2015-09-16 Plaintiff’s Index of References to Records Requested under FOIA Request (FINAL) (post...

Plaintiff’s Index of References to Records Requested under FOIA Request

of 13

Louis Flores v. United States Department of Justice Case No. : 15-‐CV-‐2627 (JG)(RLM)

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

01 Direct quote from article : #BlackLivesMatter activists DeRay Mckesson, Johnetta Elzie, along with others who staged a sit-in at the federal courthouse in St. Louis on Monday, were charged with disturbance on federal property, according to a copy of a summons obtained by The Huffington Post.

The charge is contained in a section of the Code of Federal Regulations that governs the maintenance of federal buildings and other property. It prohibits “exhibiting disorderly conduct” that “unreasonably obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, or parking lots.”

It wasn't clear if all 57 protesters who were arrested were charged under the same law. Many had been processed and released by Monday evening.

The charge is considered a “petty offense” -- which still can lead to a criminal record. Thousands of such cases are adjudicated quietly in federal courts across the country, often by the mere payment of a fine.

But the adjudication of federal petty offenses has been criticized for not affording defendants the constitutional protections associated with more serious criminal charges -- such as the right to an attorney for poor defendants or the right to a jury trial.

As drafted, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which control in these cases, are rife with caveats to move these cases through the system more quickly.

According to the local rules of the Eastern District of Missouri, the federal courthouse where the protests took place, activists could choose to pay the “forfeiture of collateral” -- a glorified term for the payment of a fine, after which the case ostensibly goes away. But the rules are unclear if doing so would amount to a guilty plea, which may have adverse consequences because it would remain on the defendant’s record.

Or they could fight the charges in court, for which they would need to be represented by an attorney. If they lose, the maximum penalty activists face is 30 days in jail, a fine, or both.

Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce the federal law enforcement policy that allows activists to be arrested and charged with a crime, when activists are peacefully engaged in a political protest. Plaintiff’s Note : This contradicts President Obama’s remarks, delivered on Nov. 24, 2014, following the decision by a St. Louis County grand jury not to file criminal charges against a police officer in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

See Cristian Farias, #BlackLivesMatter Activists in St. Louis Charged With Disturbance On Federal Property, The Huffington Post (Aug. 10, 2015), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ entry/blacklivesmatters-‐st-‐louis-‐charges_ 55c93a8de4b0f1cbf1e61b8a.


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

02 After a St. Louis County grand jury voted not to file charges against a police officer in the shooting death of Michael Brown, President Obama delivered remarks, calling for protesters to engage in peaceful protests, adding, in part : I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur.

Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). President Obama said that peaceful protests “may occur.” Please produce the DOJ guidelines that allow for activists to take part in “peaceful protests that may occur.” Plaintiff’s Note : The President ordered law enforcement to show “care and restraint in managing peaceful protests.” Where are orders like these incorporated in the DOJ’s guidelines that govern the prosecution of activists ?

See Barack Obama, President Obama Delivers a Statement on the Ferguson Grand Jury’s Decision, White House (Nov. 24, 2014), https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/24/president-‐obama-‐delivers-‐statement-‐ferguson-‐grand-‐jurys-‐decision.

03 After protesters working in solidarity with Ferguson activists interrupted an Atlanta speech by then-‐U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the nation’s top federal prosecutor said, in part, : What we saw there was a genuine expression of concern and involvement. And it is through that level of involvement, that level of concern and I hope a level of perseverance and commitment, that change ultimately will come.

The activists were escorted out of the church, where Attorney General Holder was delivering his remarks. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce the federal law enforcement policy that allows activists to be escorted away from a protest instead of being arrested or charged with a crime. Plaintiff’s Note : Reforms, the goals of social movements, only come about through the work of activists, though that work may sometimes be politically embarrassing and unpopular to powerholders. If activists have a recognized role to push the government for reforms, then how is that reflected in DOJ guidelines for prosecuting activists ?

See Holly Yan and Catherine E. Shoichet, Ferguson fallout : Protesters interrupt Holder’s speech, CNN (Dec. 2, 2015), http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/us/ferguson-‐up-‐to-‐speed/.

04 President Barack Obama scolded a protester named Jennicet Gutiérrez, saying, “Shame on you” for creating an interruption during his gathering at the White House, and President Obama had the protester escorted out of the White House when the protester would not stop heckling the president. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce the federal law enforcement policy that allows activists to be escorted away from a protest instead of being arrested or charged with a crime.

