Stanley Bolten,

The U.S. Attorney Office aka the Government has filed no response brief to USWGO Alt. News Brian D. Hill’s arguments and claims in his FOIA lawsuit Appeal opening brief in his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case in the Western District of Virginia, in Danville.

The FOIA lawsuit was in regards to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) not turning over a copy of all of his criminal case discovery materials that he has repeated claimed, under affidavit, that he needs full and unfettered access to such material to prove his actual innocence.

The DisHonorable U.S. District Court Judge Jackson L. Kiser of Danville, Virginia, has ruled that his Constitutional rights to get access to criminal case discovery material needed under due process to prove his actual innocence under the affirmative defense of frame up do not apply under FOIA. He further ripped out Americans’ Constitutional rights by stating that our Constitution of the United States do not apply to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and that only the rights under the statute applies to FOIA. That makes no sense as our Constitution is the law of the land, and that no law is valid if it averts the Constitution. No unconstitutional application of law is considered or any action under the color of law, enforcement of law, or by any act by any authority is even valid when such enforcement or authority is acting unconstitutionally.

FOIA does have protections under the Constitution of the United States. When a criminal defendant that isn’t being given his discovery packet for his/her criminal case and is needed to prove actual innocence, there should be a constitutional exception to the FOIA exemptions and that federal prosecutors must be compelled under the Constitution to turn over all discovery material in response to a valid FOIA request from a person that has certified under oath that the FOIA Requester is the very criminal defendant of the case and records only pertain to records of that particular case and not of any other case.

The Docket Sheet proving that the U.S. Attorney Office didn’t file a response within 14 days of being served with the Appellant’s informal opening brief as required by the “Briefing Order” and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and even the local rules of the Fourth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, in Richmond, Virginia.

Docket Sheet as of March 22, 2018 –, this blog (mirror)

Docket Sheet and all documents produced as of March 22, 2018 Documents #1 to #7 with no further filings which can be verified at PACER.GOV –, this blog (mirror)

As you may notice, in Document #7 as reported by the Docket sheets (w/Document and the plain general Docket Sheet), it was filed on Wednesday, February 28, 2018, and 2 weeks on the calendar go up to Wednesday, March 14, 2018. It is March 22, 2018, and nothing has been filed even three weeks after the initial filing of Appellant’s opening informal brief for his FOIA lawsuit. Filing an appellate response isn’t required under the federal rules, however the fact that U.S. Attorney Asst. Cheryl Thornton Sloan of the Greensboro division did not file a response in Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s appeal further proves that Appellant makes valid legal arguments even though Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News has never been to law school and has never been taught by a lawyer. He self taught himself like Abraham Lincoln. He can reverse engineer legal briefs and other filings and start developing his own legal briefs without the advice of counsel, without a lawyer. By crafting them to look really professional does make it more likely that a Judge will respect Brian’s pro se status and respect him as if he were a lawyer. This can break through the web of deception and corruption blocking Brian from proving his actual innocence.

The arguments originally made in that FOIA lawsuit Appeal were simple, The Innocence Project needs access to the discovery materials in both state and federal criminal cases to attempt to investigate into the truth to try to prove actual innocence by proving facts of actual innocence and not just reasonable doubts to the Government’s case. If the discovery material is needed to prove that the evidence used by the prosecution was fraudulently manufactured, then such discovery material requested via the FOIA is necessary to overturn the wrongful conviction, especially sex offense convictions of innocent people exonerated by DNA evidence or any evidence at all, and prove the actual innocence of somebody wrongfully convicted. When somebody didn’t commit the crime, they shouldn’t do the time and shouldn’t suffer the repercussions of a guilty person, whether poor or rich.

Other good arguments made in this informal opening brief was that the hacktivist group known as Anonymous had leaked SBI document photos and mentioning the former U.S. Attorney Ripley Rand, and leaked documents that were supposed to be kept confidential and secret by the Federal prosecution, and the document photos were leaked in 2016. Brian filed his FOIA request shortly after in 2-3 or even 4 months after the leak by Anonymous. He claimed that the Federal Judge Jackson L. Kiser erred by claiming that Brian didn’t prove that the U.S. Attorney Office may still have access to the documents improperly withheld during the FOIA, that Brian didn’t prove that the documents still may have been in their possession and custody around the time that the FOIA request was filed. The leak from Anonymous was never answered by the U.S. Attorney Office because doing such will admit that suspected (not confirmed according to Brian’s affidavit and his families affidavits) alleged child porn was downloading between July 20, 2012, and July 28, 2013. Brian’s laptop was seized on August 28, 2012, after he made claims that his laptop was hacked into. The download dates prove that his laptop was tampered with and had evidence planting by law enforcement officials as the evidence was in law enforcement custody. The Government chooses to ignore the leak by Anonymous, even when Brian admitted in Affidavit or an any arguments that the leaks done by Anonymous, the photographs look similar to the documents he had witnessed in Attorney John Scott Coalter’s office which was of the discovery material. So all facts have not been satisfied and the Federal Judge Jackson Kiser did not address all issues prior to granting the Government’s motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss the case.

The fact alone with the Judge ruled that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t even apply to a federal law is a complete high treasonous decision and rules as if the Constitution is not the law of the law and that there is no legal means nor any legal way to apply the Constitution to a FOIA request or even a FOIA lawsuit. That doesn’t make sense and our Nation’s founding fathers George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and even Patrick Henry (who pushed for a Bill of Rights for our Constitution) would disagree with Judge Kiser’s decision.

Hopefully the Court of Appeals will remand the case and reverse the granting of the motion for summary judgment. Our Constitution is at stake here in the United States of America. Without our rights, we are no better off than North Korea and Communist China, or even Iraq or Baghdad. We will become a third world country faster than we say oh my gosh.

Regardless of what landmark decision may be made, it all derives on our Constitution, whether it applies to the FOIA statute for the issues Brian had made in his case as fact and arguments, and whether the Government did improperly withheld materials requested via the FOIA which can prove factual innocence of Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News.

The Fourth Circuit is now likely reviewing over the entire case and all documents cited within the entire case to determine if errors were made and if such errors were contrary to law and contrary to our Constitutional law.

Could this be a sign of weakness that the U.S. Attorney Office will not file a response to Brian’s FOIA lawsuit appeal when any decision rendered may put the Government at risk of contempt of court or sanctions if they don’t stop with illegally covering up the criminal case discovery documents for Brian’s criminal court case, when such documents are necessary for proving actual innocence and will withdraw Brian’s false guilty plea?