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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LOUIS FLORES,
Civil Action No. 15-CV-2627
Plaintiff,
v.
(Gleeson, J.)
(Mann, M.J.)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE,
DECLARATION OF ASSISTANT U.S.

ATTORNEY RUKHSANAH L. SINGH
Defendant.
I, RUKHSANAH L. SINGH, declare as follows:

1.
I am the Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York with
primary responsibility for the litigation of this Action. As such, I am familiar with the
files and materials that this office maintains concerning this litigation.
2.
This declaration and the exhibits annexed hereto submitted in support of Defendants
Motion for Summary Judgment are true copies of documents in the files of the Office of
the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
3.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a letter dated April 30, 2013
from Plaintiff Louis Flores (Plaintiff) to EOUSA/FOIA/PA, with enclosures thereto.
4.
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an email dated March 27, 2013
from Plaintiff to an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) at the United States
Attorneys Office in the District of Columbia (USAO-DC), with copy to other email
accounts.
5.
Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an email dated April 10, 2013
from Plaintiff to the USAO-DC AUSA, with copy to other email accounts.
1
6.
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of an email dated April 16, 2013
from Plaintiff to an ASKDOJ email account, with copy to other email accounts.
7.
Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an email dated April 17, 2013
from the Public Information Officer at USAO-DC to Plaintiff.
8.
Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an email dated April 30, 2013
from Plaintiff to the Public Information Officer at USAO-DC, with copy to other email
accounts and without attachment thereto.
9.
Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a letter dated December 6,
2013 from Thomas H. Golden of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (Willkie Farr) to the
Office of Information Policy (OIP).
10.
Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a letter dated May 20, 2014
from OIP to Arthur Biller of Willkie Farr, with attachment thereto.
11.
Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of a letter dated August 17, 2015
from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), Freedom of
Information & Privacy Staff, to Plaintiff, without enclosures thereto.
12.
Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy a document entitled Plaintiffs
Index to References to Records Requested under FOIA Request, provided by Plaintiff to
the undersigned on September 16, 2015.
13.
Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of a letter dated October 13, 2015
from the undersigned to Plaintiff, without enclosures thereto.
14.
Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of a letter dated October 15, 2015
from the undersigned to Plaintiff.
15.
Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of a letter dated October 26, 2015
from Plaintiff to the undersigned, with enclosures thereto.
16.
Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of a letter dated November 3,
2015 from the undersigned to Plaintiff.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on November 23,
2015 (Brooklyn, New York).
s/Rukhsanah L. Singh__________________
RUKHSANAH L. SINGH
Assistant United States Attorney
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
-----Original Message----From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:lflores22@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:26 PM
To: George, Angela (USADC)
Cc: Guerrero, Gilberto (USADC); McCord, Mary (USADC); Strand, Stratton (USADC);
roy.mcleese@usdoj.gov; Buckler, Lori (USADC); Ashton, Victoria (USADC); lflores22@gmail.com;
press@ltdanchoi.org; tommysnews@gmail.com; Suzannah Beth; danchoi2008@gmail.com
Subject: USA v. Lt. Daniel Choi - Blogger Inquiry/FOIL Request
Dear Hon. Madame Prosecutor :

I am an LGBT blogger, based in New York City. I would like to update my latest blog post with
information about the U.S. government's case against U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Daniel Choi.
http://ny-popculture-politics.blogspot.com/2013/03/lt-dan-choi-dadt-trial-update.html
Can you please answer the following questions, so that I can accurately report on my blog about the
government's prosecution of Lt. Choi :
(i). Can you let me know why the DOJ is making its prosecution of Lt. Choi a priority ? Many activists
question how the DOJ can put a priority on its prosecution of activists. For example, the DOJ faces
criticism for its heavy-handed prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz. Is the prosecution of Lt.
Choi part of the same strategy to undermine the rights of activists ? Can you give me some color about
this ? What is the DOJ trying to achieve with the prosecution of Lt. Choi, what is your purpose ?
(ii). One of the constant complaints that I've hear Lt. Choi make is that during the government's
prosecution of Lt. Choi, he seems to not be being addressed by DOJ officials by his official rank, in
accordance with AR 670-1. Is there any implied intention to express disrespect to LGBT Army veterans
on the DOJ's part ? It would great to hear how the DOJ responds to Lt. Choi's complaints about this
specific issue.
(iii) Can the DOJ disclose the cumulative cost of its prosecution of Lt. Choi ?
Thank you for any information you can provide. If I need to make an official FOIL request, please
forward to me the necessary information so that I may submit a formal FOIL request. I look forward to
your response.
Thank you kindly.
Best regards,
Louis Flores
lflores22@gmail.com
1 (646) 400-1168
EXHIBIT C
-----Original Message----From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:lflores22@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:47 PM
To: George, Angela (USADC)
Cc: Guerrero, Gilberto (USADC); McCord, Mary (USADC); Strand, Stratton (USADC);
roy.mcleese@usdoj.gov; Buckler, Lori (USADC); Ashton, Victoria (USADC); press@ltdanchoi.org;
tommysnews@gmail.com; Suzannah Beth; danchoi2008@gmail.com
Subject: Re: USA v. Lt. Daniel Choi - Blogger Inquiry/FOIL Request

