Posts

DOJ Continues to Let DHS Pick and Choose Screen Shots Pertaining to Their Assaults

/27 Comments/in , , , /by

There’s a general reason and specific reasons why people should care about Bill Essayli’s response to David Huerta’s motion to compel the government to turn over metadata associated with the evidence obtained against him.

Generally, DHS has permitted — encouraged, seemingly — DHS officers to use their own personal phones and to use Signal. And whether officers are using their own or government phones, DHS ditched its archiving software last year; it is relying on officers’ taking screen caps of relevant communications.

The Department of Homeland Security has stopped using software that automatically captured text messages and saved trails of communication between officials, according to sworn court statements filed this week.

Instead, the agency began in April to require officials to manually take screenshots of their messages to comply with federal records laws, citing cybersecurity concerns with the autosave software.

[snip]

The policy expects officials to first take screenshots of the text messages on their work phones, send it to their work email, download it on their work computers and then run a program that would recognize the text to store it in searchable formats, according to the department’s guidance submitted to the court.

Under the Federal Records Act, government agencies are required to preserve all documentation that officials and federal workers produce while executing their duties. They have to make federal records available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act unless they fall under certain exemptions.

And we’ve seen AUSAs rely on officers themselves to review their own devices for communications covered by discovery.

In the LaMonica McIver case, for example, officers didn’t turn over exculpatory texts until Judge Jamel Semper ordered supplemental discovery.

It wasn’t until November 26 — almost two weeks after Judge Jamel Semper ruled on McIver’s immunity bid —  that DOJ turned over texts copying this video, observing that it looked bad.

5 The Spotlight News video came to light during the course of supplemental briefing only because it was referenced in a May 9, 2025, text message that the government finally turned over on November 26, 2025. HSI special agents exchanged the video in that May 9 conversation, where the agents also acknowledged that the evidence in the video was “bad.” Ex. Y at 2-3. The prosecution team therefore clearly knew about the text messages (and thus the video) when disclosures were due in July.

McIver’s lawyer, Paul Fishman, says he will address this delayed discovery in a follow-up letter.

Inexplicable delays in the government’s discovery productions mean that the record continues to be developed.1

1 Congresswoman McIver will detail these shortcomings in a forthcoming letter to the Court.

But the implication of this is clear.

DOJ was never going to turn over these discussions — conducted on Signal — until Judge Semper ordered this supplemental briefing. They were sitting on evidence that shows that before DHS first started calling McIver’s actions an assault on May 10 (McIver had to ask to have these Tweets taken down, but the timeline is in her motion to do so), they had shared video noting that their own actions looked bad.

Consider how this policy would work in the case of Jonathan Ross’ killing of Renee Good. Given that Ross’ video of the killing was released unofficially, it seems likely he was using his own phone that day. Particularly given the impunity with which Pam Bondi has treated him so far, there’s no reason to believe he’d retain anything incriminating himself, much less people like Greg Bovino or Stephen Miller.

It would take someone actually seizing his phone to see if there are incriminating details about his own motives.

That’s what David Huerta is asking for: that DOJ provide the metadata associated with both the videos and texts messages surrounding the day.

The metadata Mr. Huerta requests here—for the agents’ text messages already produced in this case,10 and for the photos and videos taken of the scene on June 6 and already produced—is critical and material to his ability to adequately prepare for his defense in this case. It is also relevant to understanding the sequence of events that occurred on June 6, both the actions of protestors and Mr. Huerta at the scene (e.g., shown in photographs and video recordings) and the agents’ statements to one another and activities that day as reflected in the text messages. Lastly, the metadata information affiliated with iPhone photos and messages is routinely stored in the ordinary course for such ESI, and would be straightforward to extract from the agents’ cellphones or devices. Moreover, producing the photos and videos in a native, load-ready format along with a corresponding index is routinely done in criminal cases by the Department of Justice.

10 Because the agents’ text messages and the photos and videos have already been collected by the government in this case and produced to the defense, there can be no dispute about the government’s “possession, custody, or control” of that material and/or those devices, as the government already had, and likely continues to have, access to them in preparing their discovery productions.

