Showing posts with label U.S. Attorney's Office. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Attorney's Office. Show all posts

Friday, March 17, 2017

#Fast4FOIA - Week 2 Update

#Fast4FOIA Day 18 - YouTube Video

Today is Day 19 of the #Fast4FOIA. I began a liquids-only fast on February 27 to peacefully protest how the U.S. Department of Justice violates the Freedom of Information Act. This fast is expected to last about 22 days ; it may end sooner, if, before the end of 22 days, the DOJ files its Answer to the Complaint in my FOIA Lawsuit. In January, I filed a lawsuit under FOIA to obtain records of the speeches of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara because no records were ever released in response to my FOIA Request.

If this fast runs for the full 22 days, then I will have exceeded the longest fast undertaken by Mahatma Gandhi. There were two fasts, which Gandhi undertook, which were tied for the longest at 21 days.

I am posting daily reports on the #Fast4FOIA blog and posting daily videos on the #Fast4FOIA YouTube Channel. I am providing direct links to select vidoes, where you can see the progression of my weight loss on this liquids-only fast.

#Fast4FOIA - Week 2 Update

Here is a list of my YouTube videos :

  • Day 17 [I show you how my belt on the fifth notch has become loose.]
  • Day 11 [I show you that I began to wear my belt on the fifth notch.]
  • Day 07 [I show you how my belt on the fourth notch has become loose.]
  • Day 04 [I show you how my belt at the third notch fits me too loose.]

I have experienced severe hunger pains at different points in this fast, but I have remained faithful to my liquids-only regimen. Everything I have consumed is documented on the #Fast4FOIA blog. (I am only consuming coffee, sometimes iced tea spiked with extra lemon or lime juice, low-calorie Gatorade for minerals, Campbell's chicken broth soup, and prune juice to induce bowel movements. I can see myself reaching Day 22 of this fast, if it is necessary. All of this, because the DOJ believes it can violate FOIA without any consequences. I can't believe I'm writing this, but it looks like I should make it to Day 22, and, if so, I will have outlasted U.S. Attorney Bharara.* I have the utmost respect for the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the public corruption unit, but I cannot accept that the U.S. Attorney's Office, which is so celebrated for fighting corruption, can violate FOIA so openly.

* In my last newsletter, I complained that there was an apparent conflict of interest in U.S. Attorney Bharara overseeing this FOIA Lawsuit. I had applied for permission to file a letter motion, requesting his recusal. Now, because U.S. Attorney Bharara was removed from office by President Trump, I don't have to make such a filing. This lawsuit is not going to go forward like the DOJ thinks. It already isn't. I'm still looking for pro bono counsel. If anybody would like to volunteer to help me, I would be very grateful. But much more than my own gratitude, all the people filing FOIA Requests with the DOJ would be grateful, because there is a chance here to help bring the DOJ into compliance with FOIA.

Louis Flores
louis.flores@progressqueens.com
(929) 279-2292

RELATED


#Fast4FOIA Day 12 - FOIA Lawsuit over records of speeches of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (NYC : Nes & Analysis)

#Fast4FOIA - Day 12 (YouTube)

#Fast4FOIA Blog (Tumblr)

Judge Koeltl assigned to oversee FOIA lawsuit over speeches given by U.S. Attorney Bharara (Progress Queens)

EDITORIAL : DOJ and Manhattan Federal Court begin to put the fix in second FOIA Lawsuit (Progress Queens)

Preet Bharara gives a public speech before the press, but there is no recording or transcript. Why ? (Progress Queens)

Saturday, March 11, 2017

#Fast4FOIA Day 12 - FOIA Lawsuit over records of speeches of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara

#Fast4FOIA Day 12 - YouTube Video

The liquids-only fast that Louis Flores is on is expected to last 21 days, but it may end sooner, if the U.S. Department of Justice files it Answer to the Complaint in the lawsuit before the completion of the 21 days.

Friday was Day 12 of the #Fast4FOIA started by reporter and activist Louis Flores on 27 February. The fast began as a peaceful protest against the DOJ for its record of violating the Freedom of Information Act.

In January, Flores filed a lawsuit under FOIA to obtain records of the speeches of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, because no records were ever released in response to a FOIA Request made by Flores.

Even though Flores has protested outside the U.S. Attorney's Office, the DOJ refuses to settle this lawsuit.

The DOJ has a pattern and practise of violating FOIA. News reports have revealed that the DOJ fought to defeat improvements to FOIA under the Obama administration. In prior litigation between Flores and the DOJ, the DOJ admitted that it waits for the makers of FOIA Requests to file lawsuits before the DOJ process FOIA Requests in clear violation of the spirit of FOIA.

RELATED


#Fast4FOIA - Day 12 (YouTube)

#Fast4FOIA Blog (Tumblr)

Judge Koeltl assigned to oversee FOIA lawsuit over speeches given by U.S. Attorney Bharara (Progress Queens)

EDITORIAL : DOJ and Manhattan Federal Court begin to put the fix in second FOIA Lawsuit (Progress Queens)

Preet Bharara gives a public speech before the press, but there is no recording or transcript. Why ? (Progress Queens)

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

USAO mum on new revelation about Cuomo's e-mail deleting policy

PUBLISHED : TUES, 12 AUG 2014, 11:21 AM
UPDATED : TUES, 12 AUG 2014, 02:41 PM

As Gov. Cuomo was forming the Moreland Commission, he instituted a new policy that would purge state employees' e-mails

Did Gov. Cuomo have something to hide ?

In a shocking new report, ProPublica reporter Theodoric Meyer raises new questions about an e-mail deletion policy instituted by the Cuomo administration for state employees. The new policy, rolled out last year, automatically deletes state employees' e-mails after 90 days if they are not deliberately and methodically saved for various reasons.