I'm just following up on my request for information.
Looking forward to your response.
Thank you kindly.
Best regards,
-- Louis
On 27 mars 2013, at 20:25, LF (g-Male) wrote:

>
> Dear Hon. Madame Prosecutor :
>
> I am an LGBT blogger, based in New York City. I would like to update my latest blog post with
>
> http://ny-popculture-politics.blogspot.com/2013/03/lt-dan-choi-dadt-trial-update.html
>
> Can you please answer the following questions, so that I can accurately report on my blog about the
government's prosecution of Lt. Choi :
>
> (i). Can you let me know why the DOJ is making its prosecution of Lt. Choi a priority ? Many activists
question how the DOJ can put a priority on its prosecution of activists. For example, the DOJ faces
criticism for its heavy-handed prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz. Is the prosecution of Lt.
Choi part of the same strategy to undermine the rights of activists ? Can you give me some color about
this ? What is the DOJ trying to achieve with the prosecution of Lt. Choi, what is your purpose ?
>
> (ii). One of the constant complaints that I've hear Lt. Choi make is that during the government's
prosecution of Lt. Choi, he seems to not be being addressed by DOJ officials by his official rank, in
accordance with AR 670-1. Is there any implied intention to express disrespect to LGBT Army veterans
on the DOJ's part ? It would great to hear how the DOJ responds to Lt. Choi's complaints about this
specific issue.
>
> (iii) Can the DOJ disclose the cumulative cost of its prosecution of Lt. Choi ?
>
> Thank you for any information you can provide. If I need to make an official FOIL request, please
forward to me the necessary information so that I may submit a formal FOIL request. I look forward to
your response.
>
> Thank you kindly.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Louis Flores
> lflores22@gmail.com
> 1 (646) 400-1168
EXHIBIT D
From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:lflores22@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:19 PM
To: ASKDOJ (JMD)
Cc: George, Angela (USADC); Guerrero, Gilberto (USADC); McCord, Mary (USADC); Strand, Stratton
(USADC); roy.mcleese@usdoj.gov; Buckler, Lori (USADC); Ashton, Victoria (USADC);
press@ltdanchoi.org; tommysnews@gmail.com; Suzannah B. Troy; danchoi2008@gmail.com;
lflores22@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: USA v. Lt. Daniel Choi - Blogger Inquiry/FOIL Request
Ladies and Gentlemen :

I am a New York City-based blogger, and I have made requests for information from the
Department of Justice. One of my requests was for the total cost of the Justice Department's
prosecution against Lt. Daniel Choi stemming from his arrest on November 15, 2010, during a
protest against the military's former policy known as ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''
I specifically mentioned in my original request, included in the e-mail chain below, for a
response, or, alternatively, if there was a special process for submitting requests for information,
I requested such information so that I could submit a formal request according to such
process. In spite of this, I have received no acknowledgement or response to the requests for
information submitted on two different occasions. See the e-mail chain included below.
According to the Attorney General's guidelines on the Freedom of Information Act, there is a
presumption of ''openness.'' See : http://www.justice.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf
I would greatly appreciate it if you could route my request for this information to the appropriate
department, so that I could receive an acknowledgement and an appropriate response to my
requests for information.
Thank you kindly.
Best regards,
Louis Flores
1 (646) 400-1168
lflores22@gmail.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: "LF (g-Male)" <lflores22@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: USA v. Lt. Daniel Choi - Blogger Inquiry/FOIL Request
Date: 10 avril 2013 21:47:14 UTC-04:00
To: Angela.George@usdoj.gov
Cc: Gilberto.Guerrero@usdoj.gov, mary.mccord@usdoj.gov,
stratton.strand@usdoj.gov, roy.mcleese@usdoj.gov, Lori.Buckler@usdoj.gov,
Victoria.Ashton@usdoj.gov, press@ltdanchoi.org, tommysnews@gmail.com,

