2015-11-23 DOJ MSJ (5) Declaration Rukhsanah Singh - USAO (Flores v DOJ) (FOIA Lawsuit)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LOUIS FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 15-CV-2627 (Gleeson, J.) (Mann, M.J.)

DECLARATION OF ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY RUKHSANAH L. SINGH

I, RUKHSANAH L. SINGH, declare as follows: 1. I am the Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York with

primary responsibility for the litigation of this Action. As such, I am familiar with the

files and materials that this office maintains concerning this litigation.

2. This declaration and the exhibits annexed hereto submitted in support of Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment are true copies of documents in the files of the Office of

the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a letter dated April 30, 2013

from Plaintiff Louis Flores (“Plaintiff”) to “EOUSA/FOIA/PA,” with enclosures thereto.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an email dated March 27, 2013

from Plaintiff to an Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) at the United States

Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia (“USAO-DC”), with copy to other email

accounts.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an email dated April 10, 2013

from Plaintiff to the USAO-DC AUSA, with copy to other email accounts.

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 of 98 PageID #: 277

2

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of an email dated April 16, 2013

from Plaintiff to an ASKDOJ email account, with copy to other email accounts.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an email dated April 17, 2013

from the Public Information Officer at USAO-DC to Plaintiff.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an email dated April 30, 2013

from Plaintiff to the Public Information Officer at USAO-DC, with copy to other email

accounts and without attachment thereto.

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a letter dated December 6,

2013 from Thomas H. Golden of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (“Willkie Farr”) to the

Office of Information Policy (“OIP”).

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a letter dated May 20, 2014

from OIP to Arthur Biller of Willkie Farr, with attachment thereto.

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of a letter dated August 17, 2015

from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”), Freedom of

Information & Privacy Staff, to Plaintiff, without enclosures thereto.

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy a document entitled “Plaintiff’s

Index to References to Records Requested under FOIA Request,” provided by Plaintiff to

the undersigned on September 16, 2015.

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of a letter dated October 13, 2015

from the undersigned to Plaintiff, without enclosures thereto.

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of a letter dated October 15, 2015

from the undersigned to Plaintiff.


3

15. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of a letter dated October 26, 2015

from Plaintiff to the undersigned, with enclosures thereto.

16. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of a letter dated November 3,

2015 from the undersigned to Plaintiff.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on November 23,

2015 (Brooklyn, New York).

s/Rukhsanah L. Singh__________________ RUKHSANAH L. SINGH Assistant United States Attorney


EXHIBIT A


EXHIBIT B


-----Original Message----- From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:26 PM To: George, Angela (USADC) Cc: Guerrero, Gilberto (USADC); McCord, Mary (USADC); Strand, Stratton (USADC); [email protected]; Buckler, Lori (USADC); Ashton, Victoria (USADC); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Suzannah Beth; [email protected] Subject: USA v. Lt. Daniel Choi - Blogger Inquiry/FOIL Request Dear Hon. Madame Prosecutor : I am an LGBT blogger, based in New York City. I would like to update my latest blog post with information about the U.S. government's case against U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Daniel Choi. http://ny-popculture-politics.blogspot.com/2013/03/lt-dan-choi-dadt-trial-update.html Can you please answer the following questions, so that I can accurately report on my blog about the government's prosecution of Lt. Choi : (i). Can you let me know why the DOJ is making its prosecution of Lt. Choi a priority ? Many activists question how the DOJ can put a priority on its prosecution of activists. For example, the DOJ faces criticism for its heavy-handed prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz. Is the prosecution of Lt. Choi part of the same strategy to undermine the rights of activists ? Can you give me some color about this ? What is the DOJ trying to achieve with the prosecution of Lt. Choi, what is your purpose ? (ii). One of the constant complaints that I've hear Lt. Choi make is that during the government's prosecution of Lt. Choi, he seems to not be being addressed by DOJ officials by his official rank, in accordance with AR 670-1. Is there any implied intention to express disrespect to LGBT Army veterans on the DOJ's part ? It would great to hear how the DOJ responds to Lt. Choi's complaints about this specific issue. (iii) Can the DOJ disclose the cumulative cost of its prosecution of Lt. Choi ? Thank you for any information you can provide. If I need to make an official FOIL request, please forward to me the necessary information so that I may submit a formal FOIL request. I look forward to your response. Thank you kindly. Best regards, Louis Flores [email protected] 1 (646) 400-1168


mailto:[email protected]






http://ny-popculture-politics.blogspot.com/2013/03/lt-dan-choi-dadt-trial-update.html


EXHIBIT C


-----Original Message----- From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:47 PM To: George, Angela (USADC) Cc: Guerrero, Gilberto (USADC); McCord, Mary (USADC); Strand, Stratton (USADC); [email protected]; Buckler, Lori (USADC); Ashton, Victoria (USADC); [email protected]; [email protected]; Suzannah Beth; [email protected] Subject: Re: USA v. Lt. Daniel Choi - Blogger Inquiry/FOIL Request Dear Hon. Madame Prosecutor : I'm just following up on my request for information. Looking forward to your response. Thank you kindly. Best regards, -- Louis On 27 mars 2013, at 20:25, LF (g-Male) wrote: > > Dear Hon. Madame Prosecutor : > > I am an LGBT blogger, based in New York City. I would like to update my latest blog post with information about the U.S. government's case against U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Daniel Choi. > > http://ny-popculture-politics.blogspot.com/2013/03/lt-dan-choi-dadt-trial-update.html > > Can you please answer the following questions, so that I can accurately report on my blog about the government's prosecution of Lt. Choi : > > (i). Can you let me know why the DOJ is making its prosecution of Lt. Choi a priority ? Many activists question how the DOJ can put a priority on its prosecution of activists. For example, the DOJ faces criticism for its heavy-handed prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz. Is the prosecution of Lt. Choi part of the same strategy to undermine the rights of activists ? Can you give me some color about this ? What is the DOJ trying to achieve with the prosecution of Lt. Choi, what is your purpose ? > > (ii). One of the constant complaints that I've hear Lt. Choi make is that during the government's prosecution of Lt. Choi, he seems to not be being addressed by DOJ officials by his official rank, in accordance with AR 670-1. Is there any implied intention to express disrespect to LGBT Army veterans on the DOJ's part ? It would great to hear how the DOJ responds to Lt. Choi's complaints about this specific issue. >








> (iii) Can the DOJ disclose the cumulative cost of its prosecution of Lt. Choi ? > > Thank you for any information you can provide. If I need to make an official FOIL request, please forward to me the necessary information so that I may submit a formal FOIL request. I look forward to your response. > > Thank you kindly. > > Best regards, > > Louis Flores > [email protected] > 1 (646) 400-1168



EXHIBIT D


From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:19 PM To: ASKDOJ (JMD) Cc: George, Angela (USADC); Guerrero, Gilberto (USADC); McCord, Mary (USADC); Strand, Stratton (USADC); [email protected]; Buckler, Lori (USADC); Ashton, Victoria (USADC); [email protected]; [email protected]; Suzannah B. Troy; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: USA v. Lt. Daniel Choi - Blogger Inquiry/FOIL Request Ladies and Gentlemen : I am a New York City-based blogger, and I have made requests for information from the Department of Justice. One of my requests was for the total cost of the Justice Department's prosecution against Lt. Daniel Choi stemming from his arrest on November 15, 2010, during a protest against the military's former policy known as ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I specifically mentioned in my original request, included in the e-mail chain below, for a response, or, alternatively, if there was a special process for submitting requests for information, I requested such information so that I could submit a formal request according to such process. In spite of this, I have received no acknowledgement or response to the requests for information submitted on two different occasions. See the e-mail chain included below. According to the Attorney General's guidelines on the Freedom of Information Act, there is a presumption of ''openness.'' See : http://www.justice.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf I would greatly appreciate it if you could route my request for this information to the appropriate department, so that I could receive an acknowledgement and an appropriate response to my requests for information. Thank you kindly. Best regards, Louis Flores 1 (646) 400-1168 [email protected] Begin forwarded message:

From: "LF (g-Male)" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: USA v. Lt. Daniel Choi - Blogger Inquiry/FOIL Request Date: 10 avril 2013 21:47:14 UTC-04:00 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],








http://www.justice.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf









[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Suzannah Beth <[email protected]>, [email protected] Dear Hon. Madame Prosecutor : I'm just following up on my request for information. Looking forward to your response. Thank you kindly. Best regards, -- Louis On 27 mars 2013, at 20:25, LF (g-Male) wrote:

Dear Hon. Madame Prosecutor : I am an LGBT blogger, based in New York City. I would like to update my latest blog post with information about the U.S. government's case against U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Daniel Choi. http://ny-popculture-politics.blogspot.com/2013/03/lt-dan-choi-dadt-trial-update.html Can you please answer the following questions, so that I can accurately report on my blog about the government's prosecution of Lt. Choi : (i). Can you let me know why the DOJ is making its prosecution of Lt. Choi a priority ? Many activists question how the DOJ can put a priority on its prosecution of activists. For example, the DOJ faces criticism for its heavy-handed prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz. Is the prosecution of Lt. Choi part of the same strategy to undermine the rights of activists ? Can you give me some color about this ? What is the DOJ trying to achieve with the prosecution of Lt. Choi, what is your purpose ? (ii). One of the constant complaints that I've hear Lt. Choi make is that during the government's prosecution of Lt. Choi, he seems to not be being addressed by DOJ officials by his official rank, in accordance with AR 670-1. Is there any implied intention to express disrespect to LGBT Army veterans on the DOJ's part ? It would great to hear how the DOJ responds to Lt. Choi's complaints about this specific issue. (iii) Can the DOJ disclose the cumulative cost of its prosecution of Lt. Choi ?