Under new rules for archiving e-mails as records, if state employees don't make the extra, tedious effort to code e-mails under a maze of classification options, then state e-mails are left to be automatically purged, a default move that violates the spirit of government transparency and public records access that are intended to keep elected officials and state government accountable to voters. The revelation of the e-mail deleting policy comes atop of known Cuomo administration paranoia over the use of electronic communications. Two years ago, The New York Times reported that top Cuomo aides routinely communicated with the governor through unarchivable Blackberry PIN messages, to enshroud the work of running the state government's business in secret.

In an Orwellian move, the New York State Archives under the Cuomo administration determined that most e-mails "are not records in need of preservation."

The timing of the new e-mail deleting policy, announced under a memorandum, which the Cuomo administration kept secret for over one year, is suspect. The memorandum was dated June 18, 2013 -- just two weeks before Gov. Cuomo announced on July 2, 2013 the formation of a corruption-fighting panel named the Moreland Commission. The Moreland commissioners were deputized as assistant attorneys general and were conferred subpoena power to investigate corruption across New York state government.

That Cuomo accelerated the state's e-mail deleting policy just as he was launching the doomed Moreland Commission has raised concerns amongst government reform activists. Gov. Cuomo disbanded the Moreland Commission after a host controversies, chief amongst them the coordinated activities by his own top aides to obstruct the investigative work of the Moreland commissioners and their staff, earning the ire of the powerful federal prosecutor, Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for New York's southern district. Mr. Bharara sent a warning letter to Gov. Cuomo after it appeared that Gov. Cuomo was possibly engaging in witness tampering. A press official in Mr. Bharara's office was asked this morning how could voters count on the integrity of the federal investigation into the Cuomo administration's controversial acts that led to the premature closing of the Moreland Commission if Gov. Cuomo instituted a policy of deleting e-mails, but the press official refused to comment.

RELATED


Why is the Cuomo Administration Automatically Deleting State Employees’ E-mails ? (ProPublica)

New Cuomo e-mail retention policy kills e-mails after 90 days (The Times Union)

E-mail retention memo raises new questions about the state's rationale for its deletions policy (ProPublica)


massage therapist in NYC

Michael Hayes, LMT, has practiced massage for more than 20 years as a licensed massage therapist in New York City. The offices of Flatiron Massage are located in the Flatiron District of Manhattan.

Monday, August 11, 2014

Voters not keeping up with Moreland scandal, and some sick reporters celebrate this as good news for Gov. Cuomo

PUBLISHED : MON, 11 AUG 2014, 12:21 PM
UPDATED : TUES, 12 AUG 2014, 06:40 AM

A new poll shows that 86% of voters say that corruption in government is out of control.

However, 67% of people polled claimed that they were uninformed about the federal investigation into Gov. Cuomo's obstruction of the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption, perhaps the state's biggest corruption scandal of the last decade.

Many high profile political reporters keep defending Gov. Cuomo's obstruction of justice. Others predict that Gov. Cuomo will easily win reelection -- all, in contradiction to the legal realities of a federal criminal investigation into the apparent coordinated activities of the Cuomo administration that may add up to obstruction of justice charges, or worse. With a wayward press, it should come as no surprise that voters keep reelecting corrupt incumbents.

A top incumbent party leader, like Gov. Cuomo, oversees a state-wide army of elected officials, their staff, permanent government insiders, and other political operatives to work in orchestrated efforts to deceive the press, and, by extension, the voters.

The bias in the media favoring Gov. Andrew Cuomo's reelection is becoming more and more apparent, as the legal and political risks of a federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office into the Cuomo administration's obstruction of the Moreland Commission shows no sign of ending. Yesterday, former Missouri state Sen. Jeff Smith wrote in Politico that federal prosecutors are seeking Gov. Cuomo's scalp, in stark contrast to many high-profile press reports that predict no legal ramifications for the corrupt governor. Besides meddling in the Moreland Commission's investigation of political and campaign corruption cases, the Cuomo administration has overseen a corrupt state government that has been rocked by seemingly endless indictments of state politicians.

Mr. Smith, who himself had to serve a prison sentence in connection with charges of obstruction of justice for an underlying campaign finance violation, has courageously provided a public service to voters by speaking truthfully about the complexities of federal criminal law. Before Mr. Smith's editorial, many of New York's political bloggers have complained that voters have been being kept in the dark about Gov. Cuomo's legal and political scandals. Mr. Smith's editorial for Politico was released on the eve of a new Siena College poll showing that only a scant percent of voters are closely following the governor's Moreland scandal.

Only 11% of voters have been closely following Gov. Cuomo's Moreland Commission scandal.

That number has to radically increase by multiples, in order for voters to cast informed ballots. Will the press do its job ?

The low number of voters paying attention to Gov. Cuomo's legal and political scandals inspired Capital New York's Blake Zeff to celebrate that the Moreland scandal had done "little significant damage to Cuomo’s re-election effort." Last month, Maggie Haberman concluded that the federal investigation into the Cuomo administration "may ultimately amount to nothing." A misled public undermines the foundation of America's republican form of democratic government, which relies on its citizens to cast informed votes. This year, more and more citizens are scaling up their blogging activities, like the publisher behind the Perdido Street School blog, in order to independently inform voters by circumventing the compromised, corporate-controlled media.

Last year, the major New York City-based political reporters admitted during a post-Democratic primary forum that they had failed to scrutinise the then-presumed mayor-elect Bill de Blasio. This failure to vet for the city's electorate the eventual winner of last year's mayoral election may explain why Mayor de Blasio rapidly lost support from White voters after only a few months in office. Now, Mayor de Blasio is on the verge of seeing his last base of polling support, the minority community, turn their back on him. With Gov. Cuomo and his top aides facing the very real prospect of federal criminal indictments, will New York's political press fail voters again ?

Will Gov. Cuomo be investigated for campaign finance corruption ?

