Month: May 2025

bookmark_borderFOIA Update May 2025

Posted on

The Government filed its THIRD motion for an extension of time on May 21, 2025. I (of course) opposed the motion (probably in futility); BUT, on May 12, 2025 the DOJ released 40 pages of responsive documents (and I was shocked – LOL). Here’s a brief summary of the contents of that release:

  • Becker references a DOJ “S:” drive, where they keep operational documents. (It’s the likely location of the “missing” NIT Reports as the bottom of the report clearly indicates it was printed from an S: drive.)
  • Becker authored all of the NIT Warrant Affidavits and “obtained” all the NIT Warrants.
  • Becker was a member of the team that petitioned for the Rule 41 change (allowing Magistrates to issue remote computer search warrants).

I’m supposed to get another page dump in June as they process the remaining pages. There are two dates that the DOJ is trying to extend, I petitioned the Court (in my opposition) to just extend their “search time” and not change the current litigation commencement (August 28, 2025); because, we’re really just waiting to litigate their inadequate search for the NIT Reports / Data and them currently withholding about 3000 pages due to various FOIA Exemptions. (Eventually they have to produce a “Vaughn Index” for those pages. That index will be illuminating – thus why they’re stalling.)

There is probably seriously detrimental information in those 3000 pages; because, the 40 page dump provided proof that Becker lied about the NIT Warrant Affidavits (He argued that the NIT Warrants deserved the “Leon – good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule.) and confirmed that the NIT Reports are on a DOJ resource referred to as an “S:” Drive. The S: drive revelation proves that they are acting in “bad faith” in regards to my FOIA request for the NIT Reports. So just imagine what those 3000 pages contain regarding Becker’s misconduct.

bookmark_borderMost Prosecutors Are Bad

Posted on

The fact that most prosecutors are bad is proven by their routine violation of American Bar Association Rule 3.8 (ABA 3.8) on a daily basis. The most recent example of their routine rule breaking is the ridiculous prosecution of Mr Patel, where his prosecutor blatantly violates provisions 3.8(a) & (d). Everyone can see, from the actual video footage of the “kidnapping attempt”, that Mr. Patel’s actions did not provide probable cause that any crime had been committed. Thus, in order for the prosecutor to be in compliance with ABA 3.8, he or she must drop all charges against Mr. Patel immediately. But, since they are corrupt tyrants, they didn’t drop the charges. Instead, they opposed bail for Mr. Patel. The judge rejected their nonsense and released Patel on bond immediately; but, the Judge’s good behavior in no way exonerates our inherently unjust “justice system.” 

And as the many exoneration projects have proven, almost all prosecutors violate ABA 3.8(h) – that states: “When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.”

Thus, as soon as I challenged the obvious problems with the NIT report, Keith A. Becker was required by Rule 3.8 to drop all the charges. The widespread violation of ABA 3.8 by State & Federal prosecutors means we currently live in a police state. Like the proverbial Boiling Frog, we’ve been ignoring the heat too long.