See Kevin Liptak, Obama shuts down White House heckler : ‘You’re in my house !’, CNN (June 25, 2015), http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politics/obama-‐heckler-‐white-‐house-‐lgbt/


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

05 On P. 23, there is a reference to the “Myers memo (email)” on how to charge activists, particularly, Lt. Daniel Choi, federally with crimes in connection with his activism. This document is discoverable, because it is the subject of one of the requests made in the FOIA Request. This document contains “legal analysis.” Also on P. 23, there is a reference to “Capt. Guddemi’s November 22 email.” Finally, it is noted that Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George may have been involved in “advance targeting” of Lt. Choi. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce the “Myers memo (email).” (B). Please produce any other “legal analysis” that applies to the DOJ’s prosecution of activists, particularly, Lt. Choi. (C). Plaintiff demands that DOJ disclose whether Assistant U.S. Attorney George was involved in creating the legal opinions related to the arrests and prosecution of activists, including, but not limited to, Lt. Choi. (D). Please produce missing pp. 19, 22, and 24, as these missing pages may refer to further information about the legal analysis behind the arrest and/or prosecution of activists.

See James E. Pietrangelo, II, Amicus Curaie Breif of James E. Pietrangelo, II, Document Number 30 in DOJ’s Response to FOIA Request.

06 On P. 5, Government’s Exhibits 24 and 25 are mentioned. Government’s Exhibit 25 in particular relates to the “proper charge to apply” to activists, including to Lt. Daniel Choi. Collectively, the “e-‐mails” reveal information about “anticipated demonstration activities” and an “effort to receive legal guidance, ensuring the defendant was properly charged.” These documents are discoverable, because they answer a request made in the FOIA Request. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce Government’s Exhibits 24 and 25.

See Angela S. George, Government’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas on Behalf of United States Department of the Interior and the United States Park Police, Document Number 28 in DOJ’s Response to FOIA Request.

07 On pp. 27-‐28, the Government makes the case that in respect of cases with selective-‐prosecution claims, the Government uses “costs” as a reason to perhaps discontinue prosecutions, because if discovery is allowed to move forward, the Government may be forced to “disclose the Government’s prosecutorial strategy.” Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A) Please produce the DOJ’s guidelines for prosecuting activists.

See Mary B. McCord, Government’s Opposition to Petition for Write of Mandamus to United States District Court, Document Number 39 in DOJ’s Response to FOIA Request.


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

08 On p. 2, Lt. Daniel Choi wrote about “the White House culture of animus against protesters generally.” Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce guidelines that show that DOJ’s powers to prosecute activists cannot be biased, given activists’ actions that may embarrass the administration.

See Lt. Daniel Choi, Lieutenant Choi’s Motion for Substitute Service of Subpoenas and Discovery Conference Upon Receipt of Privileged Materials, Document Number 24 in DOJ’s Response to FOIA Request.

09 Ryan Grim, Washington Bureau Chief for The Huffington Post, said during a panel discussion on MSNBC, that the DOJ was using : … their “prosecutorial power in a vengeful kind of way” against reporters and sources that embarrass the administration, not those who compromise national security.

Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce guidelines that show that DOJ’s powers to prosecute activists cannot be biased, given activists’ actions that may embarrass the administration. Plaintiff’s Note : If, in the face of embarrassing or unpopular speech from journalists, who are protected by the First Amendment, the DOJ retaliates against such journalists, then, in the face of embarrassing or unpopular speech from activists, who are also protected by the First Amendment, the DOJ may also be retaliating against activists, as well, under the same pattern of misconduct.

See Noah Rothman, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: Where Are Subpoenas Of New York Times For Publishing Pro-Obama Leaks?, Mediaite (May 30, 2013), http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-‐chris-‐hayes-‐where-‐are-‐subpoenas-‐of-‐new-‐york-‐times-‐for-‐publishing-‐pro-‐obama-‐leaks/.


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

10 On p. 143, the MIT report described the DOJ’s relationship with the various U.S. Attorney’s Offices thusly : To a significant extent, the U.S. Attorneys and their AUSAs function autonomously from the DOJ. The interaction between the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the DOJ is complex. For example, for most matters, Trial Attorneys from DOJ must be invited by the U.S. Attorney in order to prosecute or assist in the prosecution of a crime in his district, otherwise they will not be allowed by the district court to participate in the court proceedings. Also, the use of some criminal statutes to prosecute a defendant, such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, and the use of some prosecution and investigative techniques, such as grants of immunity or wiretaps, by a U.S. Attorney or AUSA must be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General or Division within the DOJ. However, as a general matter, the following can be said : U.S. Attorneys and their AUSAs have primary responsibility for enforcing the federal criminal statutes within their districts, and do so without direct supervision or permission from the Attorney General or the DOJ.