About two weeks ago, The New York Daily News reported that in preparing his legal responses to the on-going federal investigation into the Cuomo administration's reported obstruction of the Moreland commission, Gov. Cuomo had "sought advice from several lawyers." Frightened at the prospect that voters would retaliate if taxpayers had to foot the bill for Gov. Cuomo's own criminal defense attorneys, the governor indicated that his campaign committee would pay to defend Executive Branch officials in the federal investigation into the Moreland scandal. However, in his campaign committee's latest finance filing with the state's corrupt Board of Elections, only one legal invoice, in the amount of $10,000, was submitted by only one attorney, Elkan Abramowitz. What happened to the legal invoices of the "several lawyers" with whom the governor consulted ?

Many political bloggers also point out that the amount of experienced lawyering needed by Gov. Cuomo to fight back the serious charges being reportedly pursued by the U.S. Attorney's Office could not reasonably be performed for $10,000. The complexities of possible federal criminal charges range from plain witness tampering to the seriousness of obstruction of justice to, some political bloggers believe, racketeering, under which witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and now possible campaign finance violations could be added as lesser, included charges. In the past weeks, the governor has seen Heather Green, the assistant to the former executive director of the Moreland Commission, testify before a sitting Grand Jury. Larry Schwartz, the hand of the governor, has negotiated a voluntary appearance before federal prosecutors conducting the investigation into the Cuomo administration's obstruction of the Moreland Commission. And the governor was the target of a warning letter issued by federal prosecutors after one of the governor's staff members reportedly cajoled former Moreland commissioners into issuing controversial statements to possibly undermine the federal investigation. As these and other legal proceedings move forward, Gov. Cuomo faces a steady drip of embarrassing political setbacks that require the need for multiple legal consultations, research, analysis, and second opinions, given federal prosecutors' legal practice closing in around Gov. Cuomo. It's inconceivable that the cost of all of the necessary criminal defense work the governor needs right now could be done for only $10,000. Under state law, any discounts or gifts of services to campaign committees must be recorded as in-kind campaign contributions, something that wasn't reflected in the governor's last in-kind contribution schedule of his campaign committee's finance disclosure statement.

RELATED


MEDIA BIAS : With shoddy legal analysis, Blake Zeff somehow concludes that Cuomo’s obstruction of Moreland acts as a prosecutorial gift to Bharara (Capital New York)

MEDIA BIAS : Besmirching U.S. Attorney as rogue cowboy, Wall Street reporters describe Bharara as "confrontational" (The Wall Street Journal)

MEDIA BIAS : Easily manipulated by Cuomo operatives, one columnist predicts that Cuomo will probably walk (The New York Daily News)

PAYING OFF MEDIA : Fending off Moreland scandal, Cuomo campaign spent more than $1.1 million on TV ads (The New York Daily News)

REAL TALK : Cuomo’s Slow-Mo Disaster : The New York governor is in deeper legal trouble than other press is willing to admit (Politico)

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Campaign Finance Board Penalizes NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC For Campaign Violations

Million-Dollar Anti-Quinn Super PAC Fined Pennies On The Dollar

Ushered in by the corruptive Citizens United Supreme Court decision, a Super PAC that helped end former Council Speaker Christine Quinn's mayoral ambitions was fined $7,050 by the Campaign Finance Board Thursday morning for failing to report $70,000 in expenditures, The New York Daily News reported.

Activists had spent years organizing against former Speaker Quinn for allowing the NYPD to institute a protest parade permit, for over-turning term limits, and for doing nothing to save St. Vincent's Hospital, amongst other betrayals. But then last year, the Super PAC, NYC Is Not For Sale, supplanted the long-term reform activists by launching a million-dollar TV commercial campaign against Speaker Quinn when she was ahead in the polls, rendering the long-term activists to nothing more but useful idiots to the Super PAC. With its very visible negative attack ads on TV, NYC Is Not For Sale took public credit for defeating Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign, decidedly handing victory in the mayoral race to former Public Advocate Bill de Blasio. In exchange for having received the benefit and support from the Super PAC, the new mayor helped raise money for at least one of coalition members that organized the Super PAC, and the mayor has repeatedly promised to honor the legislative request of the wealthy donors behind the Super PAC.

The fine levied by the Campaign Finance Board represented a financial penalty of about 10 cents on the dollar for the infraction amounts that the Super PAC failed to declare.

That NYC Is Not For Sale flouted city campaign finance regulations revealed how some of the long-term reform activists, who were initially excited for the Super PAC's help to defeat former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign, were not fully aware that NYC Is Not For Sale represented trouble.

The Super PAC, NYC Is Not For Sale, supplanted the long-term reform activists by launching a million-dollar TV commercial campaign against Speaker Quinn when she was ahead in the polls, rendering the long-term activists to nothing more but useful idiots to the Super PAC.

Following the Campaign Finance Board's announcement of the fine, reform activists were troubled by the relatively small penalty against the Super PAC. The whole purpose of the activism to defeat former Speaker Quinn was to reform government processes to end corruption and the appearance of corruption. Since the board members of the Campaign Finance Board answer to Mayor Bill de Blasio and the present Council speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, it is not known how independent the Campaign Finance Board can be in reviewing violations of groups that have relationships with the administration. Both the mayor and the Council speaker have close ties to the coalition of left-leaning unions, Democratic donors, and animal rights activists that formed NYC Is Not For Sale. NYC Is Not For Sale was advised, in turn, by the political lobbying firm, The Advance Group, which is headed by Scott Levenson. The Advance Group and Mr. Levenson have close ties to the mayor and to the Council speaker. If city campaign finance regulators only assessed this politically-connected Democratic Super PAC with a nominal financial penalty, then reform activists may not reasonably expect just outcomes in respect of complaints about other controversial electioneering work during last year's municipal elections. For example, many of the campaigns and/or Super PAC's advised or administered by The Advance Group have triggered critical press reports questioning possible financial or ethical improprieties.