Suzannah Beth <suzannahbethtroy@gmail.com>, danchoi2008@gmail.com

I'm just following up on my request for information.
Looking forward to your response.
Thank you kindly.
Best regards,
-- Louis
On 27 mars 2013, at 20:25, LF (g-Male) wrote:
I am an LGBT blogger, based in New York City. I would like to update my latest blog post with
http://ny-popculture-politics.blogspot.com/2013/03/lt-dan-choi-dadt-trial-update.html
Can you please answer the following questions, so that I can accurately report on my blog about
the government's prosecution of Lt. Choi :
(i). Can you let me know why the DOJ is making its prosecution of Lt. Choi a priority ? Many
activists question how the DOJ can put a priority on its prosecution of activists. For example,
the DOJ faces criticism for its heavy-handed prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz. Is
the prosecution of Lt. Choi part of the same strategy to undermine the rights of activists ? Can
you give me some color about this ? What is the DOJ trying to achieve with the prosecution of
Lt. Choi, what is your purpose ?
(ii). One of the constant complaints that I've hear Lt. Choi make is that during the government's
prosecution of Lt. Choi, he seems to not be being addressed by DOJ officials by his official rank,
in accordance with AR 670-1. Is there any implied intention to express disrespect to LGBT
Army veterans on the DOJ's part ? It would great to hear how the DOJ responds to Lt. Choi's
complaints about this specific issue.
(iii) Can the DOJ disclose the cumulative cost of its prosecution of Lt. Choi ?
Thank you for any information you can provide. If I need to make an official FOIL request,
please forward to me the necessary information so that I may submit a formal FOIL request. I
look forward to your response.
Thank you kindly.
Best regards,
Louis Flores
lflores22@gmail.com
1 (646) 400-1168
EXHIBIT E
On 17 avr. 2013, at 10:32, Miller, William (USADC) wrote:

Mr. Flores: Thank you for your request for information concerning the case involving Daniel Choi.
A FOIA request for records from a U.S. Attorneys Office should be sent to the Department of Justices
Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA).
EOUSA is the official record keeper for the records maintained in all United States Attorneys offices, and
will respond to your request directly
The address is as follows:
Department of Justice
EOUSA/FOIA/PA Staff
BICN Bldg.
600 E Street, N.W., Suite 7300
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
The telephone number is (202) 252-6020.
Bill Miller
Public Information Officer
U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia
202-252-6643 (Direct)
202-252-6933 (Main)
william.miller3@usdoj.gov
EXHIBIT F
From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:lflores22@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:24 PM
To: Miller, William (USADC)
Cc: ASKDOJ (JMD); George, Angela (USADC); Guerrero, Gilberto (USADC); McCord, Mary (USADC);
Strand, Stratton (USADC); roy.mcleese@usdoj.gov; Buckler, Lori (USADC); Ashton, Victoria (USADC);
press@ltdanchoi.org; tommysnews@gmail.com; lflores22@gmail.com; Louis Flores
Subject: USA v. Lt. Daniel Choi - FOIA Request
Dear Mr. Miller :

I have submitted my FOIA request today by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Attached is a courtesy copy of a .pdf scan of my request. It is modeled on a request submitted by
the ACLU, so I reference many regulations.
Note my requests for expedited processing and my application for waiver or limitation of fees.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you kindly.
Louis Flores
lflores22@gmail.com
louisflores@louisflores.com
1 (646) 400-1168
On 17 avr. 2013, at 10:32, Miller, William (USADC) wrote:

Mr. Flores: Thank you for your request for information concerning the case involving Daniel Choi.
A FOIA request for records from a U.S. Attorneys Office should be sent to the Department of Justices
Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA).
EOUSA is the official record keeper for the records maintained in all United States Attorneys offices, and
will respond to your request directly
The address is as follows:
Department of Justice
EOUSA/FOIA/PA Staff
BICN Bldg.
600 E Street, N.W., Suite 7300