Even if these witnesses — HSI Supervisory Agent Ryan Ribner and Undercover Officer Jeremy Crossen — were reliable, this would be a reasonable ask. While the bulk of the video in discovery is unavailable publicly, the texts are difficult to unpack, and because Ribner “wrote the arrest report … from memory,” there are time discrepancies between the narrative he tells in the arrest report and the texts, to say nothing of additional discrepancies in Crossen’s countersurveillance report.

But these witnesses are not reliable. Crossen, for example, told interviewers that he was using his personal phone because his government phone “was not working at the time of the incident.”

TFO Crossen stated he used his personal phone to document the events which was turned over to an HSI Computer Forensics Agent (CFA) to download and preserve evidence.

TFO Crossen stated his government issued phone was not working at the time of the incident.

Except his texts show he switched phones during the incident (his testimony is so inconsistent I actually misunderstood whose phone this was on first read).

Plus, he told Ribner had had a couple hundred videos. The discovery includes far short of that.

And that’s just one reason to question Crossen’s candor when he told investigators, “he did not alter or delete any videos.” There are other holes in what appears in exhibits (this may be available in videos): he told investigators that somebody — I think he means protestors — called out “he’s a union member,” about Huerta, which is … not how I’d expect people in left-leaning politics to describe a senior SEIU official. The specific description of Huerta would go to the denials of everyone involved that they assaulted Huerta because he is a senior union official.

And Crossen described not filming the most important footage for this case, purportedly showing Huerta standing right in front of the van, rather than to its side, where the DHS goons assaulted him.

TFO Crossen recalled that immediately before 0:10 seconds before starting  video 2790, he observed HUERTA standing in front of the van, closer to the center of the van. He stated that he did not film that particular moment because there were a lot of distractions “from persistent instigators” including HUERTA.

And that’s why Essayli’s argument — that DOJ can provide Electronically Stored Information in whatever format they want so long as it maintains the data integrity — falls short.

In relevant part, the ESI protocol recommends that (1) after conferral, any format selected for producing discovery should maintain the ESI’s integrity, allow for reasonable usability, and reasonably limit costs, and, if possible, conform to industry standards for the format;

Crossen’s testimony, along with problems in the testimony of others, raises more than enough reason to question the integrity of the data as provided. A Cellebrite extraction, which is what Huerta is asking for, would show whether there were gaps in production.

Essayli is also citing in poor faith to misrepresent Huerta’s argument (and in his motion to dismiss, switched between PDF and document page numbers, further obscuring his references). He repeatedly claims Huerta just wants DOJ to create a searchable index.

To the extent defendant is requesting the government create an index of the metadata in a searchable format, see Dkt. 58 at 3:1-5, that request is beyond the government’s discovery obligations.

[snip]

Instead, defendant’s true complaint is that the government has not created a searchable index of the photos’ and videos’ metadata. (Dkt. 58 at 3.)

But the cited passage (this is on document page 2) reveals they’re asking for far more than that.

The screenshot PDF images of the messages do not contain any metadata affiliated with the messages or the source iPhones, and no corresponding index was provided to defense counsel with this information. Notably, the phone numbers belonging to the sender(s) and recipient(s) of the messages, or even the iPhone contact cards, were not included in the production or visible in the screenshots. Nor do the iMessage screenshots contain a timestamp for each message; while some messages do have a timestamp at the top (sometimes owing to a gap in time), many of the messages contain no timestamp whatsoever.6 Additionally, because of the nature of the initial production (individual PDFs named only by “IMG” file number), there is no way in which to tell who the owner and custodian (e.g., which agent) is of each set of messages and each phone. Additionally, due to the screenshot nature of the messages, certain messages are cut off and the messages were not all provided in chronological order to Mr. Huerta. Finally, the iMessage screenshots do not contain any geolocation or coordinate information, if any is available, as is often part of cellphone metadata or any “native” file.

