 PM BST
Response received on 05/10/2020 10:02 PM BST by shanebrekot
How was it to finally get a Freedom of Information request????
Submitted by Star-Catcher to Judicial Leadership on 05/10/2020 9:18 PM BST
Response received on 05/10/2020 9:54 PM BST by shanebrekot
I was added onto the Judicial Blacklist not long ago for “Branch Hopping” for getting a promotion within Cabinet. However, although there is evidence to back up this placement, I was told it is confidential. I would like to request access to this evidence anyways as it is in my right to do so.
The blacklist is not a direct consequence of the promotion to DDoPE. That promotion is just the end of a series of branch hopping that I will explain very soon. From my point of view, the "Branch Hopping" is fair and I'll now explain why:
On the day 21st August you were a member of the Judicial Branch as Associate Justice.
On the day 22nd August you joined Congress
On the day 5th September you joined Judicial again
On the day 4th October you left Judicial again to join Executive
You changed 4 branches in a time span of 45 days. All this can be easily checked on the EE:DB.
Submitted by [email protected] to Department of Justice on 04/10/2020 6:44 PM BST
Response received on 05/10/2020 3:55 PM BST by Someone-dodo
Why was AC-177 declined?
The appellant is appealing their placement on the Ban on Sight List following the result of a One Punishment Crime.
Edit: The Department apologises; the Attorney General misunderstood your request and mistook the matter in question to be AC-181. The correct reason is that the Appellant was unresponsive for 5 days.
Submitted by shanebrekot to Board of Trustees on 04/10/2020 1:03 PM BST
Response received on 04/10/2020 1:31 PM BST by ,97
(Sorry for the copy-paste request)
Which reason in Part 2, Section 2, Subsection 1 in SAFE Act 2020 was used to place Qurax on One Punishment?
Submitted by [email protected] to Board of Trustees on 04/10/2020 11:07 AM BST
Response received on 04/10/2020 12:22 PM BST by ,97
Which reason in Part 2, Section 2, Subsection 1 in SAFE Act 2020 was used to place TheGreatWally on One Punishment?
Submitted by Andrew00. to Executive Office of the President on 26/09/2020 4:29 PM BST
Response received on 27/09/2020 10:59 PM BST by Justln.
In relation to tasks within the Office of Communications:
In the "Executive Branch: Ranking Structure and Tasks" document it is listed that the Director of Communications publishes the Tribune bi-weekly, but this has been discontinued since the 9th of August (approximately 1.5 months ago).
The second task is to work with EOP to publish a bi-weekly transparency press release, has this been done & if so, could they be referenced?
Moreover, has the Director ensured active social media postings and ensured the activity of our social media accounts, looking at the Habbo White House Twitter account for instance, there are no signs of regular posts nor regular activity. The last 2 posts were on September 24th, before that 13. August and the ones before that in July. Does the administration believe that our social media accounts are sufficiently active?
One last question to that, with the current tasks and amount of work within the Office of Communications, does it require two ranks to complete the workload? Considering the task amount has drastically decreased with for example the tribune not being posted anymore, how does the administration justify the two ranks within the Office of Communications and could they provide an updated task scheme for the Department for clarification?
Thank you for your question. We just sat down with the Office of Communications in a joint EOP meeting regarding tasking and activity concerns. I'll break down your points and inquiries:
On the first note regarding the Tribune, the Tribune in its former form was suspended due to the absence of active content writers on the Media Team. It was decided to use the weekly breakdown as a resource to inform the public about White House happenings on a weekly basis in lieu of the Tribune. This allowed the Office to continue to meet its legal requirement P1, S2(4) of the Engagement Act 2019. Today, the EOP ran a poll to seek public opinion on the return of the Tribune which yielded public support 65% in favour of the Tribune being returned to publishing. I have directed the Director of Communications to seek out content writers to judge the feasibility of returning the Tribune in due time.
The bi-weekly transparency press release was a concept created by the Director of Communications which never came to fruition during the term. I have asked the Office of Communications to make this a focus in the next week and expect that they will begin being published.
During tonight's meeting, I also addressed my concern with the activity of social media accounts and received affirmation from both members of the Office that the inactive social media accounts would be addressed. EOP will be following up to ensure this occurs and our social media presence is restored.
The "Executive Branch: Ranking Structure and Tasks" has been updated following the completion of this meeting listing the tasking scheme of the Office of Communications divided into the two-position office. At this time, based on the tasking breakdown, the Administration has no plans to reduce the size of the Office of Communications and has committed to increased monitoring of the activity and quality of our communicative efforts.
I hope this addressed and clarified your concerns.
Submitted by chowdog to Office of Public Engagement on 19/09/2020 9:10 PM BST
Response received on 19/09/2020 11:30 PM BST by WH-DeletedUser-94
Why was the use of the Recruitment Centre discontinued?
The Recruitment centre was discontinued upon the decision by the Secret Service Leadership. The Office of Public Engagement was informed of this decision after, and therefore did not have a say in its continuation. However, the Office of Public Engagement will be reviewing and looking into further methods of public engagement, recruitment and awareness within the Habbo Community. The Recruitment Centre started well, however the lack of support from Employees eventually led to its downfall and this was the reason the Recruitment Centre was discontinued.
Submitted by [email protected] to National Archives and Records Administration on 10/09/2020 4:37 PM BST
Response received on 10/09/2020 4:38 PM BST by Aaron.5D
Is Digital (Emergency Suspensions) Order 2020 related to the suspension of the website last night?
Submitted by :QwertyCH to Department of the Treasury on 06/09/2020 6:26 AM BST
Response received on 06/09/2020 1:30 PM BST by JoshyTheWashy
Does the Director of National Archives receive weekly pay? If so, how much?
The Director of National Archives does not get paid.
Submitted by [email protected] to National Archives and Records Administration on 06/09/2020 12:33 AM BST
Response received on 06/09/2020 12:35 AM BST by Aaron.5D
What work is NARA currently doing to SLR and Congress??? :))))))) xx
General maintenance in order to comply with statute law.
Submitted by GreenArcher to Department of Defense on 18/08/2020 4:24 PM BST
Response received on 03/09/2020 12:05 AM BST by Avanzati
Did the Department of Defense, on its own accord, personally request the Ban on Sight case against Seas.? If not, who did? Please note that you may be held liable if you answer in the affirmative.
at the time this was dealt with I was sohls so i have no knowledge on this
Submitted by GreenArcher to Department of Defense on 02/09/2020 7:55 PM BST
Response received on 02/09/2020 8:09 PM BST by Avanzati
Who requested NA-172? The Administration, the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of State?
The request was made by myself.
Submitted by AlastairT to Department of State on 02/09/2020 5:10 PM BST
Response received on 02/09/2020 5:17 PM BST by Hjjjhgn
Can you list all our allies and the date they were signed?
Ministry of Magic, 11/JAN/2020
Habbo Defence Agency, 11/JAN/2020
Secret Service, 11/JAN/2020
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 11/JAN/2020
United States Defense Force, 06/JUN/2020
Virtual Intelligence, 25/JUN/2020
Kingom of Habbo, 06/JUL/2020
Submitted by AlastairT to Department of State on 02/09/2020 4:32 PM BST
Response received on 02/09/2020 4:51 PM BST by Hjjjhgn
What are the names of ALL members of DC and UE including their level of ambassadorship and name and for UE members their name and rank in UE
Epiclama= Senior Ambassador (FBI)
eyyitsjosh=Senior Ambassador (Secret Service)
Star-Catcher=Senior Ambassador (Ministry of Magic)
Xeno_Logan=Ambassador (Ministry of Magic)
Flame_xx=Senior Ambassador (Kingdom of Habbo)
Playergurl=Ambassador (Kingdom of Habbo)
Jolo68=Senior Ambassador(Habbo Malacanang)
AlastairT=Senior Ambassador (USDF)
Jacobcrs=Senior Ambassador (Virtual Intelligence)
Manager: Playergurl (Liam)
Captain 1: InternetError,
Captain 2: m:_:mz
Captain 3: zekandevan
G 1 Player: Star-Catcher
G1 Player: Flame_xx
G2 Player: TheHarveh
G2 Player: JoshyTheWashy
G2 Player: batandball
G3 Player: :QwertyCH
G3 Player: Derecky
G3 Player: lauren0f
Submitted by AlastairT to Office of Public Engagement on 01/09/2020 9:31 PM BST
Response received on 01/09/2020 9:46 PM BST by WH-DeletedUser-94
How much is currently left in the OoPE fund of 1500c (i think that's right) that was allocated to you by the President?
Who is in charge of reimbursements is it the OoPE or DoT? and which member is solely in charge of giving Events team their reimbursements.
Look forwards to your reply,
Have a great day,
The Office of Public Engagement is committed to Public Transparency, and that all records are public. Therefore, the OOPE funds are located though the Department of the Treasury record page, if you require our funding balance in the future. On the day of the 30th August 2020, the funds available in the Office of Public Engagement Bank Account is "1095 Credits" to further answer your question the Director of Public Engagement is now responsible for ensuring event hosts are reimbursed, However, with real-life events that made me unable to be active like previously, i have been unable to be active and get ahold of the Event team. The process of reimbursements are that the Director requests the withdrawal from the Department of the Treasury, awaits the funds and then reimburses the OOPE, this can take a few days for the Treasury to provide the funding and therefore provides a backlog in reimbursements. Hope this answers your questions.
Submitted by AlastairT to Department of State on 31/08/2020 8:04 PM BST
Response received on 31/08/2020 8:07 PM BST by Hjjjhgn
How long have you, Hjjjhgn been employed at the WH for?
Since rejoining on 19th of October 2019, I have worked here for 317 days (19.10.2019-31.8.2020)
Submitted by AlastairT to Department of State on 31/08/2020 7:26 PM BST
Response received on 31/08/2020 7:31 PM BST by Hjjjhgn
At what time BST and date was the alliance to USDF signed into law?
I couldn't find at what BST time the agreement was signed
Submitted by AlastairT to National Archives and Records Administration on 31/08/2020 7:30 PM BST
Response received on 31/08/2020 7:30 PM BST by Aaron.5D
At what time BST and date was the alliance to USDF signed into law?
2020-06-06 20:58:42 (06/JUN/2020 8:58:42 PM BST)
Submitted by :QwertyCH to Executive Office of the President on 25/08/2020 5:50 AM BST
Response received on 26/08/2020 3:58 AM BST by Justln.
What is your opinion on submitting another order to include the United Eagles in the list of groups who are included in the Performance Pay Scheme?
A new league has started and we have a game occurring later this week, and I was SHOCKED to not see the UE included in the scheme. :O
This is a possible idea that can be worked on.
There would have to be consultation within EOP, and the Departments of State and Treasury before moving the proposal to Congress in order to introduce a new performance pay scheme.
All the best to the United Eagles on their upcoming matches!
Submitted by Andrew00. to Executive Office of the President on 24/08/2020 12:12 AM BST
Response received on 24/08/2020 12:26 AM BST by Justln.
Has the administration investigated and looked into the "john-doe" as refered to in the Seas. statement found in the WH post (which is also linked in AC-171)? If this john-doe has in fact had inappropriate relations with minors should this not be pursued instead of pursuing the possible victim in this case? Seas. claims to have been encouraged to delete chat logs that were inappropriate, moreover also claims to have screenshots which could possibly prove the inappropriate situation, will the administration care to look into the other possibly guilty individual if this hasn't already been done?
The Department of Defense and executive members of the Administration have been investigating this matter and have looked into all available evidence and records pertaining to the situation at hand which we have so far received. I can publicly confirm that this has been an ongoing investigation which began under your administration on July 22, 2020 when it was first brought to your attention through the Department of Defense.
The administration, as per standard protocol, does not comment on ongoing investigations or matters before the court; out of respect for due process, our legal obligations, and involved parties. As of now, there are no active legal proceedings which the State are involved in. We have additionally been in contact with members of the Board of Trustees during this investigation, and have kept them informed on all relevant and necessary matters where permitted by law.
The safety, security, and wellbeing of our community is a paramount concern to our administration, and we will continue to take the necessary precautions and steps to ensure that we work to ensure this is upheld for our members and our community.
Submitted by GreenArcher to Executive Office of the President on 23/08/2020 9:29 PM BST
Response received on 23/08/2020 11:22 PM BST by Justln.
During your former tenure as Chief Justice, was there a unanimous consent from Judicial Leadership to place Seas. on the Judicial Hiring Blacklist?
This record is not maintained by the Executive Office of the President.
Submitted by Andrew00. to Executive Office of the President on 20/08/2020 5:48 PM BST
Response received on 20/08/2020 7:52 PM BST by Justln.
The state did not wish to comment on why SC-168, a second case once again against Seas. was withdrawn. In FoI request #85 it was mentioned that the Department of Defense continued to receive information and intelligence pertinent to the investigation, did this information and intelligence turn out to be invalid as yet the second case was withdrawn? Furthermore, the reputation of Seas. has gravely been damaged by the administration in their attempt to place the individual on Ban on Sight, yet have withdrawn themselves right at the end of each case, how has the administration worked to aide the damages caused by the two withdrawn cases? Such cases often draw a lot of attention, and one can only assume that the individual that was prosecuted twice has obtained an unfortunate and untrue reputation as a result of the cases. How does the administration justify the posting of yet a second case just to once again, withdraw it?
The State has a constitutional obligation to protect our community and the members herein. While I cannot comment on Department of Defense operations and investigations under protections guaranteed by P1, S4(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2019; I can assure that the State has been fully involved in communicating with all involved parties and counsel through this prolonged process who have all reached an amicable agreement resulting in the closure of these proceedings and mitigation the undue impact you have argued for in your request. The content of these discussions fall outwith the legislative jurisdiction as defined by the Legislation Act 2019.
Submitted by Freddyisready to Executive Office of the President on 20/08/2020 6:26 AM BST
Response received on 20/08/2020 8:15 AM BST by Justln.
Why was SC-168 withdrawn?
Submitted by Someone-dodo to National Archives and Records Administration on 19/08/2020 11:30 PM BST
Response received on 20/08/2020 4:21 AM BST by Aaron.5D
Mr Director of National Archives,
Please could you ascertain who authorised the latest Leave of Absence (LoA) for RamseyX (LoA #: 402)?
Department of Justice
Submitted by AlastairT to Executive Office of the President on 12/08/2020 12:06 PM BST
Response received on 12/08/2020 5:51 PM BST by Justln.
Who will be taking on the duties of the Vice-President while she is away on an LoA until the 20th? And does this mean the gender equality study will be halted until the 20th? Thank you
Under our Emergency Tasking Policy, the President is responsible for assuming the duties of the Vice President where permitted under law.
As the Gender At Work Taskforce is an initiative directly led and run by the Vice President, any aspects requiring Megan's direct oversight will be put on hold until she returns from her leave of absence, however, the work on the program continues in her absence by the independent researchers who signed up to join the task force.
Submitted by GreenArcher to Department of Defense on 10/08/2020 8:41 AM BST
Response received on 10/08/2020 11:24 PM BST by Coolster500
Was the Department of Defense informed of any intelligence coming from the Judicial Branch during the 21st of July to 23rd of July connected to the matter of placing Seas. in judicial hiring blacklist on the reason that he was "slandering" and "accusing" certain employees?
Submitted by GreenArcher to Department of Defense on 10/08/2020 4:29 AM BST
Response received on 10/08/2020 11:22 PM BST by Coolster500
Did you approve the second BoS+NP case against Seas. (NA-168)?
Submitted by GreenArcher to Executive Office of the President on 10/08/2020 4:27 AM BST
Response received on 10/08/2020 4:53 AM BST by Justln.
Why did the State withdraw their case in NA-166? Is it a normal procedure for EOP to withdraw a BoS/NP charge then re-file for the same grounds?
As previously answered by the EOP and the Department of Defense in FOI requests #82 and #83, NA-166 was "withdrawn as the Department of Defense [continued] to receive information and intelligence pertinent to their investigation."
I cannot comment on "normal" procedure; as you know, as a former Attorney General, each case is unique and must be judged on the merits of the evidence. In this particular scenario, the parties involved in the investigation took an opportunity to review new evidence and information which was deemed pertinent to the case.
Submitted by GreenArcher to Department of Justice on 08/08/2020 6:00 AM BST
Response received on 09/08/2020 2:28 AM BST by Someone-dodo
What was the reason for the State in withdrawing their case in NA-166?
Please redirect your request to the White House Counsel (EOP) who may be able to advise. We do not keep official records of withdrawal reasons as it is usually actioned at the sole discretion of the prosecutor.
Submitted by GreenArcher to Department of Defense on 07/08/2020 8:46 PM BST
Response received on 08/08/2020 2:31 AM BST by Coolster500
Was the Department of Defense involved in the investigation of NA-166? If so, which member under the Department of Defense was directly involved in the investigation and how was it processed? Did the Department of Defense request the Ban on Sight + NP hearing?
The Department of Defense was involved in this investigation. The Deputy Secretary of Defense received evidence relating to the claims outlined in the Ban on Sight and National Punishment hearing request, NA-166. This evidence was shared with executive members of the EOP and the Secretary of Defense. The Executive Office of the President then met with the individual who allegedly committed these crimes and were able to gather even further evidence supporting the claims outlined in NA-166. All the evidence obtained was then analyzed by the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and executive members of EOP and it was agreed that a Ban on Sight hearing would be requested. A site message requesting the President's and Secretary of State's consent for the Ban on Sight and NP addition was then sent by the Secretary of Defense, with the DoJ included in the message. For the time being, the case has been withdrawn, as there is a possibility of new evidence being discovered.
Submitted by GreenArcher to Executive Office of the President on 07/08/2020 8:06 PM BST
Response received on 08/08/2020 2:18 AM BST by Justln.
Is NA-166 being requested under the provisions of the Defense Act 2019?
Yes, this case, since this question was asked, has been withdrawn as the Department of Defense continues to receive information and intelligence pertinent to their investigation.
Submitted by Vlyso to Executive Office of the President on 06/08/2020 4:25 PM BST
Response received on 06/08/2020 5:34 PM BST by Justln.
Why did you fire Meng-Tian from the Judicial Branch just to reinstate Meng-Tian two days later as a low rank?
The circumstances surrounding this action were based on an ongoing investigation by the Department of Defense, given this, I am only able to provide limited information.
As part of our investigation we had a discussion with the user in question at the earliest possible convenience after his dismissal and in consultation with the Department of Defense, we were able establish grounds for him to continue employment within the White House. Judicial Leadership were informed during the process as is the statutory obligation on the Executive Office of the President.
Submitted by :QwertyCH to Executive Office of the President on 05/08/2020 7:04 PM BST
Response received on 05/08/2020 8:09 PM BST by Justln.
With the new Cabinet restructure, what are the responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Education and what department does it now fall under?
The Secretary of Education falls under the Department of Education and has its responsibilities defined under the Education Act 2019.
As the position is currently vacant for the past couple months, there have not been tasks assigned to the position by the previous administration or the current administration. We are currently working with the Education Working Group which has proposed the DREAM Bill to Congress in hopes of finalizing our repeal of the Department of Education in hopes of a more comprehensive education system established by the entirety of White House, not a single executive department.
Submitted by :QwertyCH to National Archives and Records Administration on 05/08/2020 6:49 AM BST
Response received on 05/08/2020 12:42 PM BST by Aaron.5D
With the new Branch Confirmations system (https://habbowh.org/staff/confirmations), which positions can view who voted what?
The law doesn't require that the voting information is displayed in any place. We've given you the courtesy of being able to view your own votes, but outside of that not even I, without a dedicated page, could view your vote. Due to how we store individual votes, I can't determine how someone has voted by just looking in the database, I'd be required to develop a tool specifically for that. Don't expect there to be a tool to view individual votes any time soon, unless the law requires it, as I remain committed to keeping that information private.
Submitted by Andrew00. to Department of Defense on 04/08/2020 4:28 PM BST
Response received on 05/08/2020 4:38 AM BST by Coolster500
In the DEFCON level alteration message, the Department of Defense mentioned that "if the White House was to be unprepared, could be devastating for the entire organization.". What measures and specific preperations has the White House taken apart from removing "Tumon360" from the White House? Should the White House and Department of Defense not always be ready and prepared for any possible threats towards the organization? What specific measures and changes has come with the DEFCON alteration which haven't been in place before?
The White House has increased its readiness due to a time of crisis, as the Department cannot disclose any sensitive information which is understandable due to National Security, yet this is a generalised question as well in terms of why the White House has moved into a state of crisis, with just an alternative account being removed.
As the CIW-T IWO list is public information, can the Department confirm that "Tumon360" is the alternative account of jackson8ryan from the list, if not who was the account linked to?
The Department of Defense takes the protection of our members, our organization, and our community very seriously and we seek to ensure that we’re able to provide the necessary levels of protection against threats from those who seek to cause harm on our community. The Department of Defense, out of the abundance of caution is always prepared and ready to act and respond to threats made toward and against the White House and our members to ensure their safety and wellbeing.
We continue to urge members of the White House to report any suspicious activity within the White House or around our rooms utilizing our anonymous submission tools or reaching out to a member of the department if they have any concerns--no tip is too small or too insignificant and we act accordingly on all information we receive.
The specific measures and preparations the White House has taken, other than removing Tumon360, is a subject of National Security, seeing as there are current investigations surrounding this incident. The decision to move to DEFCON 3 was not taken lightly, but events that occurred throughout the past week as well as the increase of suspicious activity surrounding the White House has warranted this change. As for specifics measures that are put in place in a state of DEFCON 3 - Heightened Readiness, I cannot divulge that information, but considering you are a former Secretary of Defense and President, you should already be aware of the DEFCON protocols, so I don’t understand why this question is being asked.
As of now, I can, however, confirm that Tumon360 is a known alternative account of jackson8ryan who has been added to IWO list by the signatories of the CIW-T.
Submitted by Energistics to Department of Justice on 23/07/2020 12:08 AM BST
Response received on 27/07/2020 11:45 PM BST by Someone-dodo
For Faith or anyone within the department,
In regard to SC-154 (now settled), why did it take the Department of Justice almost a month from the initial posting of the confirmation resolution to pursue a violation of P13, S2 of the Legislation Act. Instead of acting upon it immediately after the conclusion of the original confirmation resolution?
There were ongoing rank movements in the Department which resulted in a general slowdown of all operations at the time. Additionally, the case came as a surprise to the Department as the Speaker had a previous history of submitting resolutions correctly.
Submitted by Andrew00. to Executive Office of the President on 27/07/2020 7:01 PM BST
Response received on 27/07/2020 11:36 PM BST by Justln.
What are the tasks of the two Deputy Chief of Staff positions?
Thank you for your inquiry.
The Deputy Chiefs of Staff are members of the Executive Office of the President, which consists of: the President, Vice President, Chief of Staff, two Deputy Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Advisor, the Director of Legislative Affairs, and the White House Counsel. The EOP is established under the Executive Act 2019.
In terms of the direct tasks of the Deputy Chiefs of Staff, they both deputize the Chief of Staff in providing administrative oversight of various departments and offices within the Cabinet. The departments and offices are divided between the Deputy Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Advisor to provide each department and office with a member of EOP overseeing their operations. In addition, they serve a general advisory role to the President on all matters concerning the operation of the White House.
While we are still early in the term, the EOP is currently meeting with the Cabinet departments and offices to allow them to express their views on the relationship between themselves and the Administration, and to explore their needs and desires heading into a new administration. The Deputy Chiefs of Staff are playing a key role in these meetings to reshape the Cabinet and encourage ongoing communication between the offices, departments, and the EOP.
Submitted by :QwertyCH to Department of Veteran Affairs on 21/07/2020 12:11 AM BST
Response received on 21/07/2020 2:32 PM BST by Brandoen
What do Consultatory Veterans have to make a report on and why is it needed?
It can be either a "report" or a compiled message, each contain specific data for each branch, we also compare each of the weekly stats with charts between the branches and also just the branches to see if they've improved the next week or went down.
It's needed as this is part of the administration's policy "Data-Driven Governance Policy"
Submitted by admiralpicard to Executive Office of the President on 15/07/2020 6:05 PM BST
Response received on 18/07/2020 6:02 PM BST by Andrew00.
Who was responsible for ordering and carrying out the following;
The removal of my account from the following groups/removing of my admin from the following groups and as a direct result furni owned by me was ejected from those rooms or I was unable to fix teleport connections when finished;
[WH] - The Rose Garden
[WH] - The Oval Office
[WH] - East Hallway Pass
[WH] - Supreme Court
There was no order to remove you from any of those badges made within EOP. No one within EOP removed you from those badges either, to my knowledge.
Submitted by WH-DeletedUser-94 to Department of Justice on 25/06/2020 12:14 PM BST
Response received on 05/07/2020 12:38 AM BST by Someone-dodo
Office of Deputy Director of Public Engagement.
Under the Freedom of Information, I'm requesting all Names of the Individuals on the Ethics Board 15, (Consultative AKA Misidentifying) I'm also requesting the statute law violated within the Evidence submitted to be approved by an Ethics Board.
If you are referring to Ethics Board #16, this has been answered in #68.
If you are referring to Ethics Board #15, the only information we can give you is that the Attorney General at the time serves on the Board as the Chair, and the President at the time serves on the Board as the Deputy Chair due to us not having access to the list of participants on the Board.
We also do not have access to the certification request so cannot definitively tell you what law was violated. We can only guide you towards the Majority Opinion of the Ethics Board report (which may suggest a violation to Right to Equality).
Submitted by WH-DeletedUser-94 to Department of Justice on 25/06/2020 2:18 PM BST
Response received on 05/07/2020 12:27 AM BST by Someone-dodo
Under the Freedom of Information, I'm requesting all Names of the Individuals on the Ethics Board 16 (Consultative AKA Misidentifying) I'm also requesting the statute law violated within the Evidence submitted to be approved by an Ethics Board.
The Department does not have access to this information and therefore is unable to fulfil this request at present. The only information we can give you is that the Attorney General at the time serves on the Board as the Chair, and the President at the time serves on the Board as the Deputy Chair.
Your latter question is answered through FOI #69.
Submitted by UsernameIsInUse to Department of Justice on 25/06/2020 4:44 PM BST
Response received on 05/07/2020 12:26 AM BST by Someone-dodo
What crime does Ethics Board #16, located at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cZi8tdCnOlcOO_1aLxWuqBZXqN_8yYfxHr2PxK5_vHY/edit show was committed?
Having inspected the screenshot it may be that the person who submitted it felt negatively targeted through the posting of one of their conversations as it received some sort of reaction through the use of emojis and messages. If this is the case, it would fall under "Harassment" in the Crimes Act.
However, our official response to this question is that we do not have access to this information since we do not have access to the original certification request, which can usually detail what the alleged offences are.
Submitted by Energistics to Department of Justice on 25/06/2020 4:46 PM BST
Response received on 05/07/2020 12:14 AM BST by Someone-dodo
Was "Ethics Board #16" established to certify evidence submitted for SC-135?
The Department is unable to provide an answer this question as the person who chaired the Board in question is no longer working within the Department.
The Department wishes to not speculate the reasons behind the certification request given that we do not have access to this information at present.
Submitted by AlastairT to Executive Office of the President on 30/06/2020 7:18 PM BST
Response received on 03/07/2020 5:45 PM BST by Andrew00.
Why hasn’t the President suggested working alongside congress to find a compromise so he can pass his campaign promises instead of trying to rework changes without consulting congress?
We have, and we will continue doing so, as addressed in the Presidential Statement.
Submitted by MeganHD101 to Executive Office of the President on 28/06/2020 1:33 AM BST
Response received on 02/07/2020 10:21 PM BST by Andrew00.
Were you, Andrew00, on Ethics Board 16?
Submitted by Hjjjhgn to Congressional Leadership on 01/07/2020 1:28 PM BST
Response received on 01/07/2020 2:46 PM BST by Energistics
Why are there so many laws in SLR with pending Amendments. For example Badges Act with 7 pending Amendments, Executive Act with 6,employment act with 7. I didnt even bother to look for more. You may ignore this FoI if CL is not responsible for implementing pending Amendments
Congressional Leadership is not responsible for applying pending amendments to acts within the Statute Law Register, nor do we have the tools to do so. The only group of individuals who can apply pending amendments to their corresponding acts is NARA.
Submitted by MeganHD101 to Executive Office of the President on 23/06/2020 4:26 PM BST
Response received on 26/06/2020 6:19 PM BST by Andrew00.
How many complaints about the conduct within the #general-chat in the WH server did you receive, that lead you to segregate the two servers?
No less than 10 at the very least, through the span of the last weeks, do not hold the specific information of exactly how many complaints.
Submitted by Clarus to Executive Office of the President on 23/06/2020 3:00 AM BST
Response received on 26/06/2020 6:16 PM BST by Andrew00.
Can the Executive Office of the President provide a list of words that are not appropriate to be used in the White House Lobby - General Chat.
The rules of the server stipulate "Discussions and chats are to be kept PG13 unless in permitted NSFW (18+) channel", therefore Server Moderators (including EOP) will decide what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate on a case-by-case basis - taking into consideration the context, language and situation.
Submitted by GreenArcher to Congressional Leadership on 21/06/2020 7:53 PM BST
Response received on 21/06/2020 9:53 PM BST by Energistics
Directed to Speaker of the House Energistics.
Why did you repeal P2, S2(2) of the Legislation Act 2019 (which provides for government urgency as amended by Legislation (Government Urgency) Act 2020) through S1(3) of the Legislation (Committee Authority) Order 2020?
All bills, regardless if they're submitted by the administration, or by a member within the Congress should be treated equally and without preferential treatment. No bill should be fast-tracked because of the status of the individual submitting the bill. All bills must follow the legislative process in its entirety, this includes going through congressional committee, debate etc.
This also means, that the amendment introduced by the Legislation (Government Urgency) Act 2020, is in direct violation of the legislation process because it is not completing it in its entirety. It also allowed government legislation to completely bypass Congress and its functions. Furthermore, this "bypass" as introduced by the aforementioned act, can be abused as proper oversight protections are not established, meaning, in the most extreme circumstance, an administration can continuously force bills through the Congress within the 5 day time period. Which in itself is a no-no on every level.
As Speaker of the House, I am responsible for upholding the legislative process and ensuring that it is adhered to at all times. I'd rather have a legislative process that holds all bills at an equal standing, than one that prefers/gives preferential treatment to one bill over another. That is why I used the legislative powers, granted by the Legislation Act 2019, to omit the changes introduced by the Legislation (Government Urgency) Act 2020.
Submitted by :QwertyCH to Congressional Leadership on 09/06/2020 5:25 AM BST
Response received on 09/06/2020 9:00 PM BST by Energistics
How long have you (dez) been Speaker for?
Non-continuously, roughly 6 months. My first run lasted 2 months before #Perficio, then from Feb 7th, 2020 till now (been roughly 4 months).
Submitted by -iElliott to Executive Office of the President on 01/06/2020 6:25 PM BST
Response received on 04/06/2020 8:05 PM BST by Andrew00.
What are the current Cabinet Tasks for each rank?
The Cabinet tasks sheet which explains all cabinet tasks can be found on the Executive branch page under "Executive Affairs" and then "Executive Branch Tasks" :).
Submitted by Energistics to Executive Office of the President on 29/05/2020 2:56 PM BST
Response received on 01/06/2020 12:39 PM BST by Andrew00.
As per the "Manifesto checklist", there is a manifesto checklist labelled as "Congressional Changes", what will this entail if anything?
As outlined in our manifesto, a proposal to introduce a working croup in relation to confirmations in congress.
Submitted by Coolster500 to National Archives and Records Administration on 29/05/2020 6:29 AM BST
Response received on 29/05/2020 12:03 PM BST by Aaron.5D
What reason did Infernum provide when he requested to have his digital data removed?
Submitted by Clarus to Executive Office of the President on 26/05/2020 4:50 PM BST
Response received on 26/05/2020 8:22 PM BST by Andrew00.
Was it the Administration's decision to allow mo? to host the radio show, that was linked to the White House site?
The administration was not involved in the decision to allow the user "mo?" to host the radio show linked through the White House site.
Submitted by Aaron.5D to Secret Service Leadership on 21/05/2020 10:12 PM BST
Response received on 23/05/2020 7:46 PM BST by .::.Chelsea.::.
Is there anyone you know of under the age of 13 in the Secret Service Branch? (If yes, please list them)
I have asked everyone if they are or know anyone under the age of 13 within SS and they have all said no.
Submitted by Energistics to National Archives and Records Administration on 20/05/2020 2:44 PM BST
Response received on 20/05/2020 2:58 PM BST by Aaron.5D
Gerold or Jerold
We do not hold the information you have requested.
Submitted by zanetheraptor to Congressional Leadership on 19/05/2020 6:17 PM BST
Response received on 19/05/2020 9:43 PM BST by Energistics
I am hereby requesting a response listed by each member of Congressional Leadership stating whether or not they have witnessed any conversations in the Discord Congressional Leadership Chat regarding whispered conversations between the Speaker of the House which is currently Energistics or Dez as I know him and myself zanetheraptor on Habbo regarding Censures or the current lawsuit against me.
I do remind you that lying would be committing a crime under White House law.
Congressional Leadership's answer: We do not hold the information you have requested. Feel free to ask all members of congressional leadership also, this was unanimously agreed upon.
Submitted by GreenArcher to National Archives and Records Administration on 17/05/2020 7:07 PM BST
Response received on 17/05/2020 7:37 PM BST by Aaron.5D
When did shanebrekot decline Angela,.'s request for a Leave of Absence from 19/05/2020 to 22/05/2020?
Submitted by GreenArcher to National Archives and Records Administration on 17/05/2020 6:24 PM BST
Response received on 17/05/2020 6:27 PM BST by Aaron.5D
What was the reason provided by Angela,. for her Leave of Absence from 19/05/2020 to 22/05/2020? Who denied it and what was the reason provided?
Reason Provided by Angela: "I need a small break to get myself and my mind together"
Denied by shanebrekot with the reason: "You can't request a new LoA until the 21 of June, 2020"
Submitted by TheTeenSimmer to National Archives and Records Administration on 16/05/2020 10:29 AM BST
Response received on 16/05/2020 1:54 PM BST by Aaron.5D
In regards to the â€œData Removal Formâ€ is this form usable by anyone anywhere around the world or is only for use in countries that have Right to be forgotten laws, in addition to it what does the â€œAccount Dataâ€ option remove? Does it removals ALL records of a specific user from the website linked to that user profile or does it keep some users information,
Another question in regards to this form does the â€œAccount Dataâ€ option in anyway effect Employee Records.
Data removals are regulated under the Data Removal Act 2020 (law.habbowh.org/14111983), and they're open to every user. In account data removals, generally everything except the username, and information necessary for the proper functioning of site, is removed.
Information necessary for the proper functioning of site includes default settings such as the default timezone, account protection options, etc - this data gets reset to its default setting when account data is removed.
Employment records and Account Data are considered separate entities since employment records can exist without a registered account, and since no account data (except the username) is held in the employment records, account data removals do not affect employment records.
Submitted by zanetheraptor to Congressional Leadership on 10/05/2020 8:47 PM BST
Response received on 10/05/2020 9:13 PM BST by Energistics
Today at approximately 5:35 am Australian Eastern Standard Time, Our glorious Speaker of the House was sleeping on the job, I asked him why he was sleeping and he promptly responded that he was doing work. I find this statement highly vague and suspicious as I feel that if he were truly working he would not have seen my question. He also did not go into detail about said work, hence I am submitting this Freedom of Information request to find out two things: What was the Speaker (Energistics) working on? and What is his definition of work? I was promptly given permission to file this request in order to ascertain the meaning of the said statement and I request an answer promptly.
The Honourable Raptor,
zanethenotnicesenator (Not to be confused with any other idiot called Zane or any other spastic who pretends to be a raptor as I am the only one left alive in existence as proven by the many fossils I have allowed mortals to discover.
I was submitting committee meetings. "Work" to be defined as doing something productive or performing responsibilities required of you
Submitted by Haumana to National Archives and Records Administration on 10/05/2020 2:02 AM BST
Response received on 10/05/2020 11:36 AM BST by Aaron.5D
On what date was the debate on the Vlyso (Censure) Bill submitted by Congress Leaders through the debate submission option?
I understand there's some overlap since it's site related, but this request should have been sent to Congressional Leadership since they're the ones that are meant to monitor Congressional Tasks, not the National Archives and Records Administration.
I would also like to note that this information is already publicly accessible on the Statute Law Register, please at least attempt to look for information like this before submitting FoI requests.
Submitted by [email protected] to Department of State on 04/05/2020 1:46 PM BST
Response received on 04/05/2020 1:53 PM BST by xMark.
What is ''Cordial Agency Ambassadors'' and what do they do?
The Cordial Agency Ambassadors are diplomats assigned to agencies or organizations which the Department of State does not deem hostile. They will be required to submit at least one report of their visit to their assigned organization every week. They are subject to rotation at the discretion of the Department of State.
For more information about ambassadors, please refer to this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12z9ylx7GrB1YPveXI-HX62dXKGT5Z4CPu_BVWlQxGTA/edit
Submitted by [email protected] to Department of the Treasury on 29/04/2020 8:00 PM BST
Response received on 29/04/2020 10:31 PM BST by JoshyTheWashy
Is it possible to use the reward fund for branch incentives?
Yeah, I may be on planning on re-introducing it back
Submitted by Aaron.5D to Secret Service Leadership on 28/04/2020 11:24 PM BST
Response received on 29/04/2020 7:56 PM BST by Varv
I'm requesting information pertaining to an incident involving Staceii and a Low Rank, LodgeBarOG, earlier today.
At 28/04/2020 1:12 PM BST, Staceii issued the first strike, exactly a minute (28/04/2020 1:13 PM BST) later 2 more strikes and a discharge were logged by Staceii. These records were later asked to be removed by another SS SHR member, and the National Archives and Records Administration obliged in good faith.
Please respond to the following questions:
A) Who made the decision to ask for their removal, was it a group decision or an individuals decision?
B) Why was the decision made?
C) Why were 2 strikes and 1 discharge all issued within 1 minute?
A) Solicitate, he was alone in his decision.
B) Because he didnâ€™t have x3 to begin with only a x1. Warned that it will be a x2 but didn't strike.
C) They was logged at the same time, due to logging them after dealing with the LR.
Submitted by Justln. to National Archives and Records Administration on 27/04/2020 1:24 PM BST
Response received on 27/04/2020 2:28 PM BST by Aaron.5D
Who were the co-sponsors listed on the Department of Justice Obliteration ((D.O.J.O.) Bill 2020 submitted by Big_Papa_Dooles on 27 April 2020?
After reviewing back-up data, we've determined the following were originally listed as co-sponsors before being removed by the author:
Submitted by Energistics to Judicial Leadership on 16/04/2020 11:31 PM BST
Response received on 17/04/2020 8:22 AM BST by guitarcoop85
whats that in months?
appx. 4.6 months
Submitted by Energistics to National Archives and Records Administration on 16/04/2020 8:27 PM BST
Response received on 16/04/2020 10:17 PM BST by Aaron.5D
what iC is CVs
Officially, CVs do NOT have an "in Command" position, but for site purposes they're classed as "10iC"
They have the following permission groups to enable access to certain areas of the website:
- "Medium Ranks (9iC+)"
- Their Branch
- "Consultatory Veterans"
A Congress CV would be seen as a Representative in terms of the website, since we opt to use permission groups more often than the actual iC.
Submitted by Energistics to Judicial Leadership on 16/04/2020 8:34 PM BST
Response received on 16/04/2020 8:53 PM BST by guitarcoop85
how long have you (cooper) been cj for?
Submitted by amazingconnor to Supreme Court of the White House on 16/04/2020 6:05 AM BST
Response received on 16/04/2020 6:58 AM BST by guitarcoop85
Was a Judicial Review ever done on the Defense (Illegal Warfare Prohibition) Act 2020?
Yes, it was done, we just had issues with our bill reviews that week which is why it a review wasn't published on it.
Submitted by GreenArcher to Department of Justice on 15/04/2020 7:50 AM BST
Response received on 16/04/2020 2:18 AM BST by Vlyso
What was the verdict in DC-100? Was the defendant guilty of both charges?
I will direct you to the court opinion https://habbowh.org/justice/hearings/view/100 --- written by lancoleloves:
"Funky840 was found guilty 6-1 on the charges of violating the Crimes Act 2019 specifically under â€œUnfair Punishmentâ€. The appropriate punishment was a demotion from Secret Service Staff Director, a 7iC rank. To a Secret Service Education Assistant, an 8iC rank. Along with this punishment, the strike that was given to the plaintiff was removed.
The law that has been violated was the Crimes Act 2019, specifically under â€œUnfair Punishmentâ€, P1 S(8)(1)(1); â€œStriking, Demoting or Firing someone without fair cause as determined by the Branch Leaderâ€."
Submitted by shanebrekot to Executive Office of the President on 14/04/2020 10:38 AM BST
Response received on 14/04/2020 8:22 PM BST by admiralpicard
What happened to the vote on the new HQ? You said you were going to pick 3 HQ designs from all the submissions and letting us vote on that, but it didn't happen.
The plan put in place by the Executive Office of the President was that all designs were reviewed by EOP and the top three would progress to a vote open to our members. This decision was taken out of our hands in a confusion of circumstance by a member of the Board of Trustees who implemented their favoured designed in terms of suitability for Habbo and wired requirements, and one that had received positive feedback from members.
While I would like the people to have their vote registered and voice heard, it would be destabilising of me to do so now the change has been made.
I do enjoy the HQ and imagine this is a likely winner of any vote, but we shall unfortunately not find out.
Submitted by NathanFootie to Department of Justice on 11/04/2020 10:50 PM BST
Response received on 12/04/2020 2:45 AM BST by Vlyso
Why was case SC-98 declined by the DoJ - and who specifically declined the case?
The alleged offense is not a crime, seeing as the court opinion states there were five members on the bench and GreenArcher said nothing in court nor did he vote with the Justices. The accusation that there was 6 is simply inaccurate, as the Attorney General realized GreenArcher couldnâ€™t participate immediately after he sat down. Instead of interrupting the court, GreenArcher was informed he could not participate and could not vote. He wasnâ€™t a member of the bench and sat in display only. After consulting with Judicial Leadership, the Deputy Attorney General, Someone-dodo, made the decision to decline the case.
Submitted by Hjjjhgn to National Archives and Records Administration on 08/04/2020 7:53 PM BST
Response received on 09/04/2020 1:52 AM BST by Aaron.5D
Has NARA transferred all petition authority from NARA to OoC as said in Democracy (Petition Authority) (No. 2) Act 2020
The act you mentioned was the transfer of authority. I think you mean to ask where are the tools/if the tools exist.
Submitted by Hjjjhgn to Executive Office of the President on 04/04/2020 4:26 PM BST
Response received on 04/04/2020 5:30 PM BST by admiralpicard
With this new HQ design competition, who makes the decision of the finest base? EOP is 6 people and in my opinion every employee should be able to see every base submitted and vote for the best looking base, so we dont have to do new base again, if people dont like the base EOP chooses (IF it is EOP that chooses the new base)
How this could work out is tho set deadline and some1 from EOP sends site message which incluuds every base submitted and then employee votes by replying to that message
Thank you for the question. The competition will be open for general entries until 12 am BST on April 10th 2020.
Once all entries are received EOP will review them and reduce the field down to the best 3 entries. At which time there will be a vote opened to Habbo White House members to vote for their favourite.
Submitted by Kearley to Department of Justice on 29/03/2020 2:39 AM BST
Response received on 29/03/2020 2:54 AM BST by Vlyso
Why was case SC-82 declined by the DoJ?
The evidence didn't include the year along is the main reason but there was also no crime actually being committed seeing as the plaintiff clearly interpreted it wrong and unfairly cropped the picture.
Submitted by Vlyso to Department of the Treasury on 26/03/2020 8:47 PM GMT
Response received on 26/03/2020 9:50 PM GMT by JoshyTheWashy
How did the WH treasury go from more than 8k down to less than 5k credits? What was it spent on? If nothing, why was it inaccurate for so long?
I was awaiting for the actual amount of credits from brad on the RC account
Submitted by --Maxitaxi-- to Department of Defense on 18/03/2020 12:58 PM GMT
Response received on 18/03/2020 1:05 PM GMT by amazingconnor
What do you think of the pun I made on Wednesday, March 18, 2020, at approximately 12:51 GMT in our Discord DMs?
My personal thoughts towards the pun you made on Wednesday, March 18, 2020, at approximately 12:51 GMT in our Discord DMs is that it was quite funny. You, somehow, managed to accidentally use the word that I used to identify something, to express your own thoughts. I implore you to continue these efforts, even if they are accidental, as it clearly had a positive effect on you afterwards - a smile a day keeps the doctor away.
Submitted by zanetheraptor to Executive Office of the President on 09/03/2020 1:33 AM GMT
Response received on 09/03/2020 1:23 PM GMT by --Maxitaxi--
How does EOP actually decide which branch has done the best when the tasks are so different. What is the formula?
The administration typically employs multiple factors into making a decision for the Branch of the Week awards. Standard elements would include statistics and overall performance, but as the applicant rightfully pointed out, due to the diverse nature of branch tasks the administration usually also compares individual branch performance to the previous couple of weeks rather than comparing branches themselves. Based on this, the results may not always reflect absolute numbers as much as relative individual performance.
Submitted by zanetheraptor to Department of Justice on 09/03/2020 1:32 AM GMT
Response received on 09/03/2020 1:47 AM GMT by Vlyso
Why was my legal interpretation request declined?
The Department of Justice, in accordance with the Prosecution Act, deemed it a spam/troll case.
Submitted by Hjjjhgn to Office of Communications on 05/03/2020 2:25 PM GMT
Response received on 05/03/2020 6:01 PM GMT by admiralpicard
Why isnt OoC page updated?!?!?!?!?!
OoC is now updated to include you.
Submitted by Energistics to Executive Office of the President on 03/03/2020 12:40 AM GMT
Response received on 03/03/2020 10:44 AM GMT by --Maxitaxi--
what were the results of the "Executive Review" and where can I find the list of changes made/can u provide a list
The executive review carried out by the #Rainbow administration led to removal of the following ranks:
- Social Secretary
- Deputy Secretary of Education
- Deputy Secretary of Defense
The changes were implemented through the Executive (#Rainbow) (Reform 1) Order 2020 and the Defense (#Rainbow) (#Reform 1.2) Order 2020, respectively.
Submitted by amazingconnor to Supreme Court of the White House on 02/03/2020 6:39 AM GMT
Response received on 02/03/2020 6:52 AM GMT by guitarcoop85
Who were the Justices for cases SC-69 & SC-70?
Who was the Judge for case DC-72?
For SC-69, the justices were: Chief Justice guitarcoop85. Senior Associate Justice [email protected], and Senior Associate Justice shanebrekot.
For SC-70, the justices were: Chief Justice guitarcoop85, Deputy Chief Justice Dismage-, and Senior Associate Justice [email protected]
For DC-72, the presiding judge was District Judge BradleeisGod.
Submitted by Vlyso to National Archives and Records Administration on 28/02/2020 8:32 PM GMT
Response received on 28/02/2020 9:13 PM GMT by Aaron.5D
Why was Someone-dodo IP banned from the website?
I do not hold the information you have requested.
The IP Banning system is incredibly rudimentary, the only piece of information on record is the IP Banned.
Submitted by KingJason3. to Congressional Leadership on 25/02/2020 7:31 PM GMT
Response received on 26/02/2020 1:20 AM GMT by Energistics
Why do you own a Samsung? Why do you hate iPhones?
Samsung makes very pretty phones, I'm all about a good looking phone, something I think iPhones don't have as they are all basic bitches.
Submitted by Energistics to Congressional Leadership on 24/02/2020 10:04 PM GMT
Response received on 24/02/2020 10:04 PM GMT by Energistics
Kimi no Na Wa
Submitted by Peshy07 to National Archives and Records Administration on 16/02/2020 2:18 PM GMT
Response received on 16/02/2020 4:42 PM GMT by Aaron.5D
When is connect going to come back?
We don't have a fixed date.
Submitted by :QwertyCH to Secret Service Leadership on 14/02/2020 8:00 PM GMT
Response received on 14/02/2020 8:22 PM GMT by Aaronsy
What are the tasks assigned to each position within the SS's Education Division?
Education Director (6iC)
Complete 1 Education and 1 Hospitality Sessions weekly
Maintain the Department of Education and the Education Division by monitoring Education and Hospitality Session completion.
Monitor and record Task completion for the Education Division and send a task completion report to the Security and Intelligence Division.
Approve any changes to the Education Division, help Deputy Education Directors maintain Education.
Use the information the Security and Intelligence Division collects
Monitor and record Task completion for the Education Division and send a task completion report to the Management Division.
Interview / hire at least one (1) weekly
Low Rank Actions:
Promote at least 2 times weekly
Deputy Education Director (7iC) (1 SS, 1 Judicial, 1 Senate)
Complete 2 Education and 2 Hospitality Sessions weekly
Oversight and management of Education regarding the Branch Assigned
Updating and maintaining all education tools for LRâ€™s regarding Branch Assigned
Mentor all education assistants to improve their skills and knowledge
Low Rank Actions
Promote at least 3 LRs weekly.
Interview / hire at least one (1) weekly
Education Assistant (8iC)
Complete 2 Education and 2 Hospitality Sessions weekly.
Low Rank Actions
Basic train at least once weekly
Advance train at least twice weekly
Promote at least 4 times weekly
Submitted by :QwertyCH to Secret Service Leadership on 11/02/2020 8:53 PM GMT
Response received on 11/02/2020 10:42 PM GMT by Aaronsy
What are the tasks assigned to each position within the SS's Information and Observation Division?
Chief Information Officer (6iC):
Compile reports on staff task completion from all divisions and send to the management division before end of week meeting 8pm GMT/BST
Organise the Presidential Protection Detail (PPD) to guard the President at the inauguration/events
Complete the Pass Rate on the 9iC/8iC training DAILY
Gather information each week and create a newsletter for all SS members (SS Times) for end of week
Low Rank Actions
Promote at least 2 LRs weekly.
Interview / hire at least one (1) weekly
Deputy Information Officer (7iC):
Help gather information for the SS Times newsletter and task completion report each week for the Intelligence Director
Check and record all teleport and switches are working in the SS Hub and compile a report for the Intelligence Director - this is to be done weekly
Interview and/or hire Low Ranks who show interest in joining the Secret Service branch
Interview / hire at least two (1) weekly
Training and Low Rank Actions
Promote at least 3 LRs weekly
Information Agent (8iC):
Assist the Chief Information Officer with the weekly SS times, you will be involved with the putting together of the SS Times. This may include you finding something for the SS Times, interviewing someone or completing a small section of the SS Times.
Assist the CIO by completing Interviews.
Meet with 3 9iC Trial/Non-Trainers.
Send interviews to the CIO.
Training and Low rank action requirements:
Basic train at least once weekly
Advance train at least twice weekly
Promote at least 4 times weekly
Submitted by Tabitha-Tabor to National Archives and Records Administration on 02/02/2020 9:44 PM GMT
Response received on 02/02/2020 10:03 PM GMT by Aaron.5D
so task dashboard says
"Below shows your task progress in the Judicial Branch since 26/01/2020 8:30 PM GMT."
does this mean any tasks done after that time will be added to the next weeks total or do we need to wait for it all to go back to 0 for it to count?
All tasks recorded after 8:30 PM GMT/BST (whichever's applicable) move over to the next week; task numbers will reset, or revert to the number of tasks completed after 8:30 PM, at 12:00 AM on Monday.
We leave the previous week's data, so anything before 8:30 PM, so branch leadership have the opportunity to review anything they've missed; this may not apply to every branch since some tools offer the entire history.
Submitted by :QwertyCH to Executive Office of the President on 31/01/2020 10:19 PM GMT
Response received on 01/02/2020 8:47 PM GMT by Martin-:
Why didn't you start intensifying legislative hearings?!?!??
The "Intensified Legislative Hearings" policy on the manifesto checklist could be seen as more of a "Congressional oversight" policy. The intention of this policy was to get a checks and balances system, where congressional committees would get oversight over certain executive areas â€“ this was pursued through a government bill which is currently under vote in congress: The Accountability and Audit Bill. With that bill we wanted to allow congressional committees to hold different executive members accountable for their work, by having them submit audits to the committees upon request.
So, while the "Intensified Legislative Hearings" policy itself wasn't started, the basic idea â€“ which was checks and balances â€“ was still introduced. With the idea being further developed to ensure proper oversight duties and the congress holding the executive accountable â€“ striving for checks and balances.
Submitted by Hjjjhgn to National Archives and Records Administration on 01/02/2020 11:54 AM GMT
Response received on 01/02/2020 1:30 PM GMT by Aaron.5D
Do CV's get paid?If yes, how much? If you don't hold the information, then who does?
No; CVs are not employed members of the WH and therefore do not receive pay.
It is the Department of Treasury's responsibility to determine and monitor pay. Common sense should have been used on the Secretary's part when responding to the previous request.
Submitted by Hjjjhgn to Department of the Treasury on 31/01/2020 8:41 PM GMT
Response received on 31/01/2020 8:43 PM GMT by JoshyTheWashy
Do CV's get paid?If yes, how much?
I do not hold the information on how much CV's gets paid
Submitted by :QwertyCH to Department of Education on 18/01/2020 6:16 AM GMT
Response received on 26/01/2020 4:45 AM GMT by AleciaWasX
Why is your department page not updated yet?!!?!!?!??!?!!!!!
Oh I didnâ€™t see this oops. Itâ€™s been updated.
Submitted by superninja507 to National Archives and Records Administration on 25/01/2020 12:26 AM GMT
Response received on 25/01/2020 12:29 AM GMT by Aaron.5D
hello yes i am enquiring into the status of my application for the dona position i am really looking forward to taking on more of an it role because im very good with pc and phone
The National Archives and Records Administration does not hold the information you have requested.
Submitted by saintpaulbb to Department of Justice on 21/01/2020 12:24 PM GMT
Response received on 21/01/2020 4:54 PM GMT by Vlyso
According to DC-59, eli0093 was given an x1 for illegally promoting the user Ick95. If you check the evidence, this promotion was right after advanced training, where it was 13 minutes before legal promotion. Was this x1 technically supposed to be a case? The reason I ask this because members of the Secret Service branch cannot control the automatic promotion between the Submission of Advanced Training as well as the automatic promotion to Prot. Guard I.
The law says 15 minutes. DoJ upholds the law. If the website has that issue, speak with NARA.
Submitted by Vlyso to National Archives and Records Administration on 15/01/2020 11:19 PM GMT
Response received on 16/01/2020 12:02 AM GMT by Aaron.5D
Did Martin-: request for EdenGreat to be removed from the Executive blacklist on or before 15/01/2020 2:48 PM EST? If so, when did he request it?
2020-01-15 17:00:50 (UTC/GMT)
Submitted by [email protected] to Board of Trustees on 09/01/2020 3:49 PM GMT
Response received on 14/01/2020 11:37 PM GMT by Dreyer
What requirements is Board of Trustee following in regards to VIP and Veteran?
Admittance to the VIP badge is not handled by the Board. Members are considered for Veteran status following guidelines set by the relevant offices/departments within the Executive branch, unless otherwise dictated by laws and regulations.
Submitted by Vlyso to Executive Office of the President on 07/01/2020 6:07 PM GMT
Response received on 08/01/2020 4:43 AM GMT by xMark.
trish89 has stated on multiple occasions that she maintains a log of Vlyso's last login time. If this is the case, I would like to see all instances where my login time has been logged.
If this is true for other employees of the White House, I would also like to see their logs.
Open government is closed today; we don't log anything.
Submitted by Aaron.5D to Executive Office of the President on 01/01/2020 4:31 PM GMT
Response received on 02/01/2020 2:55 PM GMT by xMark.
How does the administration feel on the following topics:
A) Transparency/being transparent in their actions and motives;
B) If necessary, lying to ensure their reputation isn't damaged;
C) Censorship of individuals; and
D) Schemes to intentionally push individuals out of the White House (such may include intentionally damaging someone's reputation, harassing them, having statuses revoked, etc).
Disclaimer: In no way am I insinuating any of these actions have been taken by the administration, I'm simply asking for their views and opinions on the topics in order to gain a better understanding of how they operate and think.
The Administration believes that transparency is not only one of our highest objectives, but also an indispensable value. The Administration is committed to being more transparent than is required by law as we consider this a duty that belongs to the Executive Branch. However, the Administration also recognizes that full transparency is not possible in every case, such as cases where it concerns Intelligence Services.
One of the initiatives that we have introduced once more is Freedom of Information. The same legislation that makes this request possible.
The Administration has demonstrated on several occasions that this acknowledges responsibility for errors and subsequently takes action. For example, in the first Impeachment trial, the President's mistake was admitted and corrected. We believe that manipulating the truth would not improve our reputation but would violate it.
The Administration is aware of the legislation that hinders us from exercising influence on censorship procedures. In our opinion, Congress is responsible for the correct implementation and execution of censorship related procedures and the Executive Branch should not be involved in censorship related affairs.
The Administration must play an exemplary role within the White House. We strongly condemn acts that adversely affect individuals with premeditation and will never perform for our own benefit but only in the interests of White House to the extent permitted by law.
Submitted by Aaron.5D to Executive Office of the President on 31/12/2019 8:55 PM GMT
Response received on 01/01/2020 1:47 PM GMT by xMark.
Who came up with the idea of transferring Hjjjhgn from Congress to the Secret Service so that he could then be hired into the Executive Branch? Was it the Executive Office of the President, Hjjjhgn himself, or someone else entirely?
It was Deputy Secretary of Education Hjjjhgn's intention to explore and be employed to the Secret Service before getting hired to the Executive.
Submitted by Vlyso to Executive Office of the President on 30/12/2019 12:24 AM GMT
Response received on 30/12/2019 8:59 PM GMT by xMark.
Who are the current individuals with Room Rights? (The list on the website is out of date).
I do not yet hold the information you have requested. However, the BoT had been notified about this and once we are given the list of individuals with Room Rights, we'll be very happy to give it to you and the DoJ.
Submitted by Vlyso to Department of Veteran Affairs on 16/12/2019 2:24 AM GMT
Response received on 21/12/2019 10:21 PM GMT by Brandoen
When did Clatter originally earn the VIP badge and what 7iC rank did he hold in the White House?
Hey, sorry for the late reply my site hasn't been working.
It was on my mistake that I mentioned Clatter had previously had the VIP badge, but me and the current EOP, had come to an agreement, to give him the VIP badge in order for him to remove his fake ones, I understand some people are annoyed with that decision, we did come to that final decision before any mention of my mistake, and I apologize for that.
Submitted by KingJason3. to Executive Office of the President on 16/12/2019 9:22 PM GMT
Response received on 16/12/2019 9:29 PM GMT by xMark.
Which member or members of EOP will be handling the responsibilities for legislative affairs? I think it's important you all are transparent as CL is yet to receive word of this.
It'll be whoever the President deems fit to handle the responsibilities for legislative affairs. It will be made known though, once the corresponding tag has been made by NARA.
Submitted by [email protected] to Department of the Treasury on 14/12/2019 12:04 PM GMT
Response received on 14/12/2019 10:27 PM GMT by JoshyTheWashy
Heey Jtw!! Is the Treasury records up-to-date cause i know steph needed lots of coins for events and shit and don't see anything about that in your records. and how much coins do we even have at the moment?
Yeah it's all updated
Submitted by htak to Department of Defense on 05/12/2019 1:25 AM GMT
Response received on 05/12/2019 1:56 AM GMT by amazingconnor
The site doesnâ€™t provide any additional ways to reach the DoD other than Habbo and the site. Is there maybe any way for people to reach out to yourself or Arlert and get a faster response such as your discords?
There is a Department of Defense tag in the WH Discord server which will tag the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense (so long as they have the tag), and, of course, there's always the option of asking others but I will be sure to add my Discord tag to the Defense Department's page and will speak to my Deputy's about his - thank you for the suggestion.
Submitted by [email protected] to Board of Trustees on 21/11/2019 10:01 PM GMT
Response received on 24/11/2019 10:14 PM GMT by ,97
Hey! I am just wondering what's happening with KingJason3. Petition to abolish speeches? it's been at Referendum milestone for a while now and nothing has happened and in Democracy Act act it states ''Each milestone must have the appropriate action taken within fourteen days of the petition reaching that milestone, unless the petition is removed or falls below the milestone''
speeches have been removed from the election schedule
Submitted by Energistics to National Archives and Records Administration on 12/11/2019 11:36 PM GMT
Response received on 12/11/2019 11:45 PM GMT by Aaron.5D
Hi, when will legislation be updated? We've been waitin
We do not hold the information you have requested.
Submitted by KingJason3. to National Archives and Records Administration on 12/11/2019 12:32 AM GMT
Response received on 12/11/2019 12:40 AM GMT by Aaron.5D
Also, are you adding a space on the site for BoT candidates and bios about them? So we can learn about them!
No. The Board of Trustees plans to do events during the week for this.
Submitted by KingJason3. to National Archives and Records Administration on 12/11/2019 12:31 AM GMT
Response received on 12/11/2019 12:39 AM GMT by Aaron.5D
When are you adding a section for court opinions?
Court opinions have already been implemented. They appear as a box on the hearings page itself, not all cases will have them as it is DoJ and JLs responsibility to add them.
Submitted by --Maxitaxi-- to National Archives and Records Administration on 11/11/2019 11:55 PM GMT
Response received on 12/11/2019 12:29 AM GMT by Aaron.5D
What is an URL shortener?
Please contact saintpaulbb regarding this matter.
You must be logged in to submit, or respond to, Freedom of Information Requests.