Because the DOJ has responsibility for the entire United States, it sees similar types of criminal cases on a more regular basis than does a typical U.S. Attorney’s Office. That is one of the reasons why its divisions are themselves divided into sections and units: each of these smaller subdivisions has an expertise in a particular area of the law. In addition to being available to prosecute cases across the country that are within their particular specialties, the attorneys within these subdivisions are available for consultation with AUSAs in the various districts.

Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce guidelines, if any, where the USAO must seek approval by DOJ to prosecute activists. (B). Please produce any agency law or binding DOJ legal opinions provided by the DOJ to the USAOs or local or state law enforcement that governs the prosecution of activists.

See Harold Abelson et al., Report to the President : MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (July 26, 2013), http://swartz-‐report.mit.edu/docs/report-‐to-‐the-‐president.pdf.

11 On p. 152, the MIT report indicated : The power and discretion as to whether or not to prosecute a person who is suspected of committing a crime is vested entirely with Department of Justice, subject only to the limiting powers of the grand jury and the courts.

Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce the DOJ guidelines that document the DOJ’s discretion to prosecute activists. Plaintiff’s Note : The courts have jurisdiction on matters that may limit when or how the DOJ can have discretion. Plaintiff asserts that the courts have similar discretion over when or how to compel the DOJ to disclose the laws or guidelines that govern the DOJ’s discretionary powers.

See Harold Abelson et al., Report to the President : MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (July 26, 2013), http://swartz-‐report.mit.edu/docs/report-‐to-‐the-‐president.pdf.


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

12 Before the DOJ published its guidelines for investigating and possibly prosecuting journalists, in spite of their First Amendment protections for a free press and for free speech, the DOJ acknowledged it had guidelines to follow. In a report about the DOJ obtaining the phone records of The Associated Press, The Washington Post reported, in part : Justice Department guidelines require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be approved personally by the attorney general.

Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce comparable guidelines for activists.

See Sari Horwitz, Under sweeping subpoenas, Justice Department obtained AP phone records in leak investigation, The Washington Post, (May 13, 2013) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ world/national-‐security/under-‐sweeping-‐subpoenas-‐justice-‐department-‐obtained-‐ap-‐phone-‐records-‐in-‐leak-‐investigation/2013/05/13/11d1bb82-‐bc11-‐11e2-‐89c9-‐3be8095fe767_story.html.

13 Even though the activities of journalists are protected by the First Amendment, the government still investigated and prosecuted journalists in accordance with guidelines that governed those prosecutions. The DOJ later updated and made public those guidelines. However, the public does not know what guides the DOJ in the prosecution of activists, whose activities are also protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce guidelines that inform how the DOJ can investigate and prosecute journalists, even though activities of protesters are protected by the First Amendment.

See Charlie Savage, Attorney General Signs New Rules to Limit Access to Journalists’ Records, N.Y. Times (Feb. 21, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/ 02/22/us/attorney-‐general-‐signs-‐new-‐rules-‐to-‐limit-‐access-‐to-‐journalists-‐records.html.

14 The FBI once sent an anonymous letter to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., with the intention to drive him to commit suicide. Plaintiff’s Note : The Government has no credibility in this Court on matters of how it treats activists.

See Beverly Gage, What an Uncensored Letter to M.L.K. Reveals, N.Y. Times (Nov. 11, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-‐an-‐uncensored-‐letter-‐to-‐mlk-‐reveals.html

15 Even lawyers for activists don’t know what guides the DOJ’s policies for choosing to prosecute activists, or not. Ann Wilcox, a National Lawyers Guild attorney representing climate activists, said that ultimately, "we don't know for sure why some cases are dropped and some are processed." Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce what guides the DOJ to prosecute some activists for protests, but not all.