Thank you for any information you can provide. If I need to make an official FOIL request, please forward to me the necessary information so that I may submit a formal FOIL request. I look forward to your response. Thank you kindly. Best regards, Louis Flores [email protected] 1 (646) 400-1168



EXHIBIT E


On 17 avr. 2013, at 10:32, Miller, William (USADC) wrote:

Mr. Flores: Thank you for your request for information concerning the case involving Daniel Choi. A FOIA request for records from a U.S. Attorney’s Office should be sent to the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA). EOUSA is the official record keeper for the records maintained in all United States Attorneys’ offices, and will respond to your request directly The address is as follows: Department of Justice EOUSA/FOIA/PA Staff BICN Bldg. 600 E Street, N.W., Suite 7300 Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 The telephone number is (202) 252-6020. Bill Miller Public Information Officer U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia 202-252-6643 (Direct) 202-252-6933 (Main) [email protected]



EXHIBIT F


From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:24 PM To: Miller, William (USADC) Cc: ASKDOJ (JMD); George, Angela (USADC); Guerrero, Gilberto (USADC); McCord, Mary (USADC); Strand, Stratton (USADC); [email protected]; Buckler, Lori (USADC); Ashton, Victoria (USADC); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Louis Flores Subject: USA v. Lt. Daniel Choi - FOIA Request Dear Mr. Miller : I have submitted my FOIA request today by certified mail, return receipt requested. Attached is a courtesy copy of a .pdf scan of my request. It is modeled on a request submitted by the ACLU, so I reference many regulations. Note my requests for expedited processing and my application for waiver or limitation of fees. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you kindly. Louis Flores [email protected] [email protected] 1 (646) 400-1168 On 17 avr. 2013, at 10:32, Miller, William (USADC) wrote:

Mr. Flores: Thank you for your request for information concerning the case involving Daniel Choi. A FOIA request for records from a U.S. Attorney’s Office should be sent to the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA). EOUSA is the official record keeper for the records maintained in all United States Attorneys’ offices, and will respond to your request directly The address is as follows: Department of Justice EOUSA/FOIA/PA Staff BICN Bldg.









600 E Street, N.W., Suite 7300 Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 The telephone number is (202) 252-6020. Bill Miller Public Information Officer U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia 202-252-6643 (Direct) 202-252-6933 (Main) [email protected]



EXHIBIT G


. ·---·-·--···---- ---

FARR & GALLAGHER LLP

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

December 6, 2013

VIA EMAIL

Office of Information Policy U.S. Department of Justice Suite 11050 1425 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 DOJ. 0 IP. FO IA@usdoj .gov

Re: Appeal of Constructive Denial of Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Sir or Madam:

THOMAS H. G OLO£N

2 12 728 8657 [email protected]

787 Seventh A,·enm: New York, 1'-'Y 10019-6099 Tel: 212 728 8000 Fa: 212 728 SILL

This firm represents Mr. Louis Flores in connection with his Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to the Department of Justice's Executive Office for United States Attorneys (the "DOJ"). I am writing to appeal the DOl's constructive denial of the FOIA request and request the immediate disclosure of all responsive information called for by the request.

I. The Request

On April30, 2013, Mr. Flores, an LGBT activist and blogger, submitted a FOIA request to the DOJ seeking access to various categories of"records pertaining to the prosecution of Lt. Daniel Choi" (the "Request") (Enclosed). In his Request, Mr . . Flores requested expedited processing on the grounds that the information sought is "urgently needed ... to inform the public about actual or alleged Federal Government activity."

Since submitting the Request, Mr. Flores bas called the DOJ's FOIA office to inquire about the status of the Request. In those conversations, the DOJ has repeatedly explained to Mr. Flores that the agency is unable to timely process the Request due to a shortage of resources and staff at the DOJ.

Now, more than seven months have passed since Mr. Flores submitted the Request, and the DOJ has yet to respond to Mr. Flores's request for expedited processing or produce any records responsive to

NtW YORK WASH INGTON PAfUS LON DON MILAN ROM£ fR.ANKFVRT BRUSSELS

in alliance with Okk.son Minto W.S .• London and Edinburgh


December 6, 2013 Page2

--·-----.. -·-----·--·-------·- ·-- - . -

the Request. The DOJ's failure to respond within the statutorily-mandated time period constitutes a constructive denial of the Request, and the DOJ has not provided any acceptable basis for the delay.

II. The DOJ's Failu.re To Respond To The Request Within The Time Period Required By The FOIA Constitutes A Constructive Denial Of The Request.

The DOJ was required to determine its response to the Request and "immediately" notifY Mr. Flores of its determination, at the latest, within 20 business days of its receipt of the Request. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6). Moreover, with respect to Mr. Flores' s request for expedited processing, the DOJ was required to make a determination within 10 days of the date of the Request. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I).

It has now been more than seven months since Mr. Flores submitted the Request, and the 20-day and 10-day deadlines have long since passed without any response from the DOJ. The failure to respond constitutes a denjal of the Request and Mr. Flores is deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies, giving rise to this appeal. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

The DOJ has provided no adequate justification for its failure to respond to the Request within the time period required by the FOIA, whether by written notice of"unusual circumstances" or otherwise. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). Indeed, the DOJ has done nothing at all to respond to the Request other than to tell Mr. Flores that, due to the agency's own internal limitations on resources and staff, it is having difficulty processing the numerous FOIA requests that the DOJ receives. Such an excuse is not an acceptable one under the FOIA, and the DOJ is not permitted to avoid its FOIA obligations due to an internal burden of its own making. See, e.g., Rosenfeld v. DOJ, 2010 WL 3448517, "'4 (N.D. Cal. 201 0) (holding that the DOJ "cannot use the make-up of its own internal database" as a "shield to avoid FOIA mandates"). Although the need to process an abnormally large volume of requests may constitute "exceptional circumstances," a "predictable agency workload" ofFOIA requests does not qualifY as an "exceptional circumstance." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(ii); see, e.g., Fiduccia v. DOJ, 185 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 1999) (concluding that no exceptional circumstances exist where employee cutbacks and budget reductions led to a "slight upward creep in the caseload" and backlog of FOIA requests at the DOJ); see also Donham v. DOE, 192 F. Supp. 2d 877, 882-83 (S.D. Ill. 2002) (concluding that high volume of requests and inadequate resources do not constitute " exceptional circumstances" unless such circumstances are "not predictable"). Here, the DOJ has provided no evidence of"exceptional circuntstances" that would justifY its failure to respond to the Request.

Given the DOJ's conduct in connection with the Request, we are left with the impression that the DOJ is taking an uncooperative stance, is not exercising due diligence in responding to the Request, or both. See, e.g., Bloomberg v. FDA, 500 F. Supp. 2d 371, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (holding that the FDA failed to establish "exceptional circumstances" sufficient to justifY its delay in responding to Bloomberg' s FOIA request and noting that "the FDA's cumulative decisions suggest a pattern of unresponsiveness, delays, and indecision that suggest an absence of due diligence"). Mr. Flores hereby appeals the denial of the Request, and requests immediate disclosure of the information sought therein.

Finally, we respectfully urge the DOJ to be mindful of the Attorney General ' s admonition that " [o]pen government requires agencies to work proactively and respond to requests promptly .. . When

• 2 .


December 6, 2013 Page 3

information not previously disclosed is requested, agencies should make it a priority to respond in a timely manner. Timely disclosure ofinfonnation is an essential component of transparency. Long delays should not be viewed as an inevitable and insurmountable consequence of high demand." United States Attorney General Eric Holder's "Memorandum For Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies," dated March 19, 2009, available at, www.justice.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf.

• *

l f we can assist the DOJ in responding to the Request, we would be happy to do so. However, in the meantime, we respectfully request that the DOJ respond to this appeal within 20 business days. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). If you have any questions or concerns regarding this appeal, please c.ontact me at (212) 728-8657.

s·ncerely,

Thomas Golden

cc: Mr. Louis Flores I [email protected]

- 3-


EXHIBIT H


EXHIBIT I


EXHIBIT J


EXHIBIT K


U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney Eastern District of New York

271 Cadman Plaza East-7th Floor Brooklyn, New York 11201 October 13, 2015 By Email and First-Class Certified Mail Louis Flores 34-21 77th Street, Apt. #406 Jackson Heights, New York 11372

Re: Louis Flores v. United States Department of Justice No. 15-CV-2627 (Gleeson, J.) (Mann, M.J.)

Dear Mr. Flores:

On behalf of Defendant United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “Defendant”), we write in furtherance of Judge Mann’s having encouraged Defendant during the September 16, 2015 conference “to voluntarily search the files of Main Justice and to produce any written guidelines for prosecution of activists,” and “to consider voluntarily producing at least some of the documents listed on the index served on defense counsel today by Plaintiff,” although such documents are not responsive to your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request that is the subject of this action. (See Dkt. No. 14).

First, as discussed during the September 16, 2015 conference, enclosed please find the

Declarations of Karin Kelly and Princina Stone, describing the searches for records responsive to your April 30, 2013 FOIA request.