There are a whole bunch of reasons this is necessary to reconstruct what happened.

But in DHS’ new parallel evidentiary role, it’s not clear whether Huerta — or any of the other people accused of assault using evidence from officers’ personal cell phones — will have access to that.

Chekhov’s Back Door Gate Appears in the David Huerta Assault Saga

/7 Comments/in , , , /by

F[ucking] A[sshole] Bill Essayli submitted his response to David Huerta’s motion to dismiss his information (see this post for an explanation of why I’m calling Essayli, “F[ucking] A[sshole]”).

Here’s a summary of the argument: Huerta intentionally blocked the only available entrance of the search (but not arrest) location, he did this via means other than standing in front of a van, and encouraged others to do so, which led (after Ryan Ribner assaulted Huerta) LAPD to declare a riot.

During the execution of a search warrant, defendant intentionally blocked the only available entrance of the Warrant Location. He did this by sitting down and walking in circles directly in front of the entrance of the Warrant Location, making it impossible for any law enforcement vehicles to enter or exit, without defendant moving. In addition, he also successfully encouraged other individuals to join him in blocking the entrance of the Warrant Location in the same manner eventually contributing to LAPD declaring a riot at the Warrant Location. As defendant concedes in the Motion, defendant was told explicitly he “shouldn’t block or impede the [law enforcement vehicle] that would be arriving.” (Dkt. 55 at 14.)

Even this passage conflates two things Huerta did — sit, and picket, before the van showed up — with blocking it.

But the most interesting part of the passage is that word “available,” which is doing a lot of work. Along with the filing, DOJ submitted seven exhibits: three compilations of video (filed manually, so we don’t get them), and the interview reports from HSI Special Agent J Smith (who seems to have overseen the search), a second interview with the van driver, Brian Gonzalez, an interview with HSI Special Agent Andre Lemon, who helped Gonzalez change a tire, and a picture of the tire that got slashed while or shortly after Huerta was being assaulted. These late interviews appear to be an attempt to salvage the case with witnesses besides Ryan Ribner and Carey Crook, the guys who assaulted Huerta. DOJ is spinning a new story that because of what happened with Huerta — that is, because Ribner, especially, assaulted the SEIU CA President — HSI had to flee the site of the search hours earlier than they otherwise would have, which limited the number of undocumented workers they could detain, which wasn’t supposed to be the point of the search.

As Lemon described, they fled out a back gate.

SA Lamon stated they loaded the vehicle with “Some of the detainees and snuck out of the back gate”.

You see, from the moment I read this line in Ribner’s affidavit supporting the arrest warrant, I was pretty sure there was another gate ready to open, just like Chekov’s gun, a plot point that must be resolved.

Our trusty cyber expert also suggests that the van entering the gate of the facility — the predicate for making Huerta move and therefore the predicate to tackling him, injuring him, and then arresting him — may not, after all, be the only entrance. He describes that “as far as I was aware,” it was.

As far as I was aware, this gate was the only location through which vehicles could enter or exit the premises.

I wonder whether his awareness has changed over the weekend.

Ribner said a bit more about Chekov’s gate in the arrest report (and also revealed that he left in a caravan via “the secondary gate,” which he did not otherwise explain).

ERO SDDO C C approached SSA Ribner to discuss a plan to safely escort an ERO USG vehicle into the facility. SSA Ribner provided the same information to SDDO C as he did to the DEA agents regarding subjects potentially impeding/blocking agents and USG vehicles. SDDO Cr asked if there was another entrance/exit to the facility; SSA Ribner related that he did not have knowledge of a secondary entrance/exit. SSA Ribner related that agents would need to go outside of the gate and encircle the sides of the van to make sure it isn’t blocked and/or damaged. SDDO C asked how agents would move the pickup truck [playing loud music] from the driveway. SSA Ribner advised that he would verbally request the driver to move the truck. [my emphasis]

DOJ didn’t bother to ask Crook whether he knew of a second gate last August, as it became clear neither his nor Ribner’s testimony was credible. But his interview report describes that Crook, “recalled himself and GS Ribner coming up with a plan for the main gate to slightly open to allow the van to enter the property and then close it after the van entered,” just before he made a claim — that Huerta had “straddle[d] the hood of the van” and “ma[de] his body an X,” a claim no other witnesses nor the video corroborated.