See Corbin Hiar, After Protest-Related Charges Dropped, More Confrontation Likely, Climate Activists Say, The Huffington Post (May 13, 2011), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/ 05/13/blair-‐mountain-‐department-‐interior-‐charges-‐climate-‐activists_n_861549.html


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

16 From a report in The Anti Media : According to the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, which outlines the rules for “sensitive investigative matters,” such as those involving elected officials, journalists, or political issues groups, prior approval is required of both the chief division counsel (CDC) and special agent in charge (SAC). These officials are supposed to weigh the consequences of “adverse impact on civil liberties and public confidence” should such an investigation be discovered by the public. None of the evidence suggests an attempt was made to contact either official pursuant to this sensitive investigation.

Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). If federal law enforcement, particularly the FBI, have a guide that is sensitive of the “adverse impact on civil liberties and public confidence,” do federal prosecutors have a similar guide ? If so, Plaintiff requests such guide.

See Claire Bernish, How the FBI and Big Oil Team Up to Silence Environmental Activists, The Anti Media (May 13, 2015), http://theantimedia.org/how-‐fbi-‐and-‐big-‐oil-‐team-‐up-‐silence-‐environmental-‐activists/ and Paul Lewis & Adam Federman. Revealed : FBI violated its own rules while spying on Keystone XL opponents, The Guardian (May 12, 2015), http://www.theguardian.com/us-‐news/2015/may/12/revealed-‐fbi-‐spied-‐keystone-‐xl-‐opponents.

17 The DOJ reportedly bans racial profiling, and yet the DOJ still surveils #BlackLivesMatter activists. Plaintiff’ s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce DOJ guidelines that explain surveillance of activists in the face of ban on racial profiling.

See Anna Brand and Trymaine Lee, Justice Department to unveil new bans on racial profiling, MSNBC (Dec. 8, 2014), http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/justice-‐department-‐eric-‐holder-‐new-‐bans-‐racial-‐profiling and Brandon Ellington Patterson, Homeland Security Is Tracking Black Lives Matter. Is That Legal?, Mother Jones (July 30, 2015), http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/homeland-‐security-‐surveillance-‐black-‐lives-‐matter.


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

18 Activists were arrested by U.S. Capitol Police outside the headquarters of the Republican National Committee. According to the article : According to Lt. Dan Nichols of the Capitol Police, the protesters were to be charged with "obstruction of passage on federal grounds," a violation of D.C. law. They were not arrested on the steps of the RNC because that area falls under the jurisdiction of the D.C. Metropolitan Police, who chose not to take action, Nichols added. Capitol Police confirmed that the protestors were released later Friday evening.

Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce the federal guideline, generally, for the arrest of activists when local law enforcement with jurisdiction over a protest chooses not to arrest activists. (B). Specific to this demonstration, did the DOJ consult with the U.S. Capitol Police to provide a binding legal opinion holding that U.S. Capital Police can make arrests of activists when local law enforcement will not make arrests ? If so, please produce the binding law that governs situations such as these.

See AIDS/HIV : ACT UP Rallies Against Bush at RNC Headquarters, California Healthline (Oct; 17; 2000), http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2000/10/17/aidshiv-‐-‐act-‐up-‐rallies-‐against-‐bush-‐at-‐rnc-‐headquarters.

19 After anonymous authors made highly unpopular and completely reckless comments on a Web site, federal prosecutors sought grand jury subpoenas to obtain online records to determine the identity of the anonymous authors of the comments. Such extremism is an example of the government using its authority not “in an even handed way,” creating a “chilling effect on political speech.” Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce guidelines that show that DOJ’s powers to investigate or prosecute activists cannot be biased. (B). Specific to this case, did the DOJ consult with the USAO to provide a binding legal opinion holding that grand jury subpoenas could be obtained ? If so, please produce the agency law that governs situations such as these.

See Ilya Somin, Department of Justice uses grand jury subpoena to try to unmask anonymous blog post commenters, The Washington Post (June 8, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-‐conspiracy/wp/2015/06/08/department-‐of-‐justice-‐uses-‐grand-‐jury-‐subpoena-‐to-‐try-‐to-‐unmask-‐anonymous-‐blog-‐post-‐commenters/.


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

20 John Sellers, one of the protesters arrested during the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, faced a bail of $1 million after his arrest on eight misdemeanor charges. Other activists faced bail of between $400,000 and $500,000. According to The New York Times, over 300 protesters were arrested during demonstrations. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce DOJ guidelines that show that local law enforcement have the authority to supersede the federal rights of activists to protest by arresting activists and setting such high bails. (B). Specific to this case, did the DOJ consult with the local law enforcement to provide a binding legal opinion holding that bail could be set so high ? If so, please produce the agency law that governs situations such as these.

