FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

EMANUEL MCCRAY
Twitter: @trumpgenius, @handsandbuttons, @emanuelmccray
VIA U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail Receipt No. 7016 0910 0001 3784 3806

SOCIAL MEDIA ANNOTATIONS

(The Case of the Elusive Notes, a/k/a The Comey Show)

May 16, 2017:

The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comeys
associates read parts of it to a Times reporter. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-
trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html
Q. How did the NYT determine the Memo was unclassified if neither NYT nor the Reporter saw the
memo?

June8, 2017:

LANKFORD: Let me walk through a couple things with you. Your notes are obviously exceptionally important
because they give a rapid account of what you wrote down and what you perceived happened in those different
meetings. Have you had the opportunity to reference those notes when you were preparing the written statement you
put forward today?
COMEY: Yes. I think nearly all of my written recordings of my conversations, I had a chance to review them
before filing my statement.
LANKFORD: Do you have a copy of any of the notes personally?
COMEY: I don't. I turned them over to Bob Mueller's investigators.
LANKFORD: The individual that you told about your memos, that then were sent on to The New York Times, did
you have a copy of the memos or told orally?
COMEY: Had a copy at the time.
LANKFORD: Do they still have a copy of those memos?
COMEY: Good question. I think so. I guess I can't say for sure sitting here, but I guess I don't know. But I think
so.
LANKFORD: So the question is, could you ask them to hand that copy right back to you so you can hand them
over to this committee?
COMEY: Potentially.
LANKFORD: I would like to move that from potentially to seeing if we can ask that question so we can have a
copy of those. Obviously, the notes are really important to us, so we can continue to get to the facts as we see it. The
written documents are exceptionally important.
COMEY: Yeah.
LANKFORD: Were there other documents we need to be aware of you used in your preparation for your written
statement we should also have that would assist us in helping us with this?
COMEY: Not that I'm aware of, no.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295
Humm! At least one copy of the Memos is oral and unseen. Wow!

Q. Do you see the problem here in the following exchange? Did Comey make the Memo unclassified to
facilitate the Memo being leaked? Would this fit the word premeditation?

Vice Chairman Mark Warner - Virginia:

I found it very interesting that in the memo that you wrote after this February 14th pull aside, you made clear that
you wrote that memo in a way that was unclassified. If you affirmatively made the decision to write a memo that
was unclassified, was that because you felt at some point the facts of that meeting would have to come clean and
come clear and actually be able to be cleared in a way that could be shared with the American people?
James Comey:
Well, I remember thinking this is a very disturbing development. Really important to our work. I need to document

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

1|
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
it and preserve it in a way, this committee gets this, but sometimes when things are classified, It tangles them up. It's
hard --
Vice Chairman Mark Warner - Virginia:
Amen.
James Comey:
-- to share it within an investigative team. You have to be careful how you handle it, for good reason. My thinking
was if I write it in such a way that I don't include anything that would trigger classification. That would make it
easier for us to discuss within the FBI and the government and to hold on to it in a way that makes it accessible to
us.
Vice Chairman Mark Warner - Virginia:
Again, It's our hope, particularly since you pretty knowledgeable guy and you wrote this in a way that was
unclassified that this committee will get access to that unclassified document. I think it would be very important to
our investigation. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-
239295

Susan Collins - Maine:

And finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the department of justice?
James Comey:
Yes. I asked President tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there is not tapes. I woke up in the middle
of the night on Monday night, because it didn't dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our
conversation, might be a tape, my judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square and so I asked a
friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons, but
asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I asked a close friend of
mine to do that.
Susan Collins - Maine:
Was that Mr. Wittous?
James Comey:
No.
Susan Collins - Maine:
Who was that?
James Comey:
A good friend of mine, professor at Columbia Law School.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295

INFOWARS

July 11, 2017:

New York Times Has Neither Seen Nor Read Russia Email to Donald Trump, Jr. This is only the latest effort
by the Times to bring down President Donald Trump that relies on documents it has not seen and verified.
https://www.infowars.com/new-york-times-has-neither-seen-nor-read-russia-email-to-donald-trump-jr/

WHITE HOUSE

Q. Remember this statement?

May 16, 2017: The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr.
Comeys associates read parts of it to a Times reporter. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-
comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html

Q. Was the aforementioned statement premeditated and or part of a conspiracy between Comey, Columbia
University professor Daniel Richman, and the New York Times, among others? Let us see, said the nosey
Pharisee.