Notwithstanding, the Campaign Finance Board denied John Liu any public matching dollars in last year's mayoral race over questions of the integrity of his fundraising. Yet, the Campaign Finance Board allowed Councilmember Mark-Viverito to keep all of her public matching dollars, even though she exceeded the spending cap by opening a second campaign finance account with the state Board of Elections in Albany during the same election cycle to fund her speakership race. Separately, the Progressive Caucus of the City Council employed their own lobbyist, Alison Hirsch, in the Council speaker race. However, the Campaign Finance Board has not indicated whether it is comfortable with allowing undeclared or possibly unpaid electioneering work made at the direction of elected officials that take place during an election cycle that subjected those same election officials to spending caps and other public matching dollars restrictions ?

The regulations for campaign finance do not guarantee that every politician is owed a right to keep raising money for post-election leadership races, like the campaign for Council speaker, during the same election cycle where there were spending caps and other matching public dollar restrictions. Every time that politicians raise money, they create opportunities for the undue influence of wealthy campaign donors and lobbyists to have even great influence over our public officials, always at the expense of the mere voter. By allowing Councilmember Mark-Viverito to exceed the spending cap, the Campaign Finance Board has now opened a backdoor to allow any public official to open up campaign accounts with the state Board of Elections that can be used for electioneering purposes that would effectively allow those public officials to game the public matching dollar system through the Campaign Finance Board and still raise more money through a state Board of Elections account. This is a dangerous precedent that the Campaign Finance Board has set. Compounding the concerns of reform activists, the board members of the Campaign Finance Board are now partly answerable to the Councilmember Mark-Viverito, because she has since become the Council speaker as a direct result of questionable electioneering work that falls under the jurisdiction of the Campaign Finance Board.

Judging by the tiny fraction of a fine levied on NYC Is Not For Sale, the Campaign Finance Board is not sufficiently independent to review complaints of campaign finance violations of parties, such as The Advance Group, Mr. Levenson, the animal rights group NY-CLASS, and others, who have as close, if not closer, ties to each of the mayor and the Council speaker than the coalition of left-leaning unions and Democratic donors that formed NYC Is Not For Sale. Indeed, as the Campaign Finance Board continues with its post-election audit, one of the very campaign accounts it must review belongs to the Council speaker, herself.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Letters to U.S. Senators, requesting assistance in Lt. Daniel Choi's FOIA Request

Today, I sent a letter to Senators John Cornyn and Al Franken regarding their investigation into the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the government's aggressive prosecution of the late Internet activist, Aaron Swartz. I mentioned the pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that is pending in the government's vindictive prosecution case against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal hero, Lt. Daniel Choi. I asked the Hon. Senators if there was a way that we could work together on these matters.

2014-01-15 Lt Daniel Choi FOIA Request - Senator John Cornyn - Al Franken (Fax and Confirmation)

Separately, I sent another letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asking him for his support on these matters.

2014-01-15 Lt Daniel Choi FOIA Request - Senator Harry Reid (Fax and Confirmation)

If I receive any responses, I'll provide another update.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

DOJ FOIA Request Update - Will Government Approve Expedited Processing ?

See Also New Advisory : FOIA Appeal Update Regarding the DOJ's ''vindictive prosecution'' of Lt. Daniel Choi (7 Dec 2013)

The FOIA request I sent to the U.S. Department of Justice was received on 6 May 2013.

2013 05 06 Lt Daniel Choi DOJ FOIA Request Louis Flores Scan

When I called the Department of Justice on 14 May 2013, I was told that the FOIA request had not yet been logged into the DOJ's FOIA request tracking system. I will call them next week, to find out if the DOJ is going to approve expedited processing.

Here is the original request, as submitted :

2013-04-30 Lt Daniel Choi DOJ FOIA Request Louis Flores by Connaissable

My request is heavily patterned after a separate and unrelated request submitted by the ACLU. Let's see what we learn....

Here is the full text of the FOIA request :

30 April 2013

Department of Justice
EOUSA/FOIA/PA Staff
BICN Bldg.
600 E Street, N.W., Suite 7300
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Ladies and Gentlemen :

Re : REQUEST UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT/
     Expedited Processing Requested

This letter constitutes a request (“Request”) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., the Department of Justice implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 16.1 et seq., the President’s Memorandum of January 21, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 4683 (Jan. 26, 2009), and the Attorney General’s Memorandum of March 19, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 49,892 (Sept. 29, 2009). I submit this Request as a blogger.

This Request seeks records pertaining to the prosecution of Lt. Daniel Choi (“Lt. Choi”). Lt. Choi was arrested on Nov. 15, 2010 on a public sidewalk adjacent to the White House, during a protest against the military’s former policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” On March 27, 2013, I submitted a request for information in an e-mail addressed to Angela George of the U.S. Attorney’s Office (attached hereto as Exhibit A) (“Original Request”) requesting various information and records pertaining to the prosecution of Lt. Choi. Other officers with the Department of Justice were also copied on this e-mail. I specifically mentioned in my Original Request that I requested answers to my questions, or, if there was another process, which I had to follow to submit an “official” request for information, I alternatively requested that I be informed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of such process. The U.S. Attorney’s Office was non-responsive to this e-mail, so I sent a follow-up e-mail on April 10, 2013 (attached hereto as Exhibit B). The U.S. Attorney’s Office was non-responsive to this e-mail, so I forwarded the e-mail chain of my requests for information and records on April 16, 2013 to a general e-mail inbox for the Department of Justice (attached hereto as Exhibit C), to which I finally received an acknowledgement and further instruction dated April 17, 2013 (attached hereto as Exhibit D), which gives rise to this Request.

This Request seeks information and records pertaining to the nature and purpose of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s prosecution of Lt. Choi. Many activists question why the Department of Justice has sought to prioritise the prosecution of activists, such as the late Aaron Swartz and Lt. Choi. Are prosecutors being told to prosecute activists ? The nature of some of the prosecutions of activists have been portrayed in the press to be “rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach.” See, e.g., Noam Cohen, A Data Crusader, a Defendant and Now, a Cause, N.Y. Times, Jan. 14, 2003, at A1. Given this prosecutorial tone, has there been any intention to express disrespect to Lt. Choi during the proceedings of the prosecution ? What explains why the U.S. Attorney’s Office refused to address Lt. Choi by his official military rank ? How aggressive were prosecutors instructed to pursue Lt. Choi ? What have been the cumulative costs of the prosecution of Lt. Choi ?