See Francis X. Clines, Convention Demonstrators Are Held on Very High Bail, N.Y. Times (Aug. 5, 2000), http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/05/us/convention-‐demonstrators-‐are-‐held-‐on-‐very-‐high-‐bail.html.

21 A two-‐day protest by housing activists that took place outside the DOJ resulted in almost 30 arrests, including complaints by activists that law enforcement used tasers on activists. According to the report in Rolling Stone, it appeared that the Federal Protective Service, part of the Department of Homeland Security, was the law enforcement agency in charge. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce DOJ guidelines that show that law enforcement have the authority to use force on activists, generally, leading up to their arrests. (B). Please produce DOJ legal opinions or any advisory opinions that show that law enforcement had the authority to use force on activists, in this specific instance, leading up to their arrests. (C). Please produce guidelines that show whether or not activists are “under attack” by the DOJ. (D). Specific to this case, please provide any agency law or binding DOJ legal opinion that governs situations such as these.

See John Knefel, Why Are Homeowners Being Jailed for Demanding Wall Street Prosecutions?, Rolling Stone (May 22, 2013), http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-‐are-‐homeowners-‐being-‐jailed-‐for-‐demanding-‐wall-‐street-‐prosecutions-‐20130522.

22 The prosecution of activists has provoked public outrage and calls for legislative reform. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce the DOJ guidelines for the prosecution of activists. Plaintiff’s Note : This was cited in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 9).

See Tom Risen, Barrett Brown's Prison Time Raises Cybersecurity, Journalism Concerns, U.S. News & World Report (Jan. 23, 2015), http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/23/ barrett-‐browns-‐prison-‐time-‐raises-‐cybersecurity-‐journalism-‐concerns.


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

23 Allegations have been made that the DOJ mounts “vindictive” prosecution of activists, such as in the case of Lt. Daniel Choi. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce guidelines that prevent activists, who are subjects of DOJ prosecution, from being selected for prosecution in a “vindictive” manner. (B). Specific to this case, please provide any agency law or binding DOJ legal opinion issued in respect of the prosecution of Lt. Choi. Plaintiff’s Note : This case was cited in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 18).

See Scott Wooledge, Updated: Judge Allows Lt Dan Choi’s “vindictive prosecution” Defense, Daily Kos (Aug. 31, 2011), http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/31/1012290/-‐Updated-‐Judge-‐Allows-‐Lt-‐Dan-‐Choi-‐s-‐vindictive-‐prosecution-‐Defense ; Lou Chibbaro Jr., Judge rules against Choi in ‘vindictive’ prosecution claim, Washington Blade (Oct. 17, 2011), http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/10/17/judge-‐rules-‐against-‐choi-‐in-‐‘vindictive’-‐prosecution-‐claim/.

24 Allegations have been made that the DOJ mounts cases “rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach” in respect of activists, such as in the case of Aaron Swartz. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce guidelines that prevent activists, who are subjects of DOJ prosecution, from being “rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach.” (B). Specific to this case, please provide any agency law or binding DOJ legal opinion issued in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Swartz. Plaintiff’s Note : This case was cited in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 19).

See Noam Cohen, A Data Crusader, a Defendant and Now, a Cause, N.Y. Times, Jan. 14, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/ technology/aaron-‐swartz-‐a-‐data-‐crusader-‐and-‐now-‐a-‐cause.html.

25 Allegations have been made that the DOJ mounts cases against activists by treating whistleblowing activists as terrorists, as in the case of PFC Chelsea Manning. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce guidelines that prevent activists, who are subjects of DOJ prosecution, from being treated as terrorists. (B). Specific to this case, please provide any agency law or binding DOJ legal opinion issued in respect of the prosecution of PFC Manning. Plaintiff’s Note : This case was cited in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 20).

See Amy Goodman & Glenn Greenwald, Prosecutor Overreach Could Turn All Whistleblowing into Treason, Democracy Now (March 5, 2013), http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/5/glenn_greenwald_on_ bradley_manning_prosecutor.


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

26 News reports indicated that the prosecution of activists has imposed restrictions, burdens, and interferences with First Amendment, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists. After HIV/AIDS activists were arrested during a peaceful protest in Washington, DC, the U.S. Attorney’s Office demanded the drug-‐testing of activists, who were charged with nonviolent crimes, such as civil disobedience. The demand for drug-‐testing of HIV/AIDS activists was fraught with complications, because some activists may have had a prescription for medical marijuana or may have had prescriptions for other medications, which perhaps would have resulted in a false positive. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce DOJ guidelines that show that people with HIV/AIDS are not forced to be administered drug tests as a form of harassment, retaliation, or abridgment of any of their First Amendment, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights. (B). Specific to this case, please provide any agency law or binding DOJ legal opinion issued in respect of the prosecution of the HIV/AIDS activists in this situation. Plaintiff’s Note : This case was cited in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 21).