July 10, 2017:

Comey memos reportedly had classified info; Trump says That is so illegal

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

2|
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
A special counsel has been tasked with investigating Russian meddling in the campaign and possible collusion with
Trump associates, ever since Trump fired Comey earlier this year. On the heels of that firing, Comey first admitted
in congressional testimony that he had used an old friend at Columbia University to get his notes leaked to The New
York Times about his discussions with Trump.
But asked about the latest claims, Columbia University professor Daniel Richman -- the Comey friend who leaked
part of one memo to The New York Times -- told Fox News on Monday that this is a non-story.
No memos were given to the press, and no memos were classified at the time I received them, Richman told Fox
News, explaining that the substance of one memo was given to the press but not the physical document.
That was not classified at the time, and remains unclassified, he said.
Richman told Fox News he received four memos from Comey, all of which were not marked. Richman questioned
the White House claims. Its kind of interesting that the White House is now suggesting theyre true, Richman
said. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/10/comey-memos-reportedly-had-classified-info-trump-says-that-
is-so-illegal.html

TRUMPS GENIUS: The subject matter of the criminal law, which Comey, Richman,
Hillary, the New York Times and others are trying to avoid violating, does not even
mention the word classified. The section is titled: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense
information. This law pivots on the word information. Every Federal Prosecutor is taught to
ignore the word classified and instead focus on information. President Trump is the Chief
Defense Officer of Our Great Nation. Nearly 100% of the conversations conducted with him run
the risk of exposure to this criminal law. Read this law for yourself. But before you do, put your
common sense in gear and understand that if a tank had to be classified before a person could be
prosecuted for taking a picture of it, all spies would get away scotts free. Here we go:
18 U.S.C. 793
United States Code, 2009 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
Sec. 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason
to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any
foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel,
aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo
station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal
station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense
owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United
States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United
States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use
in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development,
under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any
person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place
so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which
anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored,
information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national
defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or
obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative,
blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with
the national defense; or

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

3|
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from
any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything
connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or
obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or
disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any
document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan,
map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the
national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or
causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or
cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or
willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States
entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code
book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument,
appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which
information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the
advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and
fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code
book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument,
appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the
same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to
be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed
from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted,
or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior
officer

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or
more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such
conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such
conspiracy.

(h)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of
any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained,
directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within
a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation.
For the purposes of this subsection, the term State includes a State of the United States, the District of
Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order
that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)(p)) shall apply to
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property, if not inconsistent with this

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

4|
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the
Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of
expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, 18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99399,
title XIII, 1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13,
1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103359, title VIII, 804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104
294, title VI, 607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-
sec793.htm

So now, every time you hear an allegedly guilty person cry and complain that the
information was not classified, laugh your butt off. You should also laugh your butt off
when President Trump closes the trap on them when he mentions Comeys memos had
classified information in them. The law doesnt care. So you might wonder: What about all
those foreign satellites hovering over our country? Last time I checked they were up in
space and, well, we have satellites spying on our enemies. Its when you invade the airspace
of another country is when you should truly encounter problems.

P.S. Dont forget to read the letter I received from the FBI: FBI FOIA Officer Says Comey's
Memo May or May Not Exist and Cannot Be Released If It Exists
Uploaded by Emanuel McCray on Jul 09, 2017,
https://www.scribd.com/document/353279054/FBI-FOIA-Officer-Says-Comey-s-Memo-May-
or-May-Not-Exist-and-Cannot-Be-Released-If-It-Exists

July 13, 2017

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP)
U.S. Department of Justice
1425 New York Avenue NW, Suite 11050
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

FOIPA Request No.: 1377820-000

Subject: Notes of Former FBI Director James
Comey Shared With The New York Times Reporter

This correspondence shall serve as my Appeal of the Decision reached on June 30, 2017
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding the above described FOIA Request set
forth in the Attachment at 1-2. In relevant part, the FBI determined that:

The records responsive to your request are law enforcement records. There is a
pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive
records, and release of the information in these responsive records could
reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. This is a

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

5|
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as
an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.

The FBIs denial is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the FOIA. Moreover, Mr.
Comey testified before Congress on June 8, 2017 at which time he revealed that he intentionally
leaked the requested materials to The New York Times as part of an agreement with others to
cover his rump in the event something happened.