In several press reports, the Department of Justice was portrayed to be engaged in a “vindictive prosecution” against Lt. Choi. See, e.g., 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#. And then, before the nature and purpose of the selective prosecution of Lt. Choi could become public information, prosecutors quashed the effort to expose the selective prosecution. See 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/.

Further reports suggest prosecutorial overreach or vindictive prosecution is not limited to the late Mr. Swartz or to Lt. Choi. The scope of other prosecutions, namely, the prosecution of PFC Bradley Manning, could lead to treating all whistleblowers as traitors. This treatment has been described as “extraordinary prosecutorial overkill.” See Amy Goodman & Glenn Greenwald, Glenn Greenwald on Bradley Manning: 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.

Despite these publicized concerns, the Department of Justice remains silent about its intentions with respect of its prosecution of activists. Indeed, the U.S. Attorney’s Office was non-responsive to my Original Request. It is unclear why federal prosecutors are persecuting activists. The public has little information about the internal accountability mechanisms by which laws and rules govern the targeted prosecutions of activists. Nor does the public have any information about how the Department of Justice balances First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists against the charges that the Department of Justice brings against activists. Without this information, the public is unable to make an informed judgment about the Department of Justice’s targeted prosecutions of activists. I make the following requests for information in hopes of filling that void.

I. Requested Records

     1. All records and information pertaining to the legal basis of prosecuting activists, who engage in protests, including, but not limited, to records and information regarding :

     A. 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 ;

     B. whether the nature and purpose of prosecution of activists may be aggressive, selective, or involve overreach, and which Department of Justice officials approve of such nature and purpose of prosecution of activists ;

     C. limits, rules, procedures, or other guidelines that must or should be taken into consideration before, during, and after the prosecution of activists to mimimise the interference with First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists ;

     D. consideration of other circumstances, conditions, and restrictions that form any part of the decision to target activists for prosecution ; and, if such considerations exist, under what circumstances, under what conditions, and subject to what restrictions ;

     E. any and all agency, executive, judicial, or congressional reports, memoranda, records, and information, which provide any description of the process for the determination as to whether activists can be targeted for prosecution ; and

     F. 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.

     2. All records and information created on or after Nov. 12, 2010, pertaining to the legal basis for the arrest and/or prosecution of Lt. Choi, including, but not limited to, records and information regarding :

     A. whether the prosecution of Lt. Choi was part of any Department of Justice’s process to target activists ; and

     B. the limits of the Department of Justice’s prosecution to mimimise the interference with First Amendment, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of Lt. Choi.

     3. All records and information created on or after Nov. 12, 2010, pertaining to the legal basis for the Department of Justice or U.S. Attorney’s Office to fail to refer to Lt. Choi by his military rank, in accordance with Army Regulation 670-1.

     4. The total cost of the prosecution of Lt. Choi, including, but not limited to :

     A. any and all records and information created on or after Nov. 12, 2010, pertaining to the cost of arresting and/or prosecuting Lt. Choi, including, but not limited to, records and information regarding :

     a. any and all agency, executive, judicial, or congressional reports, memoranda, records, and information, which indicate, calculate, or analyze the budged and actual cost of the prosecution of Lt. Choi ;

     b. any and all records of the cost of staff costs, staff benefits, travel, transcripts, accommodations, meals, non-attorney investigation costs, research costs, other investigation costs, and all other costs on the prosecution of Lt. Choi ;

     c. any and all records of the costs of fact and expert witnesses in connection with the prosecution of Lt. Choi ;

     d. any and all records of assistance provided by other law enforcement agencies in connection with the prosecution of Lt. Choi ; and

     e. any and all records of hours worked, paid or unpaid overtime hours, and other information about personnel hours worked in connection with the prosecution of Lt. Choi.

II. Application For Expedited Processing

I request expedited processing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) ; 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.34(c). There is a “compelling need” for these records, because the information requested is urgently needed in order to be disseminated to inform the public about actual or alleged Federal Government activity. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v) ; see also 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b)(2) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.34(c)(2).

In addition, the records sought relate to a “breaking news story of general public interest.” 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b)(2)(i) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3)(ii)(A) ; see also 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(iv) (providing for expedited processing in relation to a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence”).

As a blogger, I am “primarily engaged in disseminating information” within the meaning of the statue and regulations. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) ; 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b)(2) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.34(c)(2). Dissemination of information to the public is a critical and substantial component of my mission and work. See, e.g., Jonathan Lemire, Christine Quinn detractors use social media in effort to quash her mayoral run, N.Y. Daily News (April 14, 2013), http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/online-effort-quash-christine-quinn-mayoral-aspirations-article-1.1316224 ; Jill Colvin, Christine Quinn Foes Prepare Campaign to Spoil Her Mayoral Hopes, DNAinfo (Jan. 9, 2013), http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130109/new-york-city/christine-quinn-foes-prepare-campaign-spoil-her-mayoral-hopes. I publish several blogs, produce YouTube videos, and manage several Twitter feeds. Such material is widely available to everyone. This Request originated from questions posted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, so that I could update this specific blog post : http://ny-popculture-politics.blogspot.com/2013/03/lt-dan-choi-dadt-trial-update.html.

The records and information sought directly relate to a breaking news story of general public interest that concerns actual or alleged Federal Government activist ; specifically, the records and information sought relate to the U.S. Government’s prosecution of activists. The records and information sought will help determine what is the government’s asserted legal basis for these targeted prosecutions, whether it conflicts with the First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights, how many activists have been prosecuted, and other matters that are essential in order for the public to make an informed judgment about the advisability of this tactic and the lawfulness of the government’s conduct. For these reasons, the records and information sought relate to a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(iv).