Second, as you are aware, the DOJ Executive Office for the United States Attorneys

(“EOUSA”) responded to your April 30, 2013 FOIA request and informed you that a search at the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO-DC) did not locate any documents responsive to your request. Nevertheless, because your FOIA request specifically sought information relating to the prosecution of Daniel Choi, EOUSA made a discretionary release of certain documents publicly available relating to the Choi prosecution. EOUSA has not withheld any records that are responsive to your request.

Third, in regard to the Court’s encouraging Defendant “to voluntarily search the files of

Main Justice” for “any written guidelines for prosecution of activists[,]” the DOJ Criminal Division in Washington, D.C., has voluntarily agreed to search the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for any written guidelines concerning the prosecution of activists for the limited purpose of this litigation.1 We will inform you of the results of that search once it is

1 The Criminal Division is a component of DOJ and is tasked with, among other responsibilities, formulating and implementing criminal enforcement policy. For more information, please see: http://www.justice.gov/criminal.


Louis Flores October 13, 2015 Page 2 completed. However, DOJ expressly reserves its arguments that your April 30, 2013 FOIA request was directed solely to EOUSA, which is the component of DOJ responsible for responding to FOIA requests on behalf of itself and the USAOs, and that EOUSA properly searched for records responsive to your request in the files of USAO-DC, the Office that prosecuted Daniel Choi.2 Consequently, any guidelines that may be located by the DOJ Criminal Division would not be responsive to your FOIA request that is the subject of this action.

Fourth, in regard to your September 16, 2015 “Index” of “discovery demands,”

Defendant maintains its objections to the conducting of discovery (which were sustained by the Court) and to any attempt to expand the scope of your FOIA request that is the subject of this action. Nonetheless, in an effort to accommodate the Court’s concerns about the potential for unnecessary motion practice, Defendant states that it is able to provide the documents and information listed below. The documents provided are based on a good faith effort to construe your requests (some of which are ambiguous) as broadly as possible.

x Your Index Reference Nos. 5 & 6 – Requests for the “Myers memo (email)” and

Government Exhibit 25. The email (Government Exhibit 25), which was referenced in memoranda provided in EOUSA’s discretionary release, was publicly filed with both the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and would have been provided to you following the parties’ telephone conference on September 1, 2015 had you not declined the undersigned’s offer to provide the appendices referenced in the discretionary release. Defendant notes that this document is correspondence between an individual at the Solicitor’s Office of the United States Department of the Interior and individuals at the National Park Service (“NPS”) and is not DOJ guidance and, thus, not responsive to your FOIA request. Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at Tab A, a copy of the “Myers memo (email)”, which was labeled as “Government Exhibit 25” during the Choi prosecution.

x Your Index Reference Nos. 5 & 6 – Requests for the “Capt. Guddemi’s November 22 email” and Government Exhibit 24. This email (Government

2 As discussed during the September 16, 2015 conference, DOJ is comprised of multiple

components, which processes its own records in response to FOIA requests. A FOIA request to components of DOJ must be made to the FOIA office of that component. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.3; Appx. 1 of Part 16; see also 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(3) (A FOIA request to an agency must be “in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any) and procedures to be followed.”). There are different FOIA contacts for each component of DOJ and their contact information may be found at: http://www.justice.gov/oip/find-foia-contact-doj/list. For further information on submitting FOIA requests to DOJ and its components, please see http://www.justice.gov/oip/make-foia-request-doj#2. Please note that DOJ cannot respond to FOIA requests or provide information as to local law enforcement entities. (See, e.g., Your Index Reference No. 20).


http://www.justice.gov/oip/find-foia-contact-doj/list

http://www.justice.gov/oip/make-foia-request-doj#2

Louis Flores October 13, 2015 Page 3

Exhibit 24) referenced in memoranda provided in EOUSA’s discretionary release, was publicly filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and would have been provided to you following the parties’ telephone conference on September 1, 2015 had you not declined the undersigned’s offer to provide the appendices referenced in the discretionary release. Defendant notes that this document consists of a forwarded email chain, involving individuals at the NPS, the United States Park Police, the United States Secret Service, and the United States Capitol Police. This document is not DOJ guidance and, thus, it is not responsive to your FOIA request. Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at Tab B, a copy of the “Capt. Guddemi’s November 22 email”, which was labeled as “Government Exhibit 24” during the Choi prosecution.

x Your Index Reference No. 5 – Request for pages 19, 22, and 24 of the “Amicus

Curaie Brief of James E. Pietrangelo, II.” On October 18, 2012, James E. Pietrangelo, II, filed a brief with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the Choi Prosecution. (See 1:10-mj-739-JMF at Dkt. No. 136 (D.D.C. Oct. 18, 2012)). The brief submitted to the Court on that date does not include pages 19, 22, and 24. Rather, the document consisted only of 22 pages and all 22 pages have been provided. (Pietrangelo refiled the brief on the same day—at docket entry number 137—and that version also does not have pages 19, 22, and 24.) Defendant notes that the brief is not responsive to your FOIA request. Nonetheless, enclosed please find, at Tab C, copies of the two filed versions of the brief, which have pages 19, 22, and 24 missing.

x Your Index Reference Nos. 10 & 11 – Requests for “guidelines, if any, where the

USAO must seek approval by DOJ to prosecute activists” and “DOJ guidelines that document the DOJ’s discretion to prosecute activists.” This request, which is beyond the scope of your April 30, 2013 FOIA request, is ambiguous. Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at Tab D, a copy of Sections 2.000 and 65.000 of Title 9 of the United States Attorney’s Manual, which are also available at: http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-2000-authority-us-attorney-criminal-division-mattersprior-approvals; and http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-65000-protection-government-officials. Sections 9-65.880, -65.881, and -65.882 address demonstrations involving foreign governments and foreign officials and section 9-65.811 discusses when a United States Attorney must involve the Criminal Division of DOJ. Section 9-2.000, which does not address the prosecution of activists or demonstrators, addresses the “Authority Of The U.S. Attorney In Criminal Division Matters/Prior Approvals.” Thus, these documents are not responsive to your FOIA request.

x Your Index Reference Nos. 13 & 29 – Requests for “guidelines that inform how the DOJ can investigate and prosecute journalists, even though activities of protesters are protected by the First Amendment” and “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


http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-2000-authority-us-attorney-criminal-division-mattersprior-approvals

http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-2000-authority-us-attorney-criminal-division-mattersprior-approvals

http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-65000-protection-government-officials

http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-65000-protection-government-officials


government brings against activists.” These requests, which are beyond the scope of your April 30, 2013 FOIA request, are ambiguous. Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at Tab E, copies of the following:

o Section 13.400 of Title 9 of the United States Attorney’s Manual, also

available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-13000-obtaining-evidence#9-13.400;

o Section 1089 of the Criminal Resource Manual to the United States Attorney’s Manual regarding “First Amendment Implications” for 18 U.S.C. § 373,3 also available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1089-first-amendment-implications;

o Section 1105 of the Criminal Resource Manual to the United States Attorney’s Manual regarding “The First Amendment Problems of ‘Son of Sam’ Laws,” also available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1105-first-amendment-problems-son-sam-laws;

o Section 1625 of the Criminal Resource Manual to the United States Attorney’s Manual regarding “First Amendment – 18 U.S.C. 112”,4 also available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1625-first-amendment-18-usc-112; and

o Memorandum from the Attorney General, dated January 14, 2015, the subject of which is “Updated Policy Regarding Obtaining Information From, or Records of, Members of the News Media; and Regarding Questioning, Arresting, or Charging Member of the News Media,” also available at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/01/14/revised_media_guidelines_0.pdf.

These documents do not concern protesters, activists, or demonstrators, but do address the prosecution of members of the news media and/or implications of the First Amendment in the prosecution of certain crimes. Thus, these documents are not responsive to your FOIA request.

x Your Index Reference No. 17 – Request for “DOJ guidelines that explain surveillance of activists in the face of ban on racial profiling.” This request, which is beyond the scope of the April 30, 2015 FOIA request, is ambiguous. Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at Tab F, copies of the following:

o U.S. Department of Justice, “Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding the Use of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation, or Gender Identity,” dated December 2014, also available at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/pages/attachments/2014/12/08

3 18 U.S.C. § 373 governs the “solicitation to commit a crime of violence.” 4 18 U.S.C. § 112 governs the “protection of foreign officials, official guests, and

internationally protected persons.”


http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-13000-obtaining-evidence#9-13.400

http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-13000-obtaining-evidence#9-13.400

http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1089-first-amendment-implications

http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1089-first-amendment-implications

http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1105-first-amendment-problems-son-sam-laws

http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1105-first-amendment-problems-son-sam-laws

http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1625-first-amendment-18-usc-112

http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1625-first-amendment-18-usc-112

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/01/14/revised_media_guidelines_0.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/01/14/revised_media_guidelines_0.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/pages/attachments/2014/12/08/use-of-race-policy.pdf


/use-of-race-policy.pdf; o Section 7.000 of Title 9 of the United States Attorney’s Manual, also

available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-7000-electronic-surveillance; and

o Section 1077 of the Criminal Resource Manual to the United States Attorney’s Manual regarding “Electronic Surveillance,” also available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1077-electronic-surveillance.

