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!