There have been news reports about the prosecution of activists that imposes 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 U.S. Attorney’s Office demand for drug-testing of HIV/AIDS activists was fraught with complications, because the 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. 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.

These news stories and investigative reports have also suggested that the prosecution of activists was unfair. These HIV/AIDS activists chained themselves together inside the office of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to protest, among other issues, cuts to HIV/AIDS programs. They were arrested on federal charges. On the same day as the HIV/AIDS activists were arrested, 41 D.C. voting rights activists, including Mayor Vincent Gray, were arrested on Capitol Hill. The voting rights activists were charged with misdemeanors by the D.C. attorney general. Most, including the mayor, paid a $50 fine. What explains why the U.S. Attorney’s Office was treating HIV/AIDS activists differently ? 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.

Further news reports have caused concern that the prosecution of activists is influenced with political overtones. During his tenure as a U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald targeted 23 activists, who were widely described as critics of U.S. foreign policy. 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.

The activist community and the public-at-large are unable to determine the nature and purpose of the prosecution of activists, because there is a lack of reliable information about the reasons the Department of Justice is prosecuting activists. Indeed, even Congress is left in the dark about the motivations behind the prosecution of activists. See, e.g., 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/. And in respect of Lt. Choi, a magistrate judge had found that was indication that the Department of Justice was singling out Lt. Choi for “vindictively prosecution.” See John Aravosis, Judge finds prima facie evidence that US government may have “vindictively prosecuted” Dan Choi, AMERICAblog (Aug. 31, 2011), http://americablog.com/2011/08/judge-finds-prima-facie-evidence-that-us-government-may-have-vindictively-prosecuted-dan-choi.html ; 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# ; and Chris Geidner, Government Files Motion to Stop "Vindictive Prosecution" Defense in Choi Trial, Metro Weekley (Sept. 16, 2011), http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/09/government-filed-motion-to-sto.html.

III. Application for Waiver or Limitation of Fees

I request a waiver of search, review, and duplication fees on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest, because it “is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) ; 22 C.F.R. 171.17(a) ; see also 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(k)(1) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.28(d) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.13(b)(2).

As discussed above, numerous news accounts reflect the considerable public interest in the requested records and information. Given the ongoing and widespread media attention to this issue, the records and information sought in the instant Request will significantly contribute to public understanding of the operations and activities of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office with regard to the targeting of activists for prosecution. See 22 C.F.R. 171.17(a)(1) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(k)(1)(i) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.28(d) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.13(b)(2). Moreover, disclosure is not in the ACLU’s commercial interest. Any information disclosed by me as a result of this Request will be available to the public at no cost. Thus, a fee waiver would fulfill Congress’s legislative intent in amending FOIA. See Judicial Watch Inc. v. Rossitti, 326 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“Congress amended FOIA to ensure that it be ‘liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters.’” (citation omitted)) ; OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524, § 2 (Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act,” but that “in practice, the Freedom of Information Act has not always lived up to the ideals of that Act”).

I also request a waiver of search and review fees on the grounds that I qualify as a “representative of the news media,” and the records and information are not sought for commercial use. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(d). Accordingly, fees associated with the processing of the Request should be “limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II) ; see also 32 C.F.R. § 286.28(e)(7) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.13(i)(2) ; 22 C.F.R. 171.15(c) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(d) (search and review fees shall not be charged to “representatives of the news media”).

I meet the statutory and regulatory definitions of a “representative of the news media” because I function as an “entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii).

* * *

Pursuant to applicable statute and regulations, I expect determination regarding expediting processing within 10 calendar days. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I) ; 22 C.F.R. 171.12(b) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(4) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.21(d).

If the Request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions to FOIA. We expect the release of all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. We reserve the right to appeal a decision to withhold any information or to deny a waiver of fees.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please furnish all applicable records to :

Louis Flores
()
New York, NY 10011

I affirm that the information provided supporting the request for expedited processing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Sincerely,


Note that in the last few days, the media has been whipped into a frenzy over whether the DOJ is violating the First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of journalists. The FOIA request I submitted asked for records pertaining to whether the DOJ violated these same rights and liberties of activists. Let's see what we find out.... Stay tuned.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

DOJ First Amendment Violations : A Valid Concern

I just called, and I was told that the FOIA request I sent to the Department of Justice hasn't been tracked into their computer system. I left a voicemail after being transferred twice. It's interesting to learn yesterday about the DOJ getting phone records of the Associated Press, a clear violation of the First Amendment. The FOIA request I submitted on April 30, 2013, was about the government arresting activists. Among the information I requested was whether the DOJ considered First Amendment rights, among other rights, when prosecuting cases. Based on how the DOJ treats the First Amendment rights of the press, it concerns me that the First Amendment rights of activists may not be being protected.

2013-04-30 Lt Daniel Choi DOJ FOIA Request Louis Flores by Connaissable

“I am part of a global civil rights and human rights movement,” Lt. Daniel Choi declared shortly before his conviction, according to RH Reality Check. He spoke in favor of non-violent civil disobedience as a form of free speech : “I feel that the First Amendment is on trial today.”

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Lt. Daniel Choi - Vindictive Prosecution DOJ FOIA Request

After requests for information went unanswered, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Justice as a follow-up to a blog post about the selective nature of the prosecution, among other issues, in the government's case against Lt. Choi.

2013-04-30 Lt Daniel Choi DOJ FOIA Request Louis Flores by Connaissable

My request is heavily patterned after a separate and unrelated request submitted by the ACLU. Let's see what we learn....

Here is the full text of the FOIA request :

30 April 2013

Department of Justice
EOUSA/FOIA/PA Staff
BICN Bldg.
600 E Street, N.W., Suite 7300
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Ladies and Gentlemen :

Re : REQUEST UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT/
     Expedited Processing Requested

This letter constitutes a request (“Request”) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., the Department of Justice implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 16.1 et seq., the President’s Memorandum of January 21, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 4683 (Jan. 26, 2009), and the Attorney General’s Memorandum of March 19, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 49,892 (Sept. 29, 2009). I submit this Request as a blogger.