These documents do not concern protesters, activists, or demonstrators, but do address racial profiling and/or electronic surveillance of individuals. Thus, these documents are not responsive to your FOIA request.

x Your Index Reference No. 19 – Request for “agency law that governs situations” where grand jury subpoenas are obtained. This request is beyond the scope of your April 30, 2013 FOIA request and is ambiguous. Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at Tab G, a copy of Section 11.000 of Title 9 of the United States Attorney’s Manual, also available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-11000-grand-jury. Section 9-11.000 discusses the DOJ’s policy on grand jury practice, including the use of grand jury subpoenas, but makes no mention of activists or protesters. This document is not responsive to your FOIA request.

x Your Index Reference No. 21 – Request for “DOJ guidelines that show that law enforcement have the authority to use force on activists, generally, leading up to their arrests.” This request is beyond the scope of your April 30, 2013 FOIA request and is ambiguous. Nevertheless, we refer you to the website of the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, for further information regarding police use of force: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/welcome.aspx.

x Your Index Reference No. 23 – Request for “any agency law or binding DOJ

legal opinion issued in respect of the prosecution of Lt. Choi” based on allegations “that the DOJ mounts ‘vindictive’ prosecution of activists, such as in the case of Lt. Daniel Choi.” With the EOUSA’s discretionary release, certain documents relating to the prosecution of Lt. Choi were provided to you, including briefing on Choi’s attempt to assert as a defense selective/vindictive prosecution. Please clarify if you would like a reproduction of all documents filed with the Court that relate to Choi’s attempt to assert that defense.

x Your Index Reference No. 28 – Request for “guidelines that show that the powers

of the USAOs and/or the DOJ to prosecute activists cannot be biased or influenced by political overtones.” This request is beyond the scope of your April 30, 2013 FOIA request and is ambiguous. Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at Tab H, a copy of section 45.2 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations governing “Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.” This


http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/pages/attachments/2014/12/08/use-of-race-policy.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-7000-electronic-surveillance

http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-7000-electronic-surveillance

http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1077-electronic-surveillance

http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1077-electronic-surveillance

http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-11000-grand-jury

http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-11000-grand-jury

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/welcome.aspx

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/welcome.aspx


document does not address the prosecution of activists, but sets forth when a DOJ employee may not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution due to a personal or political relationship. Thus, it is not responsive to your FOIA request.

The information and documents discussed above are being provided in a good faith effort

to confer further with you, as the Court requested. Defendant expressly preserves any and all objections to discovery in this matter and to each and every request made in your September 16, 2016 Index. Defendant further preserves any and all arguments to be raised in defense of this litigation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

KELLY T. CURRIE Acting United States Attorney

By: s/Rukhsanah L. Singh

RUKHSANAH L. SINGH Assistant U.S. Attorney (718) 254-6498 [email protected]

Enclosures [by certified first-class mail only]



EXHIBIT L




271 Cadman Plaza East-7th Floor Brooklyn, New York 11201 October 15, 2015 By Email and First-Class Certified Mail Louis Flores 34-21 77th Street, Apt. #406 Jackson Heights, New York 11372


Dear Mr. Flores:

On behalf of Defendant United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “Defendant”), we write to follow-up on our correspondence to you dated October 13, 2015, regarding the voluntary search for “any written guidelines for prosecution of activists” located in the Office of the Assistant Attorney General (“OAAG”), Criminal Division of DOJ “Main Justice.” (See Dkt. No. 14).

The OAAG is responsible for formulating and implementing DOJ’s criminal enforcement

policy. A voluntary search was conducted in the OAAG for guidelines relating to the prosecution of activists and references to targeted prosecution of activists. Please be advised that no documents were located. We hope that this addresses any remaining issues you raised during the September 16, 2015 conference with the Court.

As previously set forth in our October 13, 2015 letter, Defendant expressly reserves any

arguments that: (a) this search was not requested in, or made pursuant to, your April 30, 2013 FOIA request; (b) your FOIA request was directed solely to EOUSA; (c) EOUSA properly searched for records responsive to your request in the files of USAO-DC; and (d) any discovery or expansion of the scope of the April 2013 FOIA request is not proper in this action.


Very truly yours,

KELLY T. CURRIE Acting United States Attorney





EXHIBIT M


Louis&Flores&

3421&77th&Street,&No.&406&

Jackson&Heights,&New&York&&11372&

[email protected]&&

1&(646)&400F1168&&

&

&

&

26&October&2015&&

&

&

&

[By$e&mail$only$:[email protected]]$&

Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney,&

& U.S.&Attorney’s&Office&F&Eastern&District&of&New&York,&

& & 271&Cadman&Plaza&East,&7th&Floor,&

& & & Brooklyn,&NY&&11201.&&

&

Dear&Ms.&Singh&:&&&

&

Re$:$ Louis$Flores$v.$United$States$Department$of$Justice$$ No.$15&CV&2627$(JG)$(RLM)$$ $ $ $ $$

&

&

Last&Monday,&I&received&the&package&of&attachments&to&your&letter&of&13&October&2015.&&It&

took&me&several&days&to&review&the&attachments,&and&I&bring&the&following&issues&to&your&

attention,&so&that&we&can&have&one&document&that&addresses&what&I&believe&to&be&all&open&

issues&with&respect&to&DOJ&records&about&the&prosecution&of&activists&:&

&

1. Declaration$of$Karin$Kelly.&&&

a). Is&Ms.&Kelly&a&temp&employee&at&the&DOJ,&like&Princina&Stone&?&&Can&DOJ&

management,&senior&supervisors,&or&section&chiefs&provide&the&Declaration&?&

b). I&note&that&some&of&the&Declarations&being&made&appear&incomplete.&&

During&our&Telephone&Conference&on&16&October&2015,&you&said&that&the&Declarations&

would&show&that&the&searches&were&made&for&“guidelines,&protocols,&procedures.”&&But&

that’s&not&what&is&showing&up&in&the&Declarations.&

c). What&is&more,&some&of&the&searches&appear&not&to&match&what&was&

requested&in&the&FOIA&Request.&&For&example,&Paragraph&11&stated&“FOIA&request&

seeking&information&concerning&the$number&of&‘activists’&that&have&been&‘targeted&for&prosecution’”&(emphasis&added).&&&On&item&I.1.A.&of&the&FOIA&Request,&it&stated&“what&

kind&of&activists&may&be&targeted&for&prosecution,&how&many&activists&have&been&

targeted&for&prosecution,&what$are$the$names$of$such$activists,&and&which&Department&of&Justice&officials&approved&of&such&prosecution&of&activists&;”&(emphasis&added).&&

Besides&Lt.&Daniel&Choi,&the&FOIA&Request&provided&several&examples&of&activists,&

which&have&been&prosecuted&by&federal&prosecutors&for&their&activism.&&These&activists&

were&again&identified&in&Plaintiff’s$Index$of$References$to$Records$Requested$under$FOIA$Request,&provided&to&you&in&person&on&the&date&of&the&Initial&Conference&with&the&Hon.&Magistrate&Judge&Roanne&Mann.&&Why&were&limits&placed&on&the&search&?&


Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&

U.S.&Attorney’s&Office&F&Eastern&District&of&New&York&

26&October&2015&

Page 2 &

d). If&the&search,&as&described,&produced&no&results&for&records&of&guidelines&

for&activists&having&been&prosecuted,&why&were&the&names,&which&I&provided&for&

context&in&the&FOIA&Request,&not&searched&?&

e). Further,&according&to&Paragraph&11,&Ms.&Kelly&quoted&the&“relevant&

portion”&of&the&FOIA&Request&to&the&IT&specialist.&&How&is&“relevant&portion”&being&

defined&?&&Why&was&not&the&entire&FOIA&Request&provided&?&&Was&the&DOJ&trying&to&strip&

out&the&context&of&the&FOIA&Request&?&&&

f). Why&were&only&IT&specialists&contacted&to&conduct&the&searches&at&the&

DOJ&?&&What&happened&to&the&prosecutors&in&the&Criminal&Division,&including&Assistant&

U.S.&Attorney&Angela&George&or&the&officials&in&the&Office&of&the&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&

General,&the&latter,&where&you&said,&formulation&of&policy&is&decided&?&&Why&did&they&not&

conduct&the&search&?&

g). In&Paragraph&12,&it&stated&that&the&search&string&for&the&records&

pertained&to&the&union&of&“activists”&and&“targeted.”&&The&search&string&in&Paragraph&12&

does&not&match&what&is&written&in&Paragraph&6.&&Moreover,&the&term&“targeted”&is&one&

of&perspective.&&I&find&it&hardly&believable&that&the&DOJ&would&label&its&own&internal&

records&with&loaded&words&like,&“targeted,”&given&that&the&DOJ&would&not&be&willing&to&

make&such&a&voluntary&classification&in&its&internal&records&that&would&reflect&on&its&

own&misconduct.&&Given&the&repeated&references&to&records&pertaining&to&“First&

Amendment,&other&Constitutional&rights,&civil&liberties,&and&other&civil&rights&of&

activists,”&why&weren’t&any&of&the&laws&that&apply&to&activists&used&in&search&strings&?&&

As&mentioned&to&you&many&times,&I&have&concerns&the&DOJ&has&been&and&is&treating&this&

FOIA&Request&in&a&manner&to&deliberately&create&obfuscation.&

h). In&Paragraphs&21F24,&the&issue&of&costs&are&addressed.&&If&the&DOJ&cannot&

provide&the&share&of&the&costs&of&the&prosecution&for&only&Lt.&Daniel&Choi,&the&easiest&

thing&to&do—so$that$the$DOJ$can$produce$some$responsive$records—would&be&to&

provide&the&costs&of&the&prosecution&of&the&group&of&activists&arrested&in&that&

demonstration,&with&the&understanding&that&there&is&no&way&to&isolate&those&costs&

solely&attributable&to&Lt.&Daniel&Choi.&&There&should&be&no&calculation&involved&;&rather,&

solely&simple&reports&from&the&accounting&office&that&tracked&all$the$costs$for&the&arrests&and&prosecutions&of&that&group&of&activists,&who&were&arrested&with&Lt.&Daniel&