The “main gate.”

You only call something a main gate if you know there’s another.

Brian Gonzalez — the guy who drove the van and all of a sudden remembered David Huerta being close to it after he got a permanent job at CBP and had a follow-up call, probably the guy DOJ hopes will be their star witness given problems with calling Ribner or Crook to the stand –was not asked about any gates in his first interview (or the follow-up, where his memory about Huerta evolved).

But in his interview last week, he was asked about the gate.

Before I explain what he said, note that the F[ucking] A[sshole] Bill Essayli confessed in his response that earlier — right up until the moment David Huerta arrived, Essayli seems to suggest — DHS had no problem getting cars and vans through the entrance where protestors were.

Shortly thereafter, between 10:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. demonstrators began to show up at the Warrant Location and congregated near the entrance to the front gate. During this initial period, before defendant arrived, the demonstrators did not block the driveway and repeatedly allowed vehicles to enter and exit the Warrant Location through the front gate. (Ex. 1 at 7:30-7:35; 8:16-8:27; Ex. 2 at 4:25-5:25, 7:49-7:53, 8:22-8:26, 9:45-9:48, 11:47-11:58.)

There was a white van captured in one of Jeremy Crossen’s photos, showing a time stamp of 11:10 (it’s possible the van in one or both of these pictures is the one driven by Gonazalez; per Google his drop-off at the Federal Building was a 9-minute drive away).

Crossen’s countersurveillance report describes what may be this van — at around that time, a van and a beige car were able to pass through the gate because someone asked nicely for the protestors to move and they complied.

At approximately 11:25 a.m., The southwest gate of the business opened, and a beige Toyota sedan and a white ICE ERO transport van approached the south apron of the driveway. As the gate opened, UHM-1 ran from where he was standing, just east of the apron. UHM-1 initially stood center driveway of the apron, blocking the egress of the car and van while filming. An unidentified agent standing just north of the gate ordered UHM-1 to move and he subsequently complied.

Half an hour later, per Crossen’s report, a mini-convoy came up at a time when Huerta was legitimately in front of the gate, if we can believe any of these reports (we can’t).

At approximately 11:54 a.m., A black Government Jeep Grand Cherokee, along with several other government vehicles, approached the apron of the driveway from E. 15 Street. The vehicle th remained stopped as both the gate was closed and standing protesters were blocking the apron of the driveway, preventing the vehicle from pulling closer to the south gate for entry into the business. At this time, TFO Crossen observed HUERTA, LENEHAN, UHF-8 and UHM-7 sit down on the ground, approximately two to four feet from the closed gate. TFO Crossen both audibly heard and video recording HUERTA motioning with his left hand with an “enviting motion” to the crowd around him, yelling “Sit down! Sit Down!” repeatedly. HSI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) Ryan Ribner approached the closed gate from the other side and informed the seated protesters they were impeding the vehicles and needed to move. Upon hearing this, HUERTA, while still seated, “scooted” forward, where he was now seated on his knees, right against the gate. HUERTA ignored SSA Ribner’s orders to move because they were impeding law enforcement vehicles attempting to enter the business. HUERTA yelled to SSA Ribner, “What are you doing! What are you doing! I can’t hear you through your fucking mask! How are you keeping me safe by doing this!” SSA Ribner, calmly again admonished HUERTA that he was impeding law enforcement vehicles from entering.

Those vehicles do not appear in Ribner’s report, as far as I can tell, at all.

There’s no resolution to what happened to those vehicles, though. They disappear from the narrative by the time the van driven by Gonzalez shows up, which is when seven people move to block the van, and oh by the way, so does David Huerta, added as an afterthought in Crossen’s report.

