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.