Choi&on&Monday,&November&15,&2010,&following&their&demonstration&at&the&White&

House&fence.&&&

i). The&Declaration&mentions&FOIA&Request&item&I.1.C.&in&Paragraph&18,&

item&I.2.B.&in&Paragraph&19,&item&I.3&in&Paragraph&20,&and&item&I.4.&in&Paragraph&21.&&

However,&none&of&the&other&items&are&individually&addressed.&&I&request&a&full&

clarification&on&an&itemFbyFitem&basis&of&the&search&results.&

j). Paragraph&26&stated&that&“most”&of&the&“publiclyFavailable&documents&in&

USAOFDC”&“are&also&available&on&PACER.”&&You&have&in&the&past&wrongly&referred&me&to&

PACER&to&collect&(at&my&time&and&expense)&the&publiclyFavailable&documents&missing&

from&the&discretionary&release,&and&I&will&address&that&issue&further&below.&&However,&

Paragraph&26&seems&to&indicate&that&some&publiclyFavailable&documents&would&not&be&




26&October&2015&

Page 3 &

available&on&PACER.&&How&was&I&to&obtain&the&missing&documents&from&PACER&if&not&all&

of&the&publiclyFavailable&documents&at&the&USAOFDC&are&available&on&PACER&?&&&

k). Based&on&the&aboveFreferenced&issues,&I&cannot&accept&the&Declaration&

of&Ms.&Kelly&in&its&current&form.&

2. Declaration$of$Princina$Stone.&&&

a). In&Paragraph&1,&Ms.&Stone&identifies&that&she&has&only&been&with&the&DOJ&

since&April&2015.&&Is&she&a&temp&employee&at&the&DOJ&?&&&

b). In&Paragraph&2,&Ms.&Stone&stated&that&she&is&“familiar&with&the&

procedures&followed&by&this&office,”&even&though&Ms.&Stone&has&not&yet&been&employed&

at&the&DOJ&for&six&months.&&If&she&has&been&there&for&such&a&limited&amount&of&time,&can’t&

Ms.&Stone’s&supervisor&provide&the&Declaration&in&Ms.&Stone’s&stead&?&

c). Why&is&the&DOJ&selecting&temp&staff&to&prepare&and&sign&these&

Declarations&?&&This&doesn’t&inspire&confidence,&that&the&DOJ&management&don’t&stand&

behind&the&search&results.&&Can&DOJ&management,&senior&supervisors,&or&section&chiefs&

provide&an&umbrella&Declaration&?&

d). There&are&no&indications&in&the&Declarations&of&“guidelines,&protocols,&

procedures”&having&been&searched,&using&your&words&from&our&Telephone&Conference&

of&16&October&2015.&

e). In&Paragraphs&4F6,&it’s&the&DOJ’s&contention&that&the&original&FOIA&

Request&went&missing.&&It&should&be&noted&that&from&June&2013&through&October&2013,&

I&engaged&in&multiple&discussions&with&Sanjay&Sola,&a&paralegal&at&the&DOJ.&&These&

telephone&conversations&were&described,&in&sum&and&substance,&in&the&Paragraphs&44F

48&of&the&Amended&Complaint&(See&Dkt.&No.&15).&&At&no&time&during&those&phone&conversations&did&Mr.&Sola&ever&inform&me&that&the&FOIA&Request&was&“missing.”&&Can&

the&DOJ&please&provide&clarification&as&to&when&the&FOIA&Request&went&missing&?&&Since&

I&made&factual&representations&about&these&telephone&conversations&with&the&Court&

when&I&filed&the&pleadings&in&this&case,&I&want&to&know&if&the&DOJ&is&questioning&my&

presentation&of&the&facts&in&respect&of&my&conversations&with&Mr.&Sola&about&the&FOIA&

Request,&or&if&the&DOJ&is&asserting&that&the&FOIA&Request&went&missing&at&some&point&

after&I&concluding&having&any&more&telephone&conversations&with&Mr.&Sola&?&&Can&the&

DOJ&add&its&representations&about&the&Sola&conversations&to&the&Declaration&?&

f). Furthermore,&after&I&ceased&my&communication&with&Mr.&Sola,&my&

elected&representative&to&Congress,&U.S.&Representative&Joseph&Crowley&wrote&a&letter&

to&the&DOJ,&asking&that&the&DOJ&answer&my&FOIA&Request.&&Did&the&DOJ&ever&respond&to&

U.S.&Representative&Crowley’s&letter,&informing&him&that&my&FOIA&Request&had&gone&

missing&?&&Can&the&DOJ&add&its&representations&about&U.S.&Representative&Crowley’s&

letter&to&the&Declaration&?&

g). What&is&more,&after&U.S.&Representative&Crowley&transmitted&his&letter&

to&the&DOJ,&my&former&counsel&communicated&with&the&Office&of&Information&Policy.&&To&

my&knowledge,&during&none&of&the&telephone&conversations&my&former&counsel&had&

with&the&DOJ&ever&include&any&communication&that&the&FOIA&Request&had&gone&missing.&&

Indeed,&by&letter&dated&May&20,&2014—over&one&year&after&the&FOIA&Request&had&been&




26&October&2015&

Page 4 &

originally&submitted—the&Office&of&Information&Policy&was&remanding&the&FOIA&

Request&for&responsive&records.&&Can&you&provide&clarification&in&the&Declaration&as&to&

whether&the&FOIA&Request&went&missing&after&the&Office&of&Information&Policy&

remanded&the&FOIA&Request&for&responsive&records&?&&To&whom&would&the&remand&

have&been&addressed&?&&As&stated&above,&since&I&have&presented&facts&relating&these&

events&in&my&Amended&Complaint&before&this&Court,&I&would&like&clarification&in&the&

Declaration&as&to&whether&the&DOJ&is&making&an&alternate&recounting&of&facts.&&Can&the&

DOJ&add&its&representations&about&the&OIP&appeal&to&the&Declaration&?&

h). Notwithstanding&your&clarification&about&when&the&FOIA&Request&would&

actually&go&missing,&it&must&be&noted&that&during&our&Telephone&Conference&on&16&

October&2015,&you&stated&that&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&Angela&George&always&had&a&copy&

of&the&FOIA&Request.&&It&appears&that&the&DOJ&is&hiding&behind&the&semantics&that&since&

she&is&employed&by&the&U.S.&Attorney’s&Office&and&not&by&the&DOJ,&that&means&that&

Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&George’s&possession&of&the&FOIA&Request&is&not&the&same&as&the&

DOJ&having&possession&of&the&FOIA&Request.&&This&is&a&horrible&excuse&and&poor&

reasoning.&&I&bring&to&your&attention&former&Attorney&General&Eric&Holder’s&FOIA&

memorandum.&&See&Eric&Holder,&Memorandum$for$Heads$of$Executive$Departments$and$Agencies,&Office&of&the&Attorney&General&(Mar.&19,&2009),&http://www.justice.gov/&sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2009/&06/24/foiaFmemoFmarch2009.pdf&(noting&under&

“FOIA&is&Everyone’s&Responsibility”&that&“I&would&like&to&emphasize&that&responsibility&

for&effective&FOIA&administration&belongs&to&all&of&us—it&is&not&merely&a&task&assigned&

to&an&agency’s&FOIA&staff.&&We$all$must$do$our$part$to$ensure$open$government.”)&(emphasis&added).&&At&best,&by&ignoring&the&FOIA&Request,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&

George&was&violating&the&instruction&provided&in&former&Attorney&General&Holder’s&

memorandum.&&At&worst,&by&ignoring&the&FOIA&Request,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&George&

was&interfering&with&government&administration,&in&violation&of&Penal&Law&§195.05,&

SecondFDegree&Obstruction&of&Government&Administration.&&That&being&said,&other&

individuals&either&at&the&U.S.&Attorney’s&Office&or&the&DOJ&received&an&electronic&copy&of&

the&FOIA&Request,&including&the&[email protected]&eFmail&inbox.&&What&will&the&DOJ&

and&the&U.S.&Attorney’s&Office&do&about&employees&that&did&not&adhere&to&former&

Attorney&General&Holder’s&memorandum&?&

i). Did&the&DOJ&select&Ms.&Stone&to&provide&this&Declaration,&so&that&she&

would&not&know&the&history&of&this&FOIA&Request&?&

j). Paragraphs&8&and&9&do&not&address&the&nonpublic&records&that&the&

EOUSA&acknowledged&to&exist&in&its&cover&letter&of&19&August&2015&but&which&were&

withheld&from&the&discretionary&release.&&In&your&letter&of&13&October&2015,&you&wrote&

that,&“EOUSA&has&not&withheld&any&records&that&are&responsive&to&your&request.”&&

