Anda di halaman 1dari 25

Louis&Flores&

3421&77th&Street,&No.&406&
Jackson&Heights,&New&York&&11372&
louisflores@louisflores.com&&
1&(646)&400F1168&
&
&
&
&

26&October&2015&
&
&
&
&

[By$e&mail$only$:$$rukhsanah.singh@usdoj.gov]$
&

Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney,&
& U.S.&Attorneys&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$Kelly.&&&
a).
Is&Ms.&Kelly&a&temp&employee&at&the&DOJ,&like&Princina&Stone&?&&Can&DOJ&
management,&senior&supervisors,&or&section&chiefs&provide&the&Declaration&?&
b).
I&note&that&some&of&the&Declarations&being&made&appear&incomplete.&&
During&our&Telephone&Conference&on&16&October&2015,&you&said&that&the&Declarations&
would&show&that&the&searches&were&made&for&guidelines,&protocols,&procedures.&&But&
thats&not&what&is&showing&up&in&the&Declarations.&
c).
What&is&more,&some&of&the&searches&appear&not&to&match&what&was&
requested&in&the&FOIA&Request.&&For&example,&Paragraph&11&stated&FOIA&request&
seeking&information&concerning&the$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&Plaintiffs$Index$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.&Attorneys&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&werent&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&doso$that$the$DOJ$can$produce$some$responsive$recordswould&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&

Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&
U.S.&Attorneys&Office&F&Eastern&District&of&New&York&
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,&cant&
Ms.&Stones&supervisor&provide&the&Declaration&in&Ms.&Stones&stead&?&
c).
Why&is&the&DOJ&selecting&temp&staff&to&prepare&and&sign&these&
Declarations&?&&This&doesnt&inspire&confidence,&that&the&DOJ&management&dont&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,&its&the&DOJs&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&Crowleys&letter,&informing&him&that&my&FOIA&Request&had&gone&
missing&?&&Can&the&DOJ&add&its&representations&about&U.S.&Representative&Crowleys&
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,&2014over&one&year&after&the&FOIA&Request&had&been&

Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&
U.S.&Attorneys&Office&F&Eastern&District&of&New&York&
26&October&2015&
Page 4
&

originally&submittedthe&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.&Attorneys&Office&and&not&by&the&DOJ,&that&means&that&
Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&Georges&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&Holders&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&Everyones&Responsibility&that&I&would&like&to&emphasize&that&responsibility&
for&effective&FOIA&administration&belongs&to&all&of&usit&is&not&merely&a&task&assigned&
to&an&agencys&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&Holders&
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.&Attorneys&Office&or&the&DOJ&received&an&electronic&copy&of&
the&FOIA&Request,&including&the&AskDOJ@usdoj.gov&eFmail&inbox.&&What&will&the&DOJ&
and&the&U.S.&Attorneys&Office&do&about&employees&that&did&not&adhere&to&former&
Attorney&General&Holders&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.&

Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&
U.S.&Attorneys&Office&F&Eastern&District&of&New&York&
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.

Plaintiffs$Index$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&Plaintiffs$Index$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&Plaintiffs$Index$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&DOJs&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&Solicitors&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&

Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&
U.S.&Attorneys&Office&F&Eastern&District&of&New&York&
26&October&2015&
Page 6
&

liberties,&and&other&civil&rights&of&activists&?&&Is&the&DOJ&completely&passive&to&
activists&federal&rights&?&&Im&asking,&so&that&I&can&understand&the&DOJs&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.$Guddemis$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&DOJs&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&DOJs&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&Plaintiffs$Index$

Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&
U.S.&Attorneys&Office&F&Eastern&District&of&New&York&
26&October&2015&
Page 7
&

to$the$FOIA$Response&was&finalised.&&Plaintiffs$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&Plaintiffs$Index$to$the$FOIA$Response$and&
(y)&fifteen&days&later&on&Plaintiffs$Index$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&dont&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&Judges&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.&Attorneys&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&Judges&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&

Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&
U.S.&Attorneys&Office&F&Eastern&District&of&New&York&
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&dont&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.&Guddemnis&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&dont&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&
(email)&or&the&Capt.&Guddemnis&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.&17&?&&&
h).