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
The telephone number is (202) 252-6020.
Bill Miller
Public Information Officer
U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia
202-252-6643 (Direct)
202-252-6933 (Main)
william.miller3@usdoj.gov
EXHIBIT G
787 Seventh A,
New York, 1'-'Y
Tel: 212 728 8
Fa: 212 728 S
OM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
er 6, 2013
MAIL
f Information Policy
partment of Justice
050
w York Avenue, N.W.
ton, D.C. 20530
P. FO IA@usdoj .gov
Appeal of Constructive Denial of Freedom of Information Act Request
or Madam:
m represents Mr. Louis Flores in connection with his Freedom of Information Act ("FOI
o the Department of Justice's Executive Office for United States Attorneys (the "DOJ")
o appeal the DOl's constructive denial of the FOIA request and request the immediate
e of all responsive information called for by the request.
he Request
l30, 2013, Mr. Flores, an LGBT activist and blogger, submitted a FOIA request to the D
access to various categories of"records pertaining to the prosecution of Lt. Daniel Choi
") (Enclosed). In his Request, Mr. .Flores requested expedited processing on the ground
mation sought is "urgently needed ... to inform the public about actual or alleged Feder
ment activity."
bmitting the Request, Mr. Flores bas called the DOJ's FOIA office to inquire about the s
quest. In those conversations, the DOJ has repeatedly explained to Mr. Flores that the a
to timely process the Request due to a shortage of resources and staff at the DOJ.
he DOJ's Failu.r e To Respond To The Request Within The Time Period Required
he FOIA Constitutes A Constructive Denial Of The Request.
was required to determine its response to the Request and "immediately" notifY Mr. Fl
mination, at the latest, within 20 business days of its receipt of the Request. See 5 U.S.C
). Moreover, with respect to Mr. Flores' s request for expedited processing, the DOJ wa
to make a determination within 10 days of the date of the Request. See 5 U.S.C.
)(E)(ii)(I).
w been more than seven months since Mr. Flores submitted the Request, and the 20-day
eadlines have long since passed without any response from the DOJ. The failure to resp
es a denjal of the Request and Mr. Flores is deemed to have exhausted his administrativ
, giving rise to this appeal. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
has provided no adequate justification for its failure to respond to the Request within t
quired by the FOIA, whether by written notice of"unusual circumstances" or otherwise
552(a)(6)(B). Indeed, the DOJ has done nothing at all to respond to the Request othe
r. Flores that, due to the agency's own internal limitations on resources and staff, it is ha
y processing the numerous FOIA requests that the DOJ receives. Such an excuse is not
le one under the FOIA, and the DOJ is not permitted to avoid its FOIA obligations due
burden of its own making. See, e.g., Rosenfeld v. DOJ, 2010 WL 3448517, "'4 (N.D. Ca
olding that the DOJ "cannot use the make-up of its own internal database" as a "shield t
OIA mandates"). Although the need to process an abnormally large volume of requests
e "exceptional circumstances," a "predictable agency workload" ofFOIA requests does
s an "exceptional circumstance." 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)(ii); see, e.g., Fiduccia v. DO
5, 1042 (9th Cir. 1999) (concluding that no exceptional circumstances exist where emp
and budget reductions led to a "slight upward creep in the caseload" and backlog of FO
at the DOJ); see also Donham v. DOE, 192 F. Supp. 2d 877, 882-83 (S.D. Ill. 2002)
ing that high volume of requests and inadequate resources do not constitute " exceptiona
ances" unless such circumstances are "not predictable"). Here, the DOJ has provided n
of"exceptional circuntstances" that would j ustifY its failure to respond to the Request.
e DOJ's conduct in connection with the Request, we are left with the impression that th
an uncooperative stance, is not exercising due diligence in responding to the Request, o
Bloomberg v. FDA, 500 F. Supp. 2d 371, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (holding that the FDA f
sh "exceptional circumstances" sufficient to j ustifY its delay in responding to Bloombe
quest and noting that "the FDA' s cumulative decisions suggest a pattern of unresponsiv
nd indecision that suggest an absence of due diligence"). Mr. Flores hereby appeals the
quest, and requests immediate disclosure of the information sought therein.
tates Attorney General Eric Holder's "Memorandum For Heads of Executive Departme
s," dated March 19, 2009, available at, www.j ustice.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf.
n assist the DOJ in responding to the Request, we would be happy to do so. However, i
e, we respectfully request that the DOJ respond to this appeal within 20 business days.
552(a)(6)(A)(ii). If you have any questions or concerns regarding this appeal, please c
12) 728-8657.
y,
Golden
Mr. Louis Flores

tlores22@gmail.com
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT K

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Eastern District of New York
271 Cadman Plaza East-7th Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11201
October 13, 2015
By Email and First-Class Certified Mail
Louis Flores
34-21 77th Street, Apt. #406
Jackson Heights, New York 11372
Re:
Louis Flores v. United States Department of Justice

No. 15-CV-2627 (Gleeson, J.) (Mann, M.J.)
Dear Mr. Flores:

On behalf of Defendant United States Department of Justice (DOJ or Defendant), we
write in furtherance of Judge Manns having encouraged Defendant during the September 16,
2015 conference to voluntarily search the files of Main Justice and to produce any written
guidelines for prosecution of activists, and to consider voluntarily producing at least some of
the documents listed on the index served on defense counsel today by Plaintiff, although such
documents are not responsive to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that is the
subject of this action. (See Dkt. No. 14).
First, as discussed during the September 16, 2015 conference, enclosed please find the
Declarations of Karin Kelly and Princina Stone, describing the searches for records responsive to
your April 30, 2013 FOIA request.
Second, as you are aware, the DOJ Executive Office for the United States Attorneys
(EOUSA) responded to your April 30, 2013 FOIA request and informed you that a search at
the United States Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia (USAO-DC) did not locate any
documents responsive to your request. Nevertheless, because your FOIA request specifically
sought information relating to the prosecution of Daniel Choi, EOUSA made a discretionary
release of certain documents publicly available relating to the Choi prosecution. EOUSA has not
withheld any records that are responsive to your request.
Third, in regard to the Courts encouraging Defendant to voluntarily search the files of
Main Justice for any written guidelines for prosecution of activists[,] the DOJ Criminal
Division in Washington, D.C., has voluntarily agreed to search the Office of the Assistant
Attorney General for any written guidelines concerning the prosecution of activists for the
limited purpose of this litigation. 1 We will inform you of the results of that search once it is
1
The Criminal Division is a component of DOJ and is tasked with, among other
responsibilities, formulating and implementing criminal enforcement policy. For more
information, please see: http://www.justice.gov/criminal.