At approximately 12:15 p.m., a white Law enforcement van pulls up to the apron of the driveway, just south of the main south gate with its siren and emergency lights activated. As the vehicle pulled up, agents opened the south gate, and several agents walked from inside the property compound to the apron of the driveway to assist with moving protestors so the emergency vehicle could gain entrance. As most of the crowd moved for the loud audible siren and emergency police lights, LENEHAN, GARDUNO, CUERVO, ALTAMIRANO, UHM-7, and an unidentified Hispanic female, later identified as Edith DIAZ (DOB: /1977; COC UNK) and UHM-8, who was now out of his unoccupied vehicle, which was playing loud music and blocking the apron, ran closer to and in front of the law enforcement vehicle to block it.. HUERTA also moved toward the emergency van with activated lights and siren and stood approximately two feet from the front bumper, directly in front of it, ignoring the emergency lights, activated siren and ignoring agents orders to move.

With all that in mind — with the way that Ribner stages confrontation over the expected appearance of Gonzalez’ van — here’s what Gonzalez said in his interview last week:

Gonzalez stated that he called Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer (SDDO) Carey Crook when he was about a block away from the location.

Gonzalez stated that he drove past the crowd at the front gate and asked SDDO Crook if he could come through the back.

Gonzalez stated that SDDO Crook informed him that the back gate was locked and they didn’t have the keys to the lock.

At noon, when Ribner was staging a confrontation with the people he believed were “vicious, horrible people,” he didn’t know there was a second gate.

But somehow Gonzalez, who found out just that morning he’d be doing this drive and had already done one pick-up that day, knew there was one. Not only Gonzalez knew of it. But Crook — whom Ribner claims asked him, Ribner, if there were a second gate — not only knew of one, but knew it was locked.

When they needed to get by protestors before Ribner had assaulted David Huerta, they asked nicely and everyone complied.

When they needed to get by protestors after Ribner had assaulted David Huerta, they knew exactly how to do that: go out the back door gate, which it turns out they had keys to.

Update: On Thursday, Huerta asked to delay the trial until May. I suspect this reflects a bid by DOJ to implicate Huerta — possibly even to supersede him with a felony — for the punctured tire.

b. Defendant contends that the omnibus opposition and the recent discovery productions of the government raise issues that warrant additional investigation and the need for additional pretrial filings. Moreover, defendant anticipates making additional discovery requests based on and in response to the recent productions of by the government that raise new trial issues.

c. In light of the foregoing, counsel for defendant also represents that additional time is necessary to confer with defendant, conduct and complete an independent investigation of the case, conduct and complete additional legal research including for potential pre-trial motions, review the discovery and potential evidence in the case, and prepare for trial in the event that a pretrial resolution does not occur. Defense counsel represents that failure to grant the continuance would deny them reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

Timeline

June 6: Arrest

9:00 AM: HSI task force officer (and Inglewood cop) Jeremy Crossen arrives under cover

9:20: Agents start executing search

9:57: Crossen interacts with Asian woman

10:26: Crossen interacts w/Hispanic protestor, claims he is monitoring the police

10:33: Crossen texts Ribner

11:07: Crossen sees pick-up without plates whose Hispanic driver films

11:19: Crossen describes a Hispanic woman with a neck gaiter; his report provides background on a Kids of Immigrants sweatshirt she wears; start time of alleged criminal conduct

11:25: A sedan enters the gate; after an agent instructs those filming it to step away, they do; Crossen texts Ribner,

 

11:31: A Hispanic woman whom Crossen IDs by name shows up, makes phone calls

11:36: Crossen describes a white woman by name, describes that she masked as the crowd grew

11:37: Crossen describes the Hispanic leader of ACCE Action, Council Member Jose Delgado, show up, make calls

11:49: Crossen claims he sees Huerta walk up

11:51: A white woman from Tenants Union starts yelling obscenities

11:53: Ribner instructs Crossen to focus on Huerta

11:54: Huerta and others sit in front of the gate

12:01 PM: Ribner leaves the property and assaults Huerta [note his report timeline goes haywire in here]