Reference$No.$19.&

(i).
I&dont&know&how&the&documents&under&Tab&G&answer&Reference&
No.&19.&&Can&the&DOJ&provide&clarification&?&&&
(ii).
Are&there&no&equivalent&documents&to&the&Myers&memo&
(email)&or&the&Capt.&Guddemnis&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.&19&?&
i).

Reference$No.$21.&

(i).
I&dont&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.&Guddemnis&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&DOJs&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.&

Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&
U.S.&Attorneys&Office&F&Eastern&District&of&New&York&
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&DOJs&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&DOJs&obligations&under&FOIA&are&not&
discretionary.&&&
(v).
Given&the&DOJs&creation&of&the&Red&Herring&in&the&discretionary&
release,&the&DOJs&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&Plaintiffs$Index$of$
References$to$Records$Requested$under$the$FOIA$Request,&there&is&no&way&
of&knowing&if&the&records&identified&as&missing&in&Plaintiffs$Index$to$the$FOIA$
Response&constitute&the&entire&universe&of&known,&but&missing,&records&in&Lt.&
Chois&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,&theres&little&credibility&to&attach&to&the&DOJs&
word.&&I&reiterate&my&requests&made&above&:&&Can&DOJ&management,&senior&
supervisors,&or&section&chiefs&provide&the&Declarations&?&
(vi). Every&chance&Ive&had,&Ive&reminded&the&Court&that&for&over&two&
years,&the&DOJ&was&flagrantly&defying&FOIA,&violating&with$impunity&the&
treatment&entitled&to&Plaintiff&under&FOIA.&&Ive&noted&time&and&again&that&it&is&
the&pattern&and&practise&of&the&DOJ&to&violate&FOIA&until&requesters&file&a&
lawsuit&and&seek&compliance&in&a&court&of&law.&&See,$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).&&&&

Rukhsanah&L.&Singh,&Assistant&U.S.&Attorney&
U.S.&Attorneys&Office&F&Eastern&District&of&New&York&
26&October&2015&
Page 10
&

k).

Reference$No.$28.&

(i).
I&dont&know&how&the&documents&under&Tab&H&answer&Reference&
No.&28.&&Can&the&DOJ&provide&clarification&?&&&
(ii).
Are&there&no&equivalent&documents&to&the&Myers&memo&
(email)&or&the&Capt.&Guddemnis&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&apply&to&Reference&No.&28&?&
l).

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

(i).
Numbers&?&&

Can&the&DOJ&explain&why&it&sidestepped&these&Reference&

(ii).
In&the&body&of&the&FOIA&Request&and&in&Plaintiffs$Index$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&Holders&
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&DOJs&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&CRTs&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.&Attorneys&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/criminalF
sectionFselectedFcaseFsummaries.&
(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&DOJs&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

From:
Subject:
Sent date:
To:

"Louis Flores" <louis.flores@progressqueens.com>


Fwd: Read: FOIA Request - Courtesy Electronic Copy
10/22/2015 11:01:44 AM
"louisflores"<louisflores@louisflores.com>, "Louis Flores"<lflores22@gmail.com>,
"Louis Flores"<louis.flores@progressqueens.com>

---------- Original Message ---------From: "FOIArequests, CRT (CRT)" <CRT.FOIArequests@usdoj.gov>


To: Louis Flores <louis.flores@progressqueens.com>
Date: October 22, 2015 at 9:02 AM
Subject: Read: FOIA Request - Courtesy Electronic Copy
Your message
To: FOIArequests, CRT (CRT)
Subject: FOIA Request - Courtesy Electronic Copy
Sent: 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).

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

Page 1 of 1