Louis Flores
October 13, 2015
Page 2
completed. However, DOJ expressly reserves its arguments that your April 30, 2013 FOIA
request was directed solely to EOUSA, which is the component of DOJ responsible for
responding to FOIA requests on behalf of itself and the USAOs, and that EOUSA properly
searched for records responsive to your request in the files of USAO-DC, the Office that
prosecuted Daniel Choi. 2 Consequently, any guidelines that may be located by the DOJ
Criminal Division would not be responsive to your FOIA request that is the subject of this
action.
Fourth, in regard to your September 16, 2015 Index of discovery demands,
Defendant maintains its objections to the conducting of discovery (which were sustained by the
Court) and to any attempt to expand the scope of your FOIA request that is the subject of this
action. Nonetheless, in an effort to accommodate the Courts concerns about the potential for
unnecessary motion practice, Defendant states that it is able to provide the documents and
information listed below. The documents provided are based on a good faith effort to construe
your requests (some of which are ambiguous) as broadly as possible.
Your Index Reference Nos. 5 & 6 Requests for the Myers memo (email) and
Government Exhibit 25. The email (Government Exhibit 25), which was
referenced in memoranda provided in EOUSAs discretionary release, was
publicly filed with both the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and
would have been provided to you following the parties telephone conference on
September 1, 2015 had you not declined the undersigneds offer to provide the
appendices referenced in the discretionary release. Defendant notes that this
document is correspondence between an individual at the Solicitors Office of the
United States Department of the Interior and individuals at the National Park
Service (NPS) and is not DOJ guidance and, thus, not responsive to your FOIA
request. Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at Tab A, a copy of the Myers
memo (email), which was labeled as Government Exhibit 25 during the Choi
prosecution.
Your Index Reference Nos. 5 & 6 Requests for the Capt. Guddemis
November 22 email and Government Exhibit 24. This email (Government
2
As discussed during the September 16, 2015 conference, DOJ is comprised of multiple
components, which processes its own records in response to FOIA requests. A FOIA request to
components of DOJ must be made to the FOIA office of that component. See 28 C.F.R. 16.3;
Appx. 1 of Part 16; see also 5 U.S.C. 522(a)(3) (A FOIA request to an agency must be in
accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any) and procedures to be
followed.). There are different FOIA contacts for each component of DOJ and their contact
information may be found at: http://www.justice.gov/oip/find-foia-contact-doj/list. For further
information on submitting FOIA requests to DOJ and its components, please see
http://www.justice.gov/oip/make-foia-request-doj#2. Please note that DOJ cannot respond to
FOIA requests or provide information as to local law enforcement entities. (See, e.g., Your
Index Reference No. 20).

Louis Flores
October 13, 2015
Page 3
Exhibit 24) referenced in memoranda provided in EOUSAs discretionary release,
was publicly filed with the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia and would have been provided to you following the parties telephone
conference on September 1, 2015 had you not declined the undersigneds offer to
provide the appendices referenced in the discretionary release. Defendant notes
that this document consists of a forwarded email chain, involving individuals at
the NPS, the United States Park Police, the United States Secret Service, and the
United States Capitol Police. This document is not DOJ guidance and, thus, it is
not responsive to your FOIA request. Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at Tab
B, a copy of the Capt. Guddemis November 22 email, which was labeled as
Government Exhibit 24 during the Choi prosecution.
Your Index Reference No. 5 Request for pages 19, 22, and 24 of the Amicus
Curaie Brief of James E. Pietrangelo, II. On October 18, 2012, James E.
Pietrangelo, II, filed a brief with the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia in the Choi Prosecution. (See 1:10-mj-739-JMF at Dkt. No. 136
(D.D.C. Oct. 18, 2012)). The brief submitted to the Court on that date does not
include pages 19, 22, and 24. Rather, the document consisted only of 22 pages
and all 22 pages have been provided. (Pietrangelo refiled the brief on the same
dayat docket entry number 137and that version also does not have pages 19,
22, and 24.) Defendant notes that the brief is not responsive to your FOIA
request. Nonetheless, enclosed please find, at Tab C, copies of the two filed
versions of the brief, which have pages 19, 22, and 24 missing.
Your Index Reference Nos. 10 & 11 Requests for guidelines, if any, where the
USAO must seek approval by DOJ to prosecute activists and DOJ guidelines
that document the DOJs discretion to prosecute activists. This request, which is
beyond the scope of your April 30, 2013 FOIA request, is ambiguous.
Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at Tab D, a copy of Sections 2.000 and 65.000
of Title 9 of the United States Attorneys Manual, which are also available at:
http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-2000-authority-us-attorney-criminaldivision-mattersprior-approvals; and http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-65000protection-government-officials. Sections 9-65.880, -65.881, and -65.882 address
demonstrations involving foreign governments and foreign officials and section 965.811 discusses when a United States Attorney must involve the Criminal
Division of DOJ. Section 9-2.000, which does not address the prosecution of
activists or demonstrators, addresses the Authority Of The U.S. Attorney In
Criminal Division Matters/Prior Approvals. Thus, these documents are not
responsive to your FOIA request.
Your Index Reference Nos. 13 & 29 Requests for guidelines that inform how
the DOJ can investigate and prosecute journalists, even though activities of
protesters are protected by the First Amendment and guidelines that show how
the government balances the First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights,
civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists against charges that the