Further, The New York Times reported on May 16, 2017 that:

Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and
close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which
is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comeys associates read parts of it to a Times
reporter. It is unclear whether Mr. Comey told the Justice Department about the
conversation or his memos. Mr. Comey was known among his closest advisers
to document conversations that he believed would later be called into question,
according to two former confidants, who said Mr. Comey was uncomfortable at
times with his relationship with Mr. Trump. Mr. Comeys recollection has been
bolstered in the past by F.B.I. notes. In 2007, he told Congress about a now-
famous showdown with senior White House officials over the Bush
administrations warrantless wiretapping program. The White House disputed Mr.
Comeys account, but the F.B.I. director at the time, Robert S. Mueller III, kept
notes that backed up Mr. Comeys story. See: Comey Memo Says Trump Asked
Him to End Flynn Investigation, By Michael S. Schmidt May 16, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-
russia-investigation.html

Further, on June 2, 2017, Arnie Seipel of National Public Radio (NPR) published
additional details regarding Mr. Comeys conduct when he reported that:

Fired FBI Director James Comey may tell the Senate Intelligence Committee
next week that President Trump suggested he ease off at least part of the FBI's
Russia investigation.

But a month ago, he said this to the Senate Judiciary Committee: Im talking
about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that
would be a very big deal. Its not happened in my experience."

Why did Comey say he has never been asked to stop an investigation for political
reasons after that conversation with Trump?

Some writers on the Internet, particularly Comey critics, have a couple of simple
explanations the memos are fake or he perjured himself in front of Congress.
But theres more context. Here is the full exchange from the Judiciary Committee
hearing, when Comey was being questioned by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

6|
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

HIRONO: So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of

Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory, yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to
stop doing something that without an appropriate purpose. I mean where
oftentimes they give us opinions that "we don't see a case there and so you ought
to stop investing resources in it." But I'm talking about a situation where we were
told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not
happened in my experience.

Hironos question was very specific referring to the attorney general or senior
officials at the Department of Justice and not the president. Theres been no
indication that officials at the Justice Department applied pressure to Comey to
stop any part of the Russia investigation.

What we have learned from Comey associates is that he wrote a memo shortly
after a private meeting with Trump in February, in which Comey recounted
Trump saying, I hope you can let this go. This was just after national security
adviser Michael Flynn was forced to resign after misleading Vice President Pence
and others regarding his interactions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Trumps comment to Comey was said to refer to the investigation of Flynn as part
of the FBIs larger Russia probe. As NPRs Carrie Johnson reported, Comey
recalled giving a nonresponse and wrote a very, very detailed memo to recount
the meeting shortly after. Comey is known to keep such memos to record
important professional episodes, like the night in 2004 when he stopped senior
members of the Bush administration from reauthorizing the domestic surveillance
program without proper approval.

Congress wants to see Comeys memos regarding his meetings with Trump. In
legal proceedings, such contemporaneous notes can hold a lot of credibility. But
the White House has vehemently denied Trump ever said anything that would
pressure Comey to back off of Flynn or the larger Russia investigation.

While the President has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a
decent man who served and protected our country, the President has never asked
Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation
involving General Flynn, a White House official said in a statement. The
President has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies, and all
investigations. This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation
between the President and Mr. Comey.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

7|
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
It seemed to some that Comeys statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee
just before he was fired may have affirmed the White House's position, because
that quote was often heard without the question. When Comey re-emerges in
public before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, he could well be
asked whether he was lying in his earlier testimony.

But given Hironos wording and Comeys well-known attention to detail, he may
simply say that he was answering the question he was asked. Source: Did James
Comey Lie About Interference In The Russia Investigation?, June 2, 2017, By
Arnie Seipel, http://www.npr.org/2017/06/02/531116018/did-james-comey-lie-
about-interference-in-the-russia-investigation

Pursuant to Congressional intent, whatever exemption the subject Memo may have
enjoyed under the FOIA has been destroyed by Mr. Comeys intentional leaking and publication
of the material to the entire world and the fact that Mr. Comey has directly testified before
Congress that the Memo exists and that he disclosed the same to individuals inside and outside of
the Federal Government.

