Month: December 2025

bookmark_borderFOIA Litigation Update

Posted on

So on Monday I got a response to my letter to the Clerk of the Court. It noted that the Judge (likely upon seeing my letter to the Clerk) ordered the government to file their motion for summary Judgement on January 8, 2025…

Of Course on Tuesday I receive a NOTICE OF MOTION from the government requesting an extension to February 27, 2026. I, of course, filed a MOTION IN OPPOSITION. I also noticed for the first time (legally – I always saw it was written, but didn’t fully comprehend its significance until now) that the AUSA invokes 28 U.S.C §1746 for his DECLARATION(s). I did some research and determine that his paragraphs #5 & 6 are knowingly incorrect.

I know these “declarations” are “knowingly” incorrect; because, #5 states “By Letter dated December 22, 2022, the FBI determined that we were unable to identify records subject to the [FOIA] that are responsive to your request.” Then in #6 he asserts that the FBI’s letter ends the dispute over the requested NIT Reports. His assertion is knowingly incorrect because; A) a simple “letter” isn’t a sworn affidavit and thus is not sufficient to prove that an adequate search was performed and B) I have a NIT Report (Mine), so I can prove that at least one exists and was printed from a DOJ S: drive.

ChatGPT explains this S: drive succinctly:
1. It is an agency record system
Documents stored there are almost certainly “agency records” under FOIA.
2. It can trigger search obligations
If emails indicate responsive records were stored on the S: drive, a reasonable FOIA search may need to include:
+ The relevant S: drive directories
+ Not just email or individual H: drives
3. It can undercut “no records” or limited-search claims
Especially if:
+ Custodians refer to the S: drive as the primary storage location
+ Records were moved there from email
+ Multiple custodians had access
4. It may preserve older or “orphaned” files
S: drives often retain documents long after individual users leave or clean up their inboxes.

Since all the above applies, I filed a motion to challenge the AUSA’s assertion today. I’ll let you know what the Court says when I know.

bookmark_borderAnalogy and Update

Posted on

Perhaps an analogy will help people understand how ridiculous the case against me was.

Imagine that the FBI searches two houses next to each other. House A has a security system with cameras that put timestamps on the video. House B has no security system or cameras, but during the search of House B, the FBI installs a security system with cameras and then fabricates video with timestamps mimicking House A’s using artificial intelligence.

A Prosecutor then uses the fake video from House B to indict a masked John Doe in the video with robbing House B. Prosecutor claims masked John Doe is a specific individual who lives in the neighborhood. The accused asks his experts to examine House B’s security system and video. Experts produce a report that says House A’s security system and cameras work fine. Accused tells his attorney “But I’m accused of robbing House B, how is House A relevant?” Attorney responds “Experts say security system and cameras are reliable — case closed —you should take a plea deal”.

Update: So I was supposed to get the Vaughn index and summary judgement brief from the government on November 26, 2025 BUT they asked for a STAY due to the government shutdown. I never got a ruling on their request, so I’m sending a letter to the clerk now to see if we have a new schedule. ALSO, Howard and the Nebraska Counsel for Discipline continue to ignore me. TYPICAL!