See Trenton Straube, U.S. Attorney Requires Drug Tests for AIDS Protesters, POZ (Feb. 2012), http://www.poz.com/articles/DC_HIV_Marijuana_401_21944.shtml ; Martin Austermuhle, AIDS Activist Faces Trial After Use of Medical Marijuana Sinks Hopes for Dismissal of Charges, dcist (Feb. 9, 2012), http://dcist.com/2012/02/aids_ activist_faces_trial_after_usi.php.


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

27 Allegations have been made that federal prosecutors may hold HIV/AIDS activists to a different standard, such as bringing stricter criminal charges, than other activists, who are arrested by local law enforcement. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce DOJ guidelines that show that people with HIV/AIDS, or any class of activists, are not treated differently, particularly harsher, than any other class of activists. (B). Specific to this case, please provide any agency law or binding DOJ legal opinion issued in respect of the these cases that can explain the difference in treatment between groups or classes of activists. Plaintiff’s Note : These cases were cited in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 22).

See Arin Greenwood, HIV/AIDS Activists Complain Of Unfair Treatment By U.S. Attorney's Office, Huffington Post (Feb. 8, 2012), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2012/02/08/aids-‐activists-‐protest_n_1263144.html ; Brianne Carter, D.C. mayor Vincent Gray, councilmembers arrested : Protesters plead not guilty, WJLA (May 5, 2011), http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/05/d-‐c-‐mayor-‐vincent-‐gray-‐councilmembers-‐arrested-‐protesters-‐to-‐appear-‐in-‐court-‐-‐60103.html ; Debbie Siegelbaum, AIDS activists allege discriminatory treatment following Capitol arrest, The Hill (Feb. 8, 2011), http://thehill.com/homenews/house/209485-‐aids-‐activists-‐allege-‐discriminatory-‐treatment-‐after-‐capitol-‐protest-‐arrest.


of 13

Reference Number :

Description :

Source :

28 Allegations have been made that the DOJ mounts cases against activists with political overtones, such as during the tenure of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce guidelines that show that the powers of the USAOs and/or the DOJ to prosecute activists cannot be biased or influenced by political overtones. (B). Specific to the cases of the 23 activists, who were critics of U.S. foreign policy, please provide any agency law or binding DOJ legal opinion issued in respect of the prosecution of these 23 activists. Plaintiff’s Note : This case was cited in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 23).

See Peter Wallsten, Activists cry foul over FBI probe, The Washington Post (June 13, 2011), http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-‐06-‐13/politics/ 35235946_1_activists-‐cry-‐stephanie-‐weiner-‐targets ; Kevin Gosztola, FBI Continues to Target Activists in Chicago and Minneapolis (VIDEO), Firedoglake (Dec. 9, 2010), http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2010/12/09/fbi-‐continues-‐to-‐target-‐activists-‐in-‐chicago-‐and-‐minneapolis/ ; Josh Gerstein, After 1 year, FBI returns property to Minnesota anti-war activists, Politico (Nov. 3, 2011), http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1111/FBI_returns_property_to_Minnesota_antiwar_activists.html.

29 Congress and the public are unable to determine the nature and purpose of the prosecution of activists. Plaintiff’s Discovery Demand : (A). Please produce guidelines that show how the government balances the First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists against charges that the government brings against activists. Plaintiff’s Note : This was cited in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 24).

See Kim Zetter, Congress Demands Justice Department Explain Aaron Swartz Prosecution, Wired (Jan. 29, 2013), http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/doj-‐briefing-‐on-‐aaron-‐swartz/ ; Marcy Wheeler, Aaron Swartz reveals the hypocrisy of our Justice Department, Salon (Jan. 15, 2013), http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/aaron_swartz_reveals_the_hypocrisy_of_our_justice_department/.

2015-09-16 Plaintiff’s Index of References to Records Requested under FOIA Request (FINAL) (post...

Documents

Transcript of 2015-09-16 Plaintiff’s Index of References to Records Requested under FOIA Request (FINAL) (post...