However,&both&the&Declaration&and&your&letter&ignore&the&request&made&in&my&letter&to&

you&of&26&August&2015,&in&which&I&address&the&withheld&records.&&I&wrote&at&that&time&

then,&“Can&you&describe&the&privacyFencumbered&records&and&produce&an&index&of&the&

descriptions&?&”&&This&has&not&been&addressed&in&the&Declaration,&even&though&it&needs&

to&be&addressed.&&I&will&more&fully&address&the&discretionary&release&further&below.&

k). For&the&aboveFreferenced&reasons,&I&cannot&accept&the&Declaration&of&

Ms.&Stone&in&its&current&form.&




26&October&2015&

Page 5 &

3. Voluntary$search$of$Main$Justice.&

a). Will&there&be&a&Declaration&provided&for&this&search&?&

b). When&asked&by&me&during&our&Telephone&Conference&of&16&October&

2015,&to&confirm&that&no&other&component&at&the&DOJ&contained&a&criminal&division,&

you&said&that&there&was&no&other.&&I&will&discuss&this&further&in&detail&below.&

4. Plaintiff’s$Index$of$References$to$Records$Requested$under$FOIA$Request&:&&

a). Your$letter$of$13$October$2015$(generally).&

(i). When&you&wrote&in&your&letter&of&13&October&2015,&that&the&

search&was&conducted&in&a&manner&to&“construe&your&requests&(some&of&which&

are&ambiguous)&as&broadly&as&possible,&can&you&provide&clarification&as&to&what&

that&means&for&each&search&conducted&?&

(ii). How&is&it&that&the&DOJ&could&not&find&general&guidelines&for&the&

prosecution&of&activists&under&the&FOIA&Request,&but&the&DOJ&could&after&

processing&Plaintiff’s$Index$of$References$to$Records$Requested$under$the$FOIA$Request.&&See,$e.g.,&the&Kelly&Declaration&at&Paragraphs&12&and&15&and&the&Stone&Declaration&at&Paragraph&6.&

(iii). In&Footnote&2&in&your&letter&of&13&October&2015,&you&wrote&that&

the&DOJ&“cannot&respond&to&FOIA&requests&or&provide&information&as&to&local&

law&enforcement&entities.”&&I&will&address&that&further&below.&

(iv). Of&the&items&on&Plaintiff’s$Index$of$References$to$Records$Requested$under$the$FOIA$Request&that&the&DOJ&answered,&the&DOJ&did&not&fully&answer&all&the&questions&for&those&items.&&I&reserve&the&right&to&bring&up&

those&unanswered&questions&based&on&the&DOJ’s&response&to&this&letter.&&

b). Reference$Nos.$5$&$6$(the$“Myers$memo$(email)”).&&&

(i). Your&letter&stated&that&the&document&was&from&an&individual&at&

the&Solicitor’s&Office&of&the&U.S.&Department&of&the&Interior&and&was,&thus,&“not&

responsive&to&your&FOIA&request.”&&This&contradicts&item&I.1.F.&in&the&FOIA&

Request,&which&requested&“whether&agencies&other&than&the&Department&of&

Justice&may&target&activists&for&prosecution,&and,&if&so,&under&what&

circumstances,&under&what&conditions,&and&subject&to&what&restrictions&;&and&

which&agency&officials&approve&of&such&prosecution&of&activists.”&&Can&you&

provide&clarification&as&to&what&you&meant&when&you&wrote&that&this&document&

(and&presumably&any&other&such&documents&or&other&applicable&records&in&the&

possession&of&DOJ)&are&not&responsive&to&the&FOIA&Request&?&

(ii). Is&there&any&information&that&was&redacted&?&&There&is&an&empty&

space&near&the&bcc:&field&in&the&eFmail.&&Please&provide&clarification&if&this&

document&was&redacted,&and&whether&any&other&documents&were&redacted.&

(iii). If&other&law&enforcement&agencies,&be&they&at&whatever&

jurisdiction,&undertake&to&prosecute&activists&for&their&activism,&does&the&DOJ&do&

nothing&to&address&the&“First&Amendment,&other&Constitutional&rights,&civil&




26&October&2015&

Page 6 &

liberties,&and&other&civil&rights&of&activists”&?&&Is&the&DOJ&completely&passive&to&

activists’&federal&rights&?&&I’m&asking,&so&that&I&can&understand&the&DOJ’s&role.&

(iv). Your&Footnote&2&states&that&the&DOJ&“cannot&respond&to&FOIA&

requests&or&provide&information&as&to&local&law&enforcement&entities.”&&Yet,&in&

the&instances&of&Reference&Nos.&5&&&6,&these&were&federal&law&enforcement&

entities.&&The&DOJ&did&not&produce&these&documents&until&the&Magistrate&Judge&

entered&her&omnibus&order&after&our&Initial&Conference.&&That&being&said,&the&

DOJ&has&not&directly&answered&whether&the&DOJ&has&any&other&records&

responsive&to&item&I.1.F.&in&the&FOIA&Request.&&Please&provide&clarification.&

c). Reference$Nos.$5$&$6$(“Capt.$Guddemi’s$November$22$email”).&&

(i). Your&letter&stated&that&the&document&was&from&individuals&at&the&

NPS,&the&U.S.&Park&Police,&the&U.S.&Secret&Service,&and&the&U.S.&Capitol&Police&and&

was,&thus,&“not&responsive&to&your&FOIA&request.”&&This&contradicts&item&I.1.F.&in&

the&FOIA&Request,&which&requested&“whether&agencies&other&than&the&

Department&of&Justice&may&target&activists&for&prosecution,&and,&if&so,&under&

what&circumstances,&under&what&conditions,&and&subject&to&what&restrictions&;&

and&which&agency&officials&approve&of&such&prosecution&of&activists.”&&Can&you&

provide&clarification&as&to&what&you&meant&when&you&wrote&that&this&document&

(and&presumably&any&other&such&documents&or&other&applicable&records&in&the&

possession&of&DOJ)&are&not&responsive&to&the&FOIA&Request&?&&If&the&DOJ&

acknowledges&that&its&prosecutors&take&legal&instruction&to&prosecute&activists&

from&other&law&enforcement&agencies,&then&the&DOJ&should&be&compelled&to&

answer&item&I.1.F.&in&the&FOIA&Request.&&Please&produce&these&records.&

(ii). Is&there&any&information&that&was&redacted&?&&There&is&an&empty&

space&near&the&bcc:&field&in&the&eFmail.&&Please&provide&clarification&if&this&

document&was&redacted,&and&whether&any&other&documents&were&redacted.&

(iii). As&stated&during&our&Telephone&Conference&of&16&October&2015,&

the&identification&of&the&missing&exhibits&noted&in&my&letter&of&26&August&2015&

were&incomplete.&&During&our&Telephone&Conference&on&01&September&2015&

(following&the&production&of&the&discretionary&release),&I&repeatedly&stated&that&

I&had&not&yet&completed&my&review&of&the&discretionary&release&and&was,&

therefore,&unable&to&provide&to&you&the&complete&list&of&missing&documents.&&My&

mention&of&Tab&J&and&the&other&missing&exhibits&was&meant&to&be&an&

representative&example&of&how&the&DOJ’s&release&was&blatantly&incomplete.&&

Nevertheless,&ever&since&that&26&August&2015,&letter&and&that&01&September&

2015&Telephone&Conference,&you&have&been&wrongly&asserting&that&if&the&DOJ&

had&produced&the&few&missing&exhibits&noted&on&the&26&August&2015,&letter,&

then&that&somehow&would&have&satisfied&all&of&the&DOJ’s&obligations&under&FOIA&

in&respect&of&the&subject&FOIA&Request.&&And&ever&since&that&26&August&2015,&

letter&and&that&01&September&2015&Telephone&Conference,&I&have&been&

repeating&to&you&that&that&was&obviously&not&the&case.&&At&that&time&then,&I&did&

not&know&the&entire&universe&of&documents&missing&from&the&discretionary&

release.&&Indeed,&it&was&not&until&I&wrote&to&the&Magistrate&Judge&on&03&

September&2015,&pressing&for&the&conduct&of&Discovery,&that&Plaintiff’s$Index$




26&October&2015&

Page 7 &

to$the$FOIA$Response&was&finalised.&&Plaintiff’s$Index$to$the$FOIA$Response$was&attached&to&that&03&September&2015,&letter,&a&copy&of&which&you&received.&&

Furthermore,&your&focus&on&those&few&exhibits&known&to&be&missing&as&of&01&

September&2015&blatantly&sidesteps&all&of&the&other&missing&documents&

identified&:&&(x)&two&days&later&on&Plaintiff’s$Index$to$the$FOIA$Response$and&(y)&fifteen&days&later&on&Plaintiff’s$Index$of$References$to$Records$Requested$under$the$FOIA$Request,&neither&of&which&have&been&fully&addressed&or&produced.&&Notwithstanding,&as&previously&stated,&I&will&more&

fully&address&the&discretionary&release&further&below.&

d). Reference$No.$5$(the$“Amicus$Curaie$Brief”).&

(i). If&the&DOJ&has&no&complete&copy,&then&I&will&accept&that&there&is&

no&more&the&DOJ&can&do&about&the&missing&pages&for&this&document.&

e). Reference$Nos.$10$&$11.&&&

(i). It&is&a&sign&of&bad$faith$that&the&DOJ&would&produce&these&documents&only&after&the&Magistrate&Judge&entered&her&omnibus&order,&

