Month: February 2026

It’s time for summary judgment. On Tuesday (2-24-2026) I got the government’s Motion for Summary Judgement, claiming that they have met their obligations under FOIA law to respond to my requests. It consists of a large amount of paper that cost them $10 to mail to me, instead of providing a link to an attachment (making it harder for me to review).

I’ve spent the past two days reading it and have determined that it is legally insufficient. Thus, I now need to submit my Cross-motion for Summary Judgement. The crux of their argument takes the form of 3 declarations (provided under penalty of perjury) claiming that the searched for and provided all the information that they were required to, under the law. I will argue the opposite.

Two declarations were authored by an FBI employee named Amie Napier and the other was authored by a DOJ employeee named Korrine Super (seriously?). Amie’s first declaration is 42 pages of boilerplate nonsense, but her second declaration is 16 pages of interesting prose, as it contradicts the first.

In sum, Amie’s first declaration asserts that the NIT Reports that I asked for “were not found” and that all the redactions that they authorized for the DOJ to put on the 297 released pages were carefully analyzed and are totally justified (the redactions in the released documents say Exemption 7E per FBI). Thus, her first declaration is total bullshit. Her second declaration, included as the last exhibit of her first declaration, is a Glomar response for the NIT Reports. I LOL’d at that because it’s an obvious contradiction, either you cannot find the documents (asserting they don’t exists) or you can state “we can neither confirm nor deny” their existence. It doesn’t take a legal expert to determine that her second declaration was inserted because I have one of the documents I requested! Therefore, it’s a “bad faith” hedge allowing them to argue that the “NIT Reports” are a matter of national security when I point out that inconvenient FACT to the Court. LOL In other words, they’re going fight to the death to keep my from seeing those other NIT Reports….

Korrine’s declaration is a boilerplate document that is legally insufficient to win summary judgement with, IMO. Korrine provides the Court with 37 pages of generic definitions for the 118 page Vaughn Index. Her Index is insufficient for the same reason as her main declaration, it consists of 2000+ copy & paste unspecific boilerplate justifications that were outlawed in 2016. In paragraph 103, she actually asserts a forbidden augment. “It is foreseeable that disclosure of such information could allow…” “Could allow” is conclusory and was outlawed in 2016… SMDH.

In sum, I expected Korrine’s disingenuous declaration (as it’s standard “bad faith” DOJ operating procedure – see the Epstein files…). BUT, I was shocked by Amie’s willingness to commit perjury when she knew (or shouldn’t have known) I HAVE A NIT REPORT!

Anyway, I’m composing my motion now. I’ll let you know when I submit it sometime next month. As I gotta proof read and research it carefully. I want the court to completely un-redact two “bombshell” documents released to me so that my next motion to VACATE my conviction is a “slam dunk”.

Wish me luck.

Since my FOIA litigation started, they have been claiming that they couldn’t find the NIT Reports I’ve requested. As I indicated in a previous report, I challenged that lie in a reply to their request for more time.

The government’s response made me LOL, they actually argued that it was OK to lie because it wasn’t material to the motion to extend the deadline. IOW, it was just procedural – LMAO. But who knows, maybe the Court will buy it. (Like most Americans, I have little trust in any of our institutions.) But, the argument is so absurd on its face the Court would have to get creative to buy it as AUSAs have a duty of candor to the Court. That means they’re not allowed to lie to the Court about anything, EVER! As AUSAs are (wrongly IMO) given a presumption of regularity.

Nothing else to report about the FOIA case at this time, as I wait for the Court to rule on their extension motion and my counter motion to sanction them for lying about the NIT Reports. You’ll know more when I do…

In other news, Howard still hasn’t provided a single page from my case file. So, I sent a letter to Ryan’s law firm (they represented me for my first Habeas petition back in 2018). I’m trying to get them to answer some questions about the file Howard gave to them. Specifically asking about pages I got from FOIA and from the WDNY public defenders office to see if they’re in the file he gave Megan. If they’re not there, then I know (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Howard was/is corrupt.

Out of desperation, I sent a bar complaint to IOWA’s Bar (Howard is licensed there too) to see if they’ll do anything about his noncompliance. Wish I knew how damaging those emails were when I sent them in July of 2015 (but I that time I had no idea Howard was working with Becker to railroad me). In other words, I got played…

Update 2-4-2026

Well, the Court got creative <smdh>

Here, Plaintiff presents no evidence to affirm his assertion that Defendant lied in stating that the FBI could not locate documents responsive to his FOIA request. Plaintiff provides no substantiating proof that his attached exhibit was generated by the FBI in connection with “Operation Torpedo” or that it served as the basis for his criminal indictment in 2013 and is responsive to his FOIA request. (Dkt. 48 at 1). Plaintiff also does not argue that Defendant’s statements were made to harass him or delay these proceedings. See Liebowitz v. Bandshell Artist Mgmt., 6 F.4th 267, 286n.22 (2d Cir. 2021) (“A] showing of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence is a prerequisite to imposing sanctions under both § 1927 and the district court’s inherent authority[.]’). Thus, the Court declines to award Plaintiff sanctions pursuant to § 1927 or its inherent authority.

Regarding his remaining requests, Plaintiff provides no legal basis for the Court to order production of NIT Reports, operational methodology, or internal communications related to such NIT Reports. (See Dkt. 48 at 3). Plaintiff has presented no concrete evidence that defense counsel’s statements are untrue. Absent such evidence, the Court is entitled to rely on representations made by defense counsel that the FBI failed to identify records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request. See Greer v. Carlson, 1:20-CV-05484-LTS-SDA, 2020 WL 7028922, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2020)

BUT, the Court also ruled that the government must file their Motion for Summary Judgement by 2-20-2026 – so I should get a nice Birthday Present… Apparently, I’ll need to supply supporting documents for my exhibits because the Court will just believe anything the AUSA says. IMO, Our institutions are hopelessly corrupt!