Mr. Comey intentionally reduced his Memo to a news article. In Associated Press v.
International News Service, 245 F. 244, 248, 2 A.L.R. 317 (2nd Cir., 1917), affirmed 248 U.S.
215 (1919), the Court found that news is that which attracts public attention:

With the existence of a truth, with physical facts per se, neither plaintiff nor
defendant is concerned; for them facts in that absolute sense are but as ore in a
mountain or fish in the sea-- valueless unless and until by labor mined or caught
for use. Nor are facts, even after ascertainment, news, unless they have that
indefinable quality of interest, which attracts public attention. Neither is news
always synonymous with facts, in the sense of verity; indeed, much news
ultimately proves fictitious, yet it is excellent news notwithstanding. The word
means no more (laying aside hoaxing and intentional falsehood) than apparently
authentic reports of current events of interest.

The court in Jenkins v. News Syndicate Co., 128 Misc. 284, 285, 219 N. Y.S. 196, 198,
says a report of recent occurrencesis generally understood by the term `news.

Thus, what is news of public interest will vary with the circumstances involved. This was
recognized by the authors of the article which has served as the fountain-head of the doctrine of
the right of privacy. Thus they say To determine in advance of experience the exact line at
which the dignity and convenience of the individual must yield to the demands of the public
welfare or of private justice would be a difficult task. Warren & Brandeis, The Right of Privacy
(1890) 4 Harv.L. Rev. 193, 214.

That Mr. Comeys Memo is a publication is clear and unambiguous and definitely has
been reduced to a communication to the general public. See Marx v. United States, 96 F.2d 204,
206 (9th Cir.1938), quoting Associated Press v. International News Service, 245 F. 244, 250-51

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

8|
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
(2d Cir.1917); Tiffany Productions v. Dewing, 50 F.2d 911, 914 (D.Md. 1931); Estill County v.
Noland, 295 Ky. 753, 763, 175 S.W.2d 341, 346 (1943); Hancock-Nelson Mercantile Co. v.
Commissioner of Taxation, 298 Minn. 341, 345, 215 N.W.2d 620, 622 (1974); Business Statistics
Organization, Inc. v. Joseph, 299 N.Y. 443, 451, 87 N.E.2d 505, 508 (1949); Black's Law
Dictionary at 1396 (rev. 4th ed. 1968); Websters Third New International Dictionary at 1836
(1968).

The interfere with enforcement proceedings part of the FBIs denial letter is further
untenable because Exemption 7 applies to enforcement proceedings generally and the public
already possesses in some form the Memo at issue. See: Natl Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins
Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 223 (1978); and cf., Title 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1505:
Investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not proceedings under these
statutes. See: United States v. Higgins, 511 F. Supp. 453, 455-56 (W.D. Ky. 1981):

Under our system of separation of powers, a criminal investigatory agency, in

contradistinction to an administrative or regulatory agency, has no power to
engage in rulemaking or adjudication.
The Federal Trade Commission is an agency which by law possesses both
investigative and adjudicative functions. Its mission is to regulate conduct in the
economic marketplace, not merely to investigate such conduct.
It is significant to the Court that in the eighty-two years this statute or its
predecessor has been on the books, it has apparently never been applied to a
criminal investigation by a federal law enforcement agency. The United States has
been unable to cite a single precedent, and the Court has found none in its
independent research.
This Court would for all practical purposes be amending 1505 by deleting the
requirement that the obstruction must relate to a proceeding pending before an
agency, if it were to adopt the construction urged by the United States.

United States v. Scoratow, 137 F. Supp. 620, 621-22 (W.D. Pa. 1956):

There appears to be no case which holds that interference with witnesses in an

investigation being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any
similar instrumentality of the government, violates Section 1503, or any of its
predecessor sections. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an investigating
rather than a judicial arm of the government. It does not administer justice
within the meaning of Section 1503.

See also: U.S. Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual 1727 (Protection of Government
ProcessesOmnibus Clause18 U.S.C. 1505):

However, investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not

section 1505 proceedings. United States v. Higgins, 511 F. Supp. 453, 455-56
(W.D. Ky. 1981); see also United States v. Scoratow, 137 F. Supp. 620, 621-22
(W.D. Pa. 1956) (FBI investigation is not a 18 U.S.C. 1503 proceeding).

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

9|
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1727-protection-
government-processes-omnibus-clause-18-usc-1505

By publishing his Memo to the world and giving it the quality of news as that term is
defined, Mr. Comey usurped all FOIAs exemptions likely to apply to the requested Memo.

WHEREFORE, the FBI must provide a true and correct copy of the Memo Mr. Comey
and the FBI have released to others outside of Government and have further caused to be
published to the world as news by The New York Times.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Emanuel McCray

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

10 |