particularly&since&Sections&9F65.880,&9F65.881,&and&9F65.882&pertain&to&

demonstrations.&&I&don’t&know&how&you&can&state&in&your&letter&of&13&October&

2015,&that&these&documents&are&not&responsive&to&the&FOIA&Request.&&Were&it&

not&for&Magistrate&Judge’s&omnibus&order,&the&DOJ&would&not&have&produced&

these&records.&&What&other&records&is&the&DOJ&withholding&?&

(ii). In&furtherance&to&Section&9F65.880,&can&the&DOJ&provide&

clarification&or&give&examples&of&what&“Federal&interest”&means&in&context&of&

Section&9F65.880&?&

(iii). In&furtherance&to&Section&9F65.881,&can&the&DOJ&provide&

clarification&or&give&examples&of&what&“Federal&interest”&means&in&context&of&

Section&9F65.881&?&

(iv). In&furtherance&to&Section&9F65.882,&can&the&DOJ&give&examples&of&

what&“where&Federal&action&is&otherwise&deemed&necessary”&means&in&context&

of&Section&9F65.882&?&

f). Reference$Nos.$13$&$29.&&&

(i). The&documents&produced&at&Tab&E&generally&are&not&specific&to&

the&request&at&Reference&No.&13&(how&the&activities&of&protesters&are&protected&

by&the&First&Amendment),&with&the&exception&of&perhaps&Sections&1089&and&

1625&of&the&U.S.&Attorney’s&Manual,&and&I&again&object&to&your&letter&of&13&

October&2015,&wherein&you&wrote&that&these&documents&are&not&responsive&to&

the&FOIA&Request.&&Were&it&not&for&Magistrate&Judge’s&omnibus&order,&the&DOJ&

would&not&have&produced&these&records.&&What&other&records&is&the&DOJ&

withholding&?&

(ii). As&discussed&during&our&Telephone&Conference&of&16&October&

2015,&it&might&be&helpful,&particularly&within&the&context&of&Reference&Nos.&13&

and&29,&to&know&whether&the&DOJ&can&stipulate&whether&records&exist&in&respect&

of&guidelines&for&activists&that&are&similar&or&equivalent&to&the&guidelines&that&




26&October&2015&

Page 8 &

the&DOJ&has&for&journalists,&since&the&activities&of&each&are&protected&by&the&First&

Amendment.&

(iii). Except&for&perhaps&Sections&1089&and&1625&of&the&U.S.&

Attorneys’&Manual,&I&don’t&know&how&the&documents&under&Tab&E&answer&

Reference&No.&29.&&Can&the&DOJ&provide&clarification&?&

(iv). Are&there&no&equivalent&documents&to&the&“Myers&memo&

(email)”&or&the&“Capt.&Guddemni’s&November&22&email,”&in&other&words,&

documents&that&answer&item&I.1.F.&of&the&FOIA&Request,&that&either&were&

created&within&or&without&the&DOJ&that&show&how&the&DOJ&targets&activists&in&

real&life&and&which&apply&to&Reference&No.&29&?&&&

g). Reference$No.$17.&

(i). I&don’t&know&how&the&documents&under&Tab&F&answer&Reference&

No.&17.&&Can&the&DOJ&provide&clarification&?&&&

(ii). Are&there&no&equivalent&documents&to&the&“Myers&memo&




real&life&and&which&apply&to&Reference&No.&17&?&&&

h). Reference$No.$19.&

(i). I&don’t&know&how&the&documents&under&Tab&G&answer&Reference&






real&life&and&which&apply&to&Reference&No.&19&?&

i). Reference$No.$21.&

(i). I&don’t&know&how&the&link&to&the&referenced&Web&site&answers&

Reference&No.&21.&&Can&the&DOJ&provide&clarification&?&&&

(ii). Are&there&no&equivalent&documents&to&the&“Myers&memo&(email)”&

or&the&“Capt.&Guddemni’s&November&22&email,”&in&other&words,&documents&that&

answer&item&I.1.F.&of&the&FOIA&Request,&that&either&were&created&within&or&without&

the&DOJ&that&show&how&the&DOJ&targets&activists&in&real&life&and&which&apply&to&

Reference&No.&21&?&

j). Reference$No.$23$(and$the$“discretionary$release”).&

(i). The&Declarations&do&not&address&the&privacyFencumbered&

documents&that&were&withheld&from&the&DOJ’s&first&FOIA&Response,&even&

though&I&requested&a&description&and&an&index&of&these&withheld&documents&in&

my&letter&of&26&August&2015.&&Please&address&the&privacyFencumbered&records,&

which&were&withheld,&in&the&Declarations.&




26&October&2015&

Page 9 &

(ii). Please&provide&a&Vaugh&index&of&these&withheld&records&pursuant&to&Vaughn$v.$Rosen,&484&F.2d&820&(D.C.&Cir.&1973),&cert.&denied,&415&U.S.&977&(1974).&

(iii). The&Kelly&Declaration&stated&that&“most”&of&the&“publiclyF

available&documents&in&USAOFDC”&“are&also&available&on&PACER.”&&You&have&in&

the&past&wrongly&referred&me&to&PACER&to&collect&(at&my&time&and&expense)&the&

publiclyFavailable&documents&missing&from&the&discretionary&release,&and&I&will&

address&that&issue&further&below.&&However,&the&Kelly&Declaration&seems&to&

indicate&that&some&publiclyFavailable&documents&would&not&be&available&on&

PACER.&&Can&those&nonFPACER&documents&be&produced&?&&&

(iv). As&stated&during&our&Telephone&Conference&of&16&October&2015,&

I&will&be&asking&the&Magistrate&Judge&to&rule&on&my&request,&first&made&at&the&

Initial&Conference,&to&make&a&determination&about&the&DOJ’s&obligation&and&

responsibility&to&produce&records&duly&requested&under&FOIA,&regardless&of&

whether&the&records&are&publicly&available&or&not.&&Notwithstanding&the&Red&

Herring&that&the&discretionary&release&created,&as&I&stated&during&our&Telephone&

Conference&of&16&October&2015,&the&DOJ’s&obligations&under&FOIA&are&not&

discretionary.&&&

(v). Given&the&DOJ’s&creation&of&the&Red&Herring&in&the&discretionary&

release,&the&DOJ’s&descriptions&in&the&Declarations&of&how&it&restricted&the&

search&for&records&responsive&to&the&FOIA&Request,&and&how&the&DOJ&was&

nonetheless&able&to&“locate”&some&records&responsive&to&Plaintiff’s$Index$of$References$to$Records$Requested$under$the$FOIA$Request,&there&is&no&way&of&knowing&if&the&records&identified&as&missing&in&Plaintiff’s$Index$to$the$FOIA$Response&constitute&the&entire&universe&of&known,&but&missing,&records&in&Lt.&Choi’s&case.&&There&is&also&no&way&of&knowing&if&any&of&the&guidelines&provided&

by&the&DOJ&are&whole&and&complete,&because&you&denied&during&our&Telephone&

Conference&of&16&October&2015,&my&request&to&stipulate&whether&the&searches&

reach&the&conclusion&that&no&records&exist&(instead&of&no&records&being&found).&&

Without&the&DOJ&properly&certifying&its&accountability&for&the&search&results&

and&its&compliance&with&FOIA,&there’s&little&credibility&to&attach&to&the&DOJ’s&

word.&&I&reiterate&my&requests&made&above&:&&Can&DOJ&management,&senior&

supervisors,&or&section&chiefs&provide&the&Declarations&?&

(vi). Every&chance&I’ve&had,&I’ve&reminded&the&Court&that&for&over&two&

years,&the&DOJ&was&flagrantly&defying&FOIA,&violating&with$impunity&the&treatment&entitled&to&Plaintiff&under&FOIA.&&I’ve&noted&time&and&again&that&it&is&

the&pattern&and&practise&of&the&DOJ&to&violate&FOIA&until&requesters&file&a&

lawsuit&and&seek&compliance&in&a&court&of&law.&&See,$e.g.,&Hadas&Gold,&NYT,$Vice,$Mother$Jones$top$FOIA$suits,&Politico&(Dec.&23,&2014),&http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/12/nytFviceFmotherFjonesFtopF

foiaFsuitsF200325.html&(noting&that&the&top&defendant&was&the&DOJ).&&&&




26&October&2015&

Page 10 &

k). Reference$No.$28.&

(i). I&don’t&know&how&the&documents&under&Tab&H&answer&Reference&





created&within&or&without&the&DOJ&that&apply&to&Reference&No.&28&?&

l). Reference$Nos.$1&4,$7&9,$12,$14&16,$18,$22,$24&27.&

(i). Can&the&DOJ&explain&why&it&sidestepped&these&Reference&

Numbers&?&&

(ii). In&the&body&of&the&FOIA&Request&and&in&Plaintiff’s$Index$of$References$to$Records$Requested$under$the$FOIA$Request,&the&DOJ&has&continued&to&overlook&the&many&other&examples&of&activists,&some&mentioned&

by&name&and&some&identified&with&links&to&news&reports,&which&may&provide&

names.&&These&activists&have&been&prosecuted&for&their&activism,&and&the&DOJ&

appears&to&be&ignoring&that&in&these&cases&the&DOJ&would&have&made&

determinations&to&prosecute&these&activists&in&spite&of&the&“First&Amendment,&

other&Constitutional&rights,&civil&liberties,&and&other&civil&rights&of&activists.”&&

(x)&&Can&you&provide&clarification&about&why&the&DOJ&is&skipping&over&these&

examples&?&&How&is&this&in&keeping&with&former&U.S.&Attorney&General&Holder’s&

memorandum&?&&(y)&&Since&the&DOJ&turned&up&no&records&responsive&to&the&FOIA&

Request,&can&the&DOJ&answer&Reference&Nos.&1F4,&7F9,&12,&14F16,&18,&22,&24F27&?&

m). The$Civil$Rights$Division.&

(i). During&our&Telephone&Conference&of&16&October&2015,&you&said&

that&the&Office&of&the&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&General&determined&criminal&

policy&for&the&DOJ.&&I&asked&you&to&confirm&whether&there&was&no&other&

component&at&the&DOJ&that&contained&a&criminal&division.&&You&replied&that&

there&was&none.&&However,&when&I&searched&the&DOJ’s&Web&site,&I&discovered&

that&the&Civil&Rights&Division&(“CRT”)&contains&a&Criminal&Division.&&&

(ii). In&Footnote&2&in&your&letter&of&13&October&2015,&you&wrote&that&

the&DOJ&“cannot&respond&to&FOIA&requests&or&provide&information&as&to&local&

law&enforcement&entities.”&&However,&the&purpose&of&the&CRT&includes&taking&

action&to&“uphold&the&civil&and&constitutional&rights&of&all&Americans,&

particularly&some&of&the&most&vulnerable&members&of&our&society.&&The&Division&

enforces&federal&statutes&prohibiting&discrimination&on&the&basis&of&race,&color,&

sex,&disability,&religion,&familial&status&and&national&origin.”&&See&Civil&Rights&Division,&About$the$Division,&U.S.&Department&of&Justice&(Sept.&22,&2015),&http://www.justice.gov/crt/aboutFdivision.&&&

(iii). On&the&CRT’s&Web&site,&it&is&noted&that&the&CRT&becomes&involved&

in&cases&where&activists&are&persecuted&for&“federally&protected&activities.”&&See&the&subsections&U.S.$v.$Johnson&(where&the&Defendant&was&sending&threatening&eFmails&to&Puerto&Rican&activists)&and&U.S.$v.$Munsen&(where&the&Defendant&was&


Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&U.S.&Attorney’s&Office&F&Eastern&District&of&New&York&26&October&2015&Page 11 &

harassing&AfricanFAmerican&civil&rights&activists)&under&the&Hate&Crimes&section&at&Civil&Rights&Division,&Criminal$Section$Selected$Case$Summaries,&U.S.&Department&of&Justice&(Aug.&6,&2015),&http://www.justice.gov/crt/criminalFsectionFselectedFcaseFsummaries.&

(iv). Does&the&CRT&ever&provide&guidance&to&local,&state,&or&federal&law&enforcement&entities&or&agencies&about&how&to&protect&the&“federally&protected&activities”&of&activists&?&&&

(v). To&“close&the&loop”&on&all&the&many&ways&that&the&DOJ&treats&the&“First&Amendment,&other&Constitutional&rights,&civil&liberties,&and&other&civil&rights&of&activists,”&can&you&please&provide&clarification&about&whether&the&CRT&has&ever&interceded&in&the&prosecutions&of&activists&in&order&to&protect&the&“federally&protected&activities”&of&activists&?&&

(vi). Given&that&the&DOJ&did&not&produce&any&guidelines&applicable&to&the&prosecution&of&activists&(for&example,&the&sections&to&the&U.S.&Attorneys’&Manual&that&apply&to&demonstrations)&until&after&the&Magistrate&Judge&entered&her&omnibus&order,&even&though&these&guidelines&were&requested&in&the&FOIA&Request&but&the&DOJ&said&no&records&were&found&in&its&production&of&the&discretionary&release,&the&DOJ&has&little&credibility&in&this&action.&&Generally,&in&matters&of&FOIA,&it&has&long&been&established&by&the&media&that&the&DOJ&violates&its&obligations&under&FOIA&until&requesters&seek&the&intervention&of&the&courts&to&compel&the&DOJ&to&comply&with&FOIA.&&As&a&consequence&of&the&DOJ’s&opinion&that&it&can&disclose&documents&subject&to&FOIA&at&its&discretion,&the&assertion&of&which&Plaintiff&objects,&Plaintiff&was&moved&to&filed&a&FOIA&Request&with&the&CRT&over&documents&showing&how&the&CRT&defends&the&rights&of&activists.&&Not&specified&in&the&FOIA&Request,&but&at&the&heart&of&this&request,&is&to&determine&if&the&CRT&takes&any&action&to&defend&the&rights&of&activists&against&prosecution&of&activists&by&the&DOJ.&&This&FOIA&Request&will&“close&the&loop”&on&the&documents&applicable&to&the&prosecution&of&activists,&and&the&DOJ&should&be&willing&to&make&a&Declaration&about&the&outcome&of&this&FOIA&Request.&&Copies&of&this&FOIA&Request,&the&eFmail&transmittal,&and&the&eFmail&read&receipt&are&attached.&

I&look&forward&to&receiving&swift&cooperation&from&the&DOJ&to&resolve&these&open&issues&before&we&have&to&make&a&joint&reportFback&to&the&Magistrate&Judge&on&or&before&05&November&2015.&&If&we&are&unable&to&resolve&these&open&issues&in&time&before&we&must&file&our&joint&reportFback,&I&hope&the&DOJ&will&agree&to&an&extension&of&time,&so&that&we&can&resolve&as&many&of&the&major&open&issues&as&possible,&before&we&can&agree&to&propose&a&briefing&schedule.&&Thank&you&kindly.&&

Yours&sincerely,&

&Louis&Flores&&

&Attachments&(as&stated)&


!


10/22/15 11:04 AM

Page 1 of 1https://hostingmail.earthlink.net/mail/message.php?index=78513&mailbox=bWJveA%3D%3D&window=true

---------- Original Message ----------From: "FOIArequests, CRT (CRT)" <[email protected]>To: Louis Flores <[email protected]>Date: October 22, 2015 at 9:02 AMSubject: Read: FOIA Request - Courtesy Electronic Copy

Your message

To: FOIArequests, CRT (CRT)Subject: FOIA Request - Courtesy Electronic CopySent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:56:02 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

was read on Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:02:10 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

From: "Louis Flores" <[email protected]>Subject: Fwd: Read: FOIA Request - Courtesy Electronic Copy

Sent date: 10/22/2015 11:01:44 AMTo: "louisflores"<[email protected]>, "Louis Flores"<[email protected]>,

"Louis Flores"<[email protected]>


EXHIBIT N




271 Cadman Plaza East-7th Floor Brooklyn, New York 11201 November 3, 2015 By Email and First-Class Mail Louis Flores 34-21 77th Street, Apt. #406 Jackson Heights, New York 11372


Dear Mr. Flores:

On behalf of Defendant United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “Defendant”), we write in response to your letter dated October 26, 2015.

The Court’s September 16, 2015 Minute Entry Order sustained Defendant’s objections to

your request for discovery. (See Dkt. No. 14). The information provided in the undersigned’s letter dated October 13, 2015 was offered in furtherance of the Court’s direction to confer further, in good faith to accommodate the Court’s encouragement, and without waiver of Defendant’s arguments and defenses asserted in this action. Most of your questions and comments that span your 11-page October 26, 2015 letter appear to be an attempt to obtain discovery that the Court has not permitted. Defendant again objects to discovery in this matter.

Nevertheless, and without waiver of any and all defenses and arguments asserted by

Defendant in this action, Defendant provides the following points of clarification as to a couple questions raised in your October 26, 2015 letter.

Your question numbered 1(f) states that the search did not include a consultation with the

Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) assigned to the prosecution of Daniel Choi. (Oct. 26, 2015 Letter at p. 2). However, it did; Ms. Kelly consulted the AUSA, as set forth in paragraphs 16 through 18 of Ms. Kelly’s declaration.

In your question numbered 1(j), you have questions as to the discretionary release of

publicly-available documents by the EOUSA. (Oct. 26, 2015 Letter at pp. 2-3). To correct your statement in that paragraph, and as previously discussed, the undersigned did not refer you to PACER to collect documents, but stated that the publicly-available documents were available on PACER and has offered on multiple occasions to provide you with copies of those referenced documents. As to the publicly-available documents that are not on PACER referred to in your question, those documents were provided in the discretionary release. This should also answer your question numbered 4(j)(iii).


Louis Flores November 3, 2015 Page 2

In your October 26, 2015 letter, you inform the undersigned that you have submitted a

FOIA request to the Civil Rights Division.1 The undersigned’s receipt of that request in no way constitutes an acknowledgement that a proper FOIA request was submitted to that office and does not indicate that the Civil Rights Division will accept, acknowledge, or undertake any action upon the undersigned’s receipt of the request. A FOIA request to components of DOJ must be made to the FOIA office of that component, and a FOIA request must comply with 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(3). The undersigned does not undertake any obligations or responsibilities in connection with the FOIA request attached to your October 26, 2015 letter.

Please note that the parties are to submit a joint report to the Court by November 6, 2015.

Defendant believes that there is no reason to extend the Court-ordered deadline. To that end, enclosed please find a proposed Joint Status Letter, with proposed briefing schedule. Kindly advise if we have your consent to the proposed Letter and briefing schedule.


Very truly yours,

ROBERT L. CAPERS United States Attorney



1 In your question numbered 4(m)(i), you note that the undersigned stated that “there was

no other component at the DOJ that contained a criminal division.” (Oct. 26, 2015 Letter at p. 10). Please note that the undersigned stated that there was no other criminal division component that would have guidelines for the prosecution of activists other than the OAAG.



2015-11-23 DOJ MSJ (5) Declaration Rukhsanah Singh - USAO (Flores v DOJ) (FOIA Lawsuit)

Documents

Transcript of 2015-11-23 DOJ MSJ (5) Declaration Rukhsanah Singh - USAO (Flores v DOJ) (FOIA Lawsuit)