This Request seeks records pertaining to the prosecution of Lt. Daniel Choi (“Lt. Choi”). Lt. Choi was arrested on Nov. 15, 2010 on a public sidewalk adjacent to the White House, during a protest against the military’s former policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” On March 27, 2013, I submitted a request for information in an e-mail addressed to Angela George of the U.S. Attorney’s Office (attached hereto as Exhibit A) (“Original Request”) requesting various information and records pertaining to the prosecution of Lt. Choi. Other officers with the Department of Justice were also copied on this e-mail. I specifically mentioned in my Original Request that I requested answers to my questions, or, if there was another process, which I had to follow to submit an “official” request for information, I alternatively requested that I be informed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of such process. The U.S. Attorney’s Office was non-responsive to this e-mail, so I sent a follow-up e-mail on April 10, 2013 (attached hereto as Exhibit B). The U.S. Attorney’s Office was non-responsive to this e-mail, so I forwarded the e-mail chain of my requests for information and records on April 16, 2013 to a general e-mail inbox for the Department of Justice (attached hereto as Exhibit C), to which I finally received an acknowledgement and further instruction dated April 17, 2013 (attached hereto as Exhibit D), which gives rise to this Request.

This Request seeks information and records pertaining to the nature and purpose of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s prosecution of Lt. Choi. Many activists question why the Department of Justice has sought to prioritise the prosecution of activists, such as the late Aaron Swartz and Lt. Choi. Are prosecutors being told to prosecute activists ? The nature of some of the prosecutions of activists have been portrayed in the press to be “rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach.” See, e.g., Noam Cohen, A Data Crusader, a Defendant and Now, a Cause, N.Y. Times, Jan. 14, 2003, at A1. Given this prosecutorial tone, has there been any intention to express disrespect to Lt. Choi during the proceedings of the prosecution ? What explains why the U.S. Attorney’s Office refused to address Lt. Choi by his official military rank ? How aggressive were prosecutors instructed to pursue Lt. Choi ? What have been the cumulative costs of the prosecution of Lt. Choi ?

In several press reports, the Department of Justice was portrayed to be engaged in a “vindictive prosecution” against Lt. Choi. See, e.g., 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#. And then, before the nature and purpose of the selective prosecution of Lt. Choi could become public information, prosecutors quashed the effort to expose the selective prosecution. See 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/.

Further reports suggest prosecutorial overreach or vindictive prosecution is not limited to the late Mr. Swartz or to Lt. Choi. The scope of other prosecutions, namely, the prosecution of PFC Bradley Manning, could lead to treating all whistleblowers as traitors. This treatment has been described as “extraordinary prosecutorial overkill.” See Amy Goodman & Glenn Greenwald, Glenn Greenwald on Bradley Manning: 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.

Despite these publicized concerns, the Department of Justice remains silent about its intentions with respect of its prosecution of activists. Indeed, the U.S. Attorney’s Office was non-responsive to my Original Request. It is unclear why federal prosecutors are persecuting activists. The public has little information about the internal accountability mechanisms by which laws and rules govern the targeted prosecutions of activists. Nor does the public have any information about how the Department of Justice balances First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists against the charges that the Department of Justice brings against activists. Without this information, the public is unable to make an informed judgment about the Department of Justice’s targeted prosecutions of activists. I make the following requests for information in hopes of filling that void.

I. Requested Records

     1. All records and information pertaining to the legal basis of prosecuting activists, who engage in protests, including, but not limited, to records and information regarding :

     A. 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 ;

     B. whether the nature and purpose of prosecution of activists may be aggressive, selective, or involve overreach, and which Department of Justice officials approve of such nature and purpose of prosecution of activists ;

     C. limits, rules, procedures, or other guidelines that must or should be taken into consideration before, during, and after the prosecution of activists to mimimise the interference with First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists ;

     D. consideration of other circumstances, conditions, and restrictions that form any part of the decision to target activists for prosecution ; and, if such considerations exist, under what circumstances, under what conditions, and subject to what restrictions ;

     E. any and all agency, executive, judicial, or congressional reports, memoranda, records, and information, which provide any description of the process for the determination as to whether activists can be targeted for prosecution ; and

     F. 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.

     2. All records and information created on or after Nov. 12, 2010, pertaining to the legal basis for the arrest and/or prosecution of Lt. Choi, including, but not limited to, records and information regarding :

     A. whether the prosecution of Lt. Choi was part of any Department of Justice’s process to target activists ; and

     B. the limits of the Department of Justice’s prosecution to mimimise the interference with First Amendment, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of Lt. Choi.

     3. All records and information created on or after Nov. 12, 2010, pertaining to the legal basis for the Department of Justice or U.S. Attorney’s Office to fail to refer to Lt. Choi by his military rank, in accordance with Army Regulation 670-1.

     4. The total cost of the prosecution of Lt. Choi, including, but not limited to :

     A. any and all records and information created on or after Nov. 12, 2010, pertaining to the cost of arresting and/or prosecuting Lt. Choi, including, but not limited to, records and information regarding :

     a. any and all agency, executive, judicial, or congressional reports, memoranda, records, and information, which indicate, calculate, or analyze the budged and actual cost of the prosecution of Lt. Choi ;

     b. any and all records of the cost of staff costs, staff benefits, travel, transcripts, accommodations, meals, non-attorney investigation costs, research costs, other investigation costs, and all other costs on the prosecution of Lt. Choi ;

     c. any and all records of the costs of fact and expert witnesses in connection with the prosecution of Lt. Choi ;

     d. any and all records of assistance provided by other law enforcement agencies in connection with the prosecution of Lt. Choi ; and

     e. any and all records of hours worked, paid or unpaid overtime hours, and other information about personnel hours worked in connection with the prosecution of Lt. Choi.

II. Application For Expedited Processing

I request expedited processing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) ; 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.34(c). There is a “compelling need” for these records, because the information requested is urgently needed in order to be disseminated to inform the public about actual or alleged Federal Government activity. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v) ; see also 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b)(2) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.34(c)(2).

In addition, the records sought relate to a “breaking news story of general public interest.” 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b)(2)(i) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3)(ii)(A) ; see also 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(iv) (providing for expedited processing in relation to a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence”).

As a blogger, I am “primarily engaged in disseminating information” within the meaning of the statue and regulations. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) ; 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b)(2) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3)(ii) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.34(c)(2). Dissemination of information to the public is a critical and substantial component of my mission and work. See, e.g., Jonathan Lemire, Christine Quinn detractors use social media in effort to quash her mayoral run, N.Y. Daily News (April 14, 2013), http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/online-effort-quash-christine-quinn-mayoral-aspirations-article-1.1316224 ; Jill Colvin, Christine Quinn Foes Prepare Campaign to Spoil Her Mayoral Hopes, DNAinfo (Jan. 9, 2013), http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130109/new-york-city/christine-quinn-foes-prepare-campaign-spoil-her-mayoral-hopes. I publish several blogs, produce YouTube videos, and manage several Twitter feeds. Such material is widely available to everyone. This Request originated from questions posted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, so that I could update this specific blog post : http://ny-popculture-politics.blogspot.com/2013/03/lt-dan-choi-dadt-trial-update.html.

The records and information sought directly relate to a breaking news story of general public interest that concerns actual or alleged Federal Government activist ; specifically, the records and information sought relate to the U.S. Government’s prosecution of activists. The records and information sought will help determine what is the government’s asserted legal basis for these targeted prosecutions, whether it conflicts with the First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights, how many activists have been prosecuted, and other matters that are essential in order for the public to make an informed judgment about the advisability of this tactic and the lawfulness of the government’s conduct. For these reasons, the records and information sought relate to a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(iv).

There have been news reports about the prosecution of activists that imposes 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 U.S. Attorney’s Office demand for drug-testing of HIV/AIDS activists was fraught with complications, because the 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. 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.

These news stories and investigative reports have also suggested that the prosecution of activists was unfair. These HIV/AIDS activists chained themselves together inside the office of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to protest, among other issues, cuts to HIV/AIDS programs. They were arrested on federal charges. On the same day as the HIV/AIDS activists were arrested, 41 D.C. voting rights activists, including Mayor Vincent Gray, were arrested on Capitol Hill. The voting rights activists were charged with misdemeanors by the D.C. attorney general. Most, including the mayor, paid a $50 fine. What explains why the U.S. Attorney’s Office was treating HIV/AIDS activists differently ? 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.

Further news reports have caused concern that the prosecution of activists is influenced with political overtones. During his tenure as a U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald targeted 23 activists, who were widely described as critics of U.S. foreign policy. 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.

The activist community and the public-at-large are unable to determine the nature and purpose of the prosecution of activists, because there is a lack of reliable information about the reasons the Department of Justice is prosecuting activists. Indeed, even Congress is left in the dark about the motivations behind the prosecution of activists. See, e.g., 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/. And in respect of Lt. Choi, a magistrate judge had found that was indication that the Department of Justice was singling out Lt. Choi for “vindictively prosecution.” See John Aravosis, Judge finds prima facie evidence that US government may have “vindictively prosecuted” Dan Choi, AMERICAblog (Aug. 31, 2011), http://americablog.com/2011/08/judge-finds-prima-facie-evidence-that-us-government-may-have-vindictively-prosecuted-dan-choi.html ; 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# ; and Chris Geidner, Government Files Motion to Stop "Vindictive Prosecution" Defense in Choi Trial, Metro Weekley (Sept. 16, 2011), http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/09/government-filed-motion-to-sto.html.

III. Application for Waiver or Limitation of Fees

I request a waiver of search, review, and duplication fees on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest, because it “is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) ; 22 C.F.R. 171.17(a) ; see also 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(k)(1) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.28(d) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.13(b)(2).

As discussed above, numerous news accounts reflect the considerable public interest in the requested records and information. Given the ongoing and widespread media attention to this issue, the records and information sought in the instant Request will significantly contribute to public understanding of the operations and activities of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office with regard to the targeting of activists for prosecution. See 22 C.F.R. 171.17(a)(1) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(k)(1)(i) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.28(d) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.13(b)(2). Moreover, disclosure is not in the ACLU’s commercial interest. Any information disclosed by me as a result of this Request will be available to the public at no cost. Thus, a fee waiver would fulfill Congress’s legislative intent in amending FOIA. See Judicial Watch Inc. v. Rossitti, 326 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“Congress amended FOIA to ensure that it be ‘liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters.’” (citation omitted)) ; OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524, § 2 (Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act,” but that “in practice, the Freedom of Information Act has not always lived up to the ideals of that Act”).

I also request a waiver of search and review fees on the grounds that I qualify as a “representative of the news media,” and the records and information are not sought for commercial use. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(d). Accordingly, fees associated with the processing of the Request should be “limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II) ; see also 32 C.F.R. § 286.28(e)(7) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.13(i)(2) ; 22 C.F.R. 171.15(c) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(d) (search and review fees shall not be charged to “representatives of the news media”).

I meet the statutory and regulatory definitions of a “representative of the news media” because I function as an “entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii).

* * *

Pursuant to applicable statute and regulations, I expect determination regarding expediting processing within 10 calendar days. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I) ; 22 C.F.R. 171.12(b) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(4) ; 32 C.F.R. § 286.4(d)(3) ; 32 C.F.R. § 1900.21(d).

If the Request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions to FOIA. We expect the release of all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. We reserve the right to appeal a decision to withhold any information or to deny a waiver of fees.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please furnish all applicable records to :

Louis Flores
()
New York, NY 10011

I affirm that the information provided supporting the request for expedited processing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Sincerely,