12:00-12:09: Crossen texts Ribner

12:15: Crossen claims van arrives (his description describe others who were in front of the van, then says Huerta also was)

12:15: Ribner calls 911 (claiming this is about pepper spray)

12:18: Crossen describes a scrimmage line

12:20-12:40: Discussions about Huerta’s attempt to call his attorney

12:30: LAFD responds; Huerta asks to be brought to the hospital; Crossen describes LAFD arrival this way:

At approximately 12:28 p.m., TFO Crossen observed a Los Angeles City Fire truck with activated emergency lights and loud audible siren, attempting to gain entry to the business, still being blocked by protestors, to render aid for HUERTA, inside the business, who had been exposed to OC Spray, during his arrest.

12:40: Ribner reports arrest to CACD US Attorney office

12:42: Ribner tells Crossen his personal phone is out of battery, asks him to use his government one

12:47: Ribner admits he used pepper spray

1:05: Ribner speaks to USAO again

1:30: Huerta taken to hospital w/agent in car

2:45: Ribner asks Crossen for pictures of Huerta

Unmarked time: Mayor Bass shows up to hospital room; they ask her to leave (and she does)

9:12: Crossen sends last clip from videos to Ribner (the discovery turned over provides nowhere near the “4 hours” or “100 videos” that Crossen told Ribner, five hours earlier, that he had taken (though the defense did not include all the texts in their exhibit)

9:36: Ribner obtains warrant for Huerta’s phone

10:30: Huerta attorney turns over the phone

June 8: Huerta charged with felony conspiracy

June 9: Case opened

June 17: Date created for one photo provided in discovery

June 19: Initial incident report; Ribner would later (in his September 10 interview) admit he wrote the report from memory and simply did not “recall that he told HUERTA, ‘You are not impeding’. He does not know why he did not include that statement in his report and agrees that his statement could sound exculpatory.”

June 23: Countersurveillance report from Crossen

July 2: Second set of discovery

July 17: Third set of discovery

July 28: Fourth set of discovery (including agent texts)

August 20: USAO interviews Brian Gonzalez, who drove the van allegedly blocked

August 27: USAO interviews Carey Crook; he told AUSAs that, contrary to Ribner’s claim, Huerta did not assault him

August 27: USAO interviews Crossen

September 9: USAO reinterviews Gonzalez; he says he does not remember Huerta straddling the van, as Crooks claimed

September 10: USAO interviews Ribner

September 11: Gonzalez starts at a new job at CBP

September 17: Later case opening date, possibly focusing on the lying agents

October 17: Huerta charged with misdemeanor

November 5: Huerta’s attorneys ask AUSA to identify the obstructive conduct

December 19: AUSA finally provides vague description of conduct

January 2: Interview of HSI Special Agent J Smith

January 9: Second interview with Brian Gonzalez

January 9: Interview with HSI Agent Andre Lemon

Bill Essayli Has an Identity Crisis

/27 Comments/in , /by

First Assistant AUSA Bill Essayli, who continues to serve most functions of US Attorney in Los Angeles even after Judge Michael Seabright ruled he’s not lawfully the US Attorney, has an identity crisis.

And it’s not his continued attempts to use textual gimmicks to obscure that he’s not the US Attorney, as the way he adds the initials “F.A.” in his Xitter profile as if his given name is “Fucking Asshole.”

Though the defendant who first forced a ruling that Essayli was playacting, Jaime Hector Rodriguez, continues to insist that Essayli can’t just change his title in a bid to keep powers he does not lawfully possess.

The simple answer is that Mr. Essayli is exercising power he does not possess. He has transcended the land of statutes. He is wielding significant authority, but the whole point is that he lacks that authority: it was not validly conferred on him by Congress. No powers are conferred on “a FAUSA” by statute, id., because the FAUSA position is absent from the statutes, R.M. 9–10. But this FAUSA has inferior-officer powers, because he is exercising powers he has never been conferred. E.g., R.M. 9 & n.2. This is just another way for the government to cast the trick it has played in benign language: appