and there were three or four cases that ever mentioned it between it coming down and mudded, and in muddit, judge baryl hel, another one of the new barack obama appointees said yes, this is something that is a policy that would violate foia, and so it can be sued on the government had actually argued, because he wasn't harmed, because payne had to do with exemptions, and this had nothing to do with exemptions,' not litigable. she said no any violation of foia that say consistent violation can be sued under payne as long as you can be proved there is a policy. so the state department reversed their policy and instituted a new policy that said we will now give estimated dates of completion. and so that was really the beginning of what i would say, you know, what i'll call the cia cases, the four cases that i alluded to that mike mentioned, which were a massive challenge against 16 policyies, eight of which were in blatant violation of clearly established statutes or case law, and eight of which were just bad policies that we thought were illegal but there was no direct case law in point on t

these cases are also before judge hough, i would hope she would not change her mind on ruling on muddit and the cia case and that posse, so she's a judge, she can do what judges do. they consider different levels of evidence for different agencies. but now that i think about it, of course my time is running out, i'll answer specific questions about the policies and practices in particular. you can -- all of our cia cases are on our website, nationalsecuri nationalsecuri nationalsecurity.org/litigation. personally i don't really like the idea that nobody did anything with payne from payne until the cia cases. given how many times agencies make the argument in one case, lose, and say the request is for records about tank use in libya, and they will make an argument that something is redacted, and the judge will go against them, then they will withhold the same information from another request about tank use in somalia, and if you raise the argument in your litigation that this was already decided in the previous case, they'll say no, that had to do with libya. that was just specific to th