Louis Flores
October 13, 2015
Page 4
government brings against activists. These requests, which are beyond the scope
of your April 30, 2013 FOIA request, are ambiguous. Nevertheless, enclosed
please find, at Tab E, copies of the following:
o Section 13.400 of Title 9 of the United States Attorneys Manual, also
available
at
http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-13000-obtainingevidence#9-13.400;
o Section 1089 of the Criminal Resource Manual to the United States
Attorneys Manual regarding First Amendment Implications for 18
U.S.C. 373, 3 also available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminalresource-manual-1089-first-amendment-implications;
Attorneys Manual regarding The First Amendment Problems of Son of
Sam Laws, also available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminalresource-manual-1105-first-amendment-problems-son-sam-laws;
Attorneys Manual regarding First Amendment 18 U.S.C. 112, 4 also
available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1625first-amendment-18-usc-112; and
o Memorandum from the Attorney General, dated January 14, 2015, the
subject of which is Updated Policy Regarding Obtaining Information
From, or Records of, Members of the News Media; and Regarding
Questioning, Arresting, or Charging Member of the News Media, also
available
at
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/pressreleases/attachments/2015/01/14/revised_media_guidelines_0.pdf.
These documents do not concern protesters, activists, or demonstrators, but do
address the prosecution of members of the news media and/or implications of the
First Amendment in the prosecution of certain crimes. Thus, these documents are
not responsive to your FOIA request.
Your Index Reference No. 17 Request for DOJ guidelines that explain
surveillance of activists in the face of ban on racial profiling. This request,
which is beyond the scope of the April 30, 2015 FOIA request, is ambiguous.
Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at Tab F, copies of the following:
o U.S. Department of Justice, Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement
Agencies Regarding the Use of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin,
Religion, Sexual Orientation, or Gender Identity, dated December 2014,
also
available
at
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/pages/attachments/2014/12/08
3
18 U.S.C. 373 governs the solicitation to commit a crime of violence.

18 U.S.C. 112 governs the protection of foreign officials, official guests, and
internationally protected persons.
4

Louis Flores
October 13, 2015
Page 5
/use-of-race-policy.pdf;
o Section 7.000 of Title 9 of the United States Attorneys Manual, also
available
at
http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-7000-electronicsurveillance; and
Attorneys Manual regarding Electronic Surveillance, also available at
http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1077-electronicsurveillance.
These documents do not concern protesters, activists, or demonstrators, but do
address racial profiling and/or electronic surveillance of individuals. Thus, these
documents are not responsive to your FOIA request.
Your Index Reference No. 19 Request for agency law that governs situations
where grand jury subpoenas are obtained. This request is beyond the scope of
your April 30, 2013 FOIA request and is ambiguous. Nevertheless, enclosed
please find, at Tab G, a copy of Section 11.000 of Title 9 of the United States
Attorneys Manual, also available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-11000grand-jury. Section 9-11.000 discusses the DOJs policy on grand jury practice,
including the use of grand jury subpoenas, but makes no mention of activists or
protesters. This document is not responsive to your FOIA request.
Your Index Reference No. 21 Request for DOJ guidelines that show that law
enforcement have the authority to use force on activists, generally, leading up to
their arrests. This request is beyond the scope of your April 30, 2013 FOIA
request and is ambiguous. Nevertheless, we refer you to the website of the
National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, for further information
regarding police use of force: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officersafety/use-of-force/Pages/welcome.aspx.
Your Index Reference No. 23 Request for any agency law or binding DOJ
legal opinion issued in respect of the prosecution of Lt. Choi based on
allegations that the DOJ mounts vindictive prosecution of activists, such as in
the case of Lt. Daniel Choi. With the EOUSAs discretionary release, certain
documents relating to the prosecution of Lt. Choi were provided to you, including
briefing on Chois attempt to assert as a defense selective/vindictive prosecution.
Please clarify if you would like a reproduction of all documents filed with the
Court that relate to Chois attempt to assert that defense.
Your Index Reference No. 28 Request for guidelines that show that the powers
of the USAOs and/or the DOJ to prosecute activists cannot be biased or
influenced by political overtones. This request is beyond the scope of your April
30, 2013 FOIA request and is ambiguous. Nevertheless, enclosed please find, at
Tab H, a copy of section 45.2 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations
governing Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship. This

Louis Flores
October 13, 2015
Page 6
document does not address the prosecution of activists, but sets forth when a DOJ
employee may not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution due to a
personal or political relationship. Thus, it is not responsive to your FOIA request.
The information and documents discussed above are being provided in a good faith effort
to confer further with you, as the Court requested. Defendant expressly preserves any and all
objections to discovery in this matter and to each and every request made in your September 16,
2016 Index. Defendant further preserves any and all arguments to be raised in defense of this
litigation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
KELLY T. CURRIE
Acting United States Attorney
By:
Enclosures [by certified first-class mail only]
s/Rukhsanah L. Singh
RUKHSANAH L. SINGH
Assistant U.S. Attorney
(718) 254-6498
rukhsanah.singh@usdoj.gov
EXHIBIT L

October 15, 2015
By Email and First-Class Certified Mail
Louis Flores
34-21 77th Street, Apt. #406
Re:

Dear Mr. Flores:

write to follow-up on our correspondence to you dated October 13, 2015, regarding the voluntary
search for any written guidelines for prosecution of activists located in the Office of the
Assistant Attorney General (OAAG), Criminal Division of DOJ Main Justice. (See Dkt. No.
14).
The OAAG is responsible for formulating and implementing DOJs criminal enforcement
policy. A voluntary search was conducted in the OAAG for guidelines relating to the
prosecution of activists and references to targeted prosecution of activists. Please be advised that
no documents were located. We hope that this addresses any remaining issues you raised during
the September 16, 2015 conference with the Court.
As previously set forth in our October 13, 2015 letter, Defendant expressly reserves any
arguments that: (a) this search was not requested in, or made pursuant to, your April 30, 2013
FOIA request; (b) your FOIA request was directed solely to EOUSA; (c) EOUSA properly
searched for records responsive to your request in the files of USAO-DC; and (d) any discovery
or expansion of the scope of the April 2013 FOIA request is not proper in this action.
Very truly yours,
KELLY T. CURRIE
Acting United States Attorney
By:
RUKHSANAH L. SINGH
(718) 254-6498
EXHIBIT M

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&

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&

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.&

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&

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$Index$

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&

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.$17.&
(i).
I&dont&know&how&the&documents&under&Tab&F&answer&Reference&
No.&17.&&Can&the&DOJ&provide&clarification&?&&&
(ii).
Are&there&no&equivalent&documents&to&the&Myers&memo&
real&life&and&which&apply&to&Reference&No.&17&?&&&
h).
Reference$No.$19.&
(i).
I&dont&know&how&the&documents&under&Tab&G&answer&Reference&
(ii).
real&life&and&which&apply&to&Reference&No.&19&?&
i).
Reference$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.&

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).&&&&

26&October&2015&
Page 10
&
k).
Reference$No.$28.&
(i).
I&dont&know&how&the&documents&under&Tab&H&answer&Reference&
(ii).
created&within&or&without&the&DOJ&that&apply&to&Reference&No.&28&?&
l).
Reference$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&

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
Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 95 of 98 PageID #:
371 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
EXHIBIT N

November 3, 2015
By Email and First-Class Mail
Louis Flores
34-21 77th Street, Apt. #406
Re:

Dear Mr. Flores:

write in response to your letter dated October 26, 2015.
The Courts September 16, 2015 Minute Entry Order sustained Defendants objections to
your request for discovery. (See Dkt. No. 14). The information provided in the undersigneds
letter dated October 13, 2015 was offered in furtherance of the Courts direction to confer
further, in good faith to accommodate the Courts encouragement, and without waiver of
Defendants arguments and defenses asserted in this action. Most of your questions and
comments that span your 11-page October 26, 2015 letter appear to be an attempt to obtain
discovery that the Court has not permitted. Defendant again objects to discovery in this matter.
Nevertheless, and without waiver of any and all defenses and arguments asserted by
Defendant in this action, Defendant provides the following points of clarification as to a couple
questions raised in your October 26, 2015 letter.
Your question numbered 1(f) states that the search did not include a consultation with the
Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) assigned to the prosecution of Daniel Choi. (Oct.
26, 2015 Letter at p. 2). However, it did; Ms. Kelly consulted the AUSA, as set forth in
paragraphs 16 through 18 of Ms. Kellys declaration.
In your question numbered 1(j), you have questions as to the discretionary release of
publicly-available documents by the EOUSA. (Oct. 26, 2015 Letter at pp. 2-3). To correct your
statement in that paragraph, and as previously discussed, the undersigned did not refer you to
PACER to collect documents, but stated that the publicly-available documents were available on
PACER and has offered on multiple occasions to provide you with copies of those referenced
documents. As to the publicly-available documents that are not on PACER referred to in your
question, those documents were provided in the discretionary release. This should also answer
your question numbered 4(j)(iii).

Louis Flores
November 3, 2015
Page 2
In your October 26, 2015 letter, you inform the undersigned that you have submitted a
FOIA request to the Civil Rights Division. 1 The undersigneds receipt of that request in no way
constitutes an acknowledgement that a proper FOIA request was submitted to that office and
does not indicate that the Civil Rights Division will accept, acknowledge, or undertake any
action upon the undersigneds receipt of the request. A FOIA request to components of DOJ
must be made to the FOIA office of that component, and a FOIA request must comply with 5
U.S.C. 522(a)(3). The undersigned does not undertake any obligations or responsibilities in
connection with the FOIA request attached to your October 26, 2015 letter.
Please note that the parties are to submit a joint report to the Court by November 6, 2015.
Defendant believes that there is no reason to extend the Court-ordered deadline. To that end,
enclosed please find a proposed Joint Status Letter, with proposed briefing schedule. Kindly
advise if we have your consent to the proposed Letter and briefing schedule.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT L. CAPERS
By:
RUKHSANAH L. SINGH
(718) 254-6498
In your question numbered 4(m)(i), you note that the undersigned stated that there was
no other component at the DOJ that contained a criminal division. (Oct. 26, 2015 Letter at p.
10). Please note that the undersigned stated that there was no other criminal division component
that would have guidelines for the prosecution of activists other than the OAAG.

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

DECLARATION OF ASSISTANT U.S.

I, RUKHSANAH L. SINGH, declare as follows:

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 98 PageID #: 278

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 98 PageID #: 279

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 4 of 98 PageID #: 280

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 23 of 98 PageID #: 299

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 24 of 98 PageID #: 300

-----Original Message----From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:lflores22@gmail.com]

Dear Hon. Madame Prosecutor :

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 25 of 98 PageID #: 301

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 26 of 98 PageID #: 302

-----Original Message----From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:lflores22@gmail.com]

Dear Hon. Madame Prosecutor :

On 27 mars 2013, at 20:25, LF (g-Male) wrote:

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 27 of 98 PageID #: 303

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 28 of 98 PageID #: 304

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 29 of 98 PageID #: 305

From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:lflores22@gmail.com]

Ladies and Gentlemen :

From: "LF (g-Male)" <lflores22@gmail.com>

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 30 of 98 PageID #: 306

Victoria.Ashton@usdoj.gov, press@ltdanchoi.org, tommysnews@gmail.com,

Dear Hon. Madame Prosecutor :

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 31 of 98 PageID #: 307

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 32 of 98 PageID #: 308

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 33 of 98 PageID #: 309

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

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 34 of 98 PageID #: 310

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 35 of 98 PageID #: 311

From: LF (g-Male) [mailto:lflores22@gmail.com]

Dear Mr. Miller :

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

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 36 of 98 PageID #: 312

600 E Street, N.W., Suite 7300

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 37 of 98 PageID #: 313

Tel: 212 728 8

Fa: 212 728 S

OM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

Appeal of Constructive Denial of Freedom of Information Act Request

Mr. Louis Flores

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 41 of 98 PageID #: 317

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 44 of 98 PageID #: 320

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 45 of 98 PageID #: 321

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 46 of 98 PageID #: 322

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 47 of 98 PageID #: 323

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 48 of 98 PageID #: 324

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 49 of 98 PageID #: 325

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 50 of 98 PageID #: 326

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 51 of 98 PageID #: 327

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 52 of 98 PageID #: 328

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 53 of 98 PageID #: 329

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 54 of 98 PageID #: 330

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 55 of 98 PageID #: 331

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 56 of 98 PageID #: 332

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 57 of 98 PageID #: 333

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 58 of 98 PageID #: 334

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 59 of 98 PageID #: 335

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 60 of 98 PageID #: 336

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 20-4 Filed 11/23/15 Page 61 of 98 PageID #: 337