As Spacemen Stalk Jim Comey, Loaner AUSA Tyler Lemons Doxed Him
On October 20, in response to a Gateway Pundit article reporting on Judge Michael Nachmanoff’s decision not to accelerate the government’s bid for a privilege review, a guy writing under the moniker Spaceman Chuck claimed “we already have a team on” making sure that Comey “go[es] down” if he is not convicted.
A month earlier, in response to John Brennan’s criticism of the Comey indictment, Spaceman Chuck commented that their safety is not guaranteed.
As CourtWatch reported, Spaceman Chuck, AKA Greg Formicone, was arrested Wednesday for these threats, as well as others targeting Letitia James (also in response to a Judge’s decision) and Hunter Biden.
That very same day, in a hearing regarding the very same topic as that Gateway Pundit article — that is, the government’s bid to breach Jim Comey’s privileged communications — there was an exchange that hinted at how Loaner AUSA Tyler Lemons had made it easier for nutjobs like Spaceman Chuck.
Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick started the hearing by discussing warrants used to seize material from Dan Richman over five years ago. He asked whether the original warrants could be unsealed.
Rebekah Donaleski, representing Comey, asked to be able to propose redactions before the warrants are unsealed. She explained they were primarily hoping to seal things like email addresses.
THE COURT: Are your redactions simply limited to PII information or are they substantive in nature?
MS. DONALESKI: We expect that it will be primarily PII information or things of that nature, so email addresses, ID numbers, things —
But those kinds of things, Fitzpatrick noted, are already required to be sealed under court rules.
THE COURT: Anything like that, under court rules, are already going to be sealed. So anything having to do with emails, phone numbers, anything like that is never going to be unsealed with respect to this. But with respect to any of the substantive information, the more factual information, do you still want a chance to review that?
In a follow-up, Donaleski suggested that “the government has a different position” on whether those things are PII.
MS. DONALESKI: We would appreciate that. And, Your Honor, with respect to the PII, I understand the government has a different position on what is PII, so I appreciate Your Honor’s view that email addresses and phone numbers should be redacted as PII.
Lemons responded by suggesting that phone numbers and email addresses are not PII under Local Rules (which will surely go over well with Fitzpatrick).
There was basically a discussion between Defense and the government as exactly what is required to be redact — what is considered PII under Local Rule 47 and then the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49, and telephone numbers and email addresses are not considered that, but per the Defense’s request, when they requested us to redact that information, we did make that redaction, and we think that is the appropriate way to proceed going forward to make sure both parties are having a collegial conversation and redacting what needs to be redacted; and if there are any lingering issues that remain after that, it’s something appropriately brought to the Court prior to anything being filed on the docket.
Neither Donaleski nor Lemons mentioned what this discussion about PII referenced. But it is undoubtedly a reference to the way Lemons released exhibits in support of a filing earlier that week, leaving email addresses and phone numbers unredacted. Even after the first round of redactions, a phone number for Comey remained unredacted (it has since been redacted), though well before Comey and Richman’s PII was redacted, prosecutors had redacted an FBI email.
I’m fairly certain the threats from Forticone were nowhere near the first credible threats targeting Comey. Yet instead of minimizing such a threat, Lemons fueled it.
So Personal Identifiable Information does not include phone numbers and addresses of the people across the courtroom from these thugs, but does apply to the same kinds of data of their own selves. OK, then.
Will Fitzpatrick reference Orwell in his ruling on the matter, I wonder? “Ignorance is strength” seems to apply directly to this shit, as this kind of proactive “ignorance” can be defined as “the art of ignoring.”
Didn’t Trump make disclosing such PII for ICE goons a crime?
That’s what his DHS goons have been attempting to aver, but they don’t make the laws, thanks to our Constitution-on-life-support:
https://www.aclu-il.org/en/press-releases/aclu-illinois-responds-dhs-claims-it-will-prosecute-people-recording-ice-officers-our
and
https://www.cato.org/commentary/dhs-says-videotaping-ice-agents-illegal-federal-courts-disagree#
Meanwhile, the incidents of fake ICE goons committing actual cop-impersonation crimes is already 4 times as many such incidents, in less than 10 months, as were recorded since Clinton was President.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/02/us/ice-impersonator-incidents-rise-invs-vis
You would think that after Ruby Freeman and Shae Moss forced Gateway Pundit’s owner Jim Hoft to cough up a settlement for defamation, GP would be a bit more careful about things like doxxing, not to mention potentially aiding and abetting death threats.
You would, of course, be wrong. This is what Gateway Pundit is, and this is what Gateway Pundit does.
Call me a softy, but I like the commenters here at Emptywheel a lot more than I like the commenters at Gateway Pundit.
Someone from Gateway Pundit narced this guy out.
Good for that person, but I prefer sites where mods would keep that crap from getting out there in the first place.
waves to the EW mods
EW mods wave back
According to the complaint, Formicone was narced out by Witness 1.
So Witness 1 may not even be a commenter or a fellow right winger. Could be a disinformation researcher or an investigator journalist or a random person who dives into the narrative warfare space.
If so, kudos to Witness 1.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71875538/united-states-v-formicone/
Follow the leader. If trump can doxx Obama then his bootlickers can do the same to others who trump has judged “guilty as hell”. and who don’t have secret service protection. This particular nut seems to think the death penalty is appropriate for lying to congress before the case even starts.
…ALLEGEDLY lying to Congress…
It’s not actually true [as LEMON tells the Court] that “telephone numbers
and email addresses are not considered” [] “PII under Local Rule 47 and then
the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49”, is it???
Republican lawyers have made an art out of interpreting words such as “shall”, “are” and “the”. Torturing the words “public”, “identifying” and “information” is child’s play by comparison.
But telephone and e-mail addresses for say, ICE goons or Stephen Miller, apparently are the most closely guarded secrets in the federal govt, and releasing them would be a threat to the public and a crime.
Thanks for putting these articles together.
What was the reason that Eckenrode and Starr were unredacted on the burn bag memo while the supervisory chain were redacted with 4 lines of redacted text?
Marcy,
I was a contractor for Federal HHS Occupational Health Nurse embedded at Treasury. I was terminated without notice July 18 2025. While employed i completed mandatory annual training on PII for both HHS and Treasury executive agencies. Here is Treasury PII summary:
The US Treasury defines PII (Personally Identifiable Information) as any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity, such as name, Social Security number, email address, and physical address. The Treasury’s definition includes a wide range of data, and its policies require specific authorities and safeguards for collecting and using this information.
Types of PII collected by the US Treasury
Contact and personal details: Name, email address, physical address, and phone number…
There are hefty penalties for executive agency employees violating PII. I don’t know why judicial Federal Criminal Procedure rules on PII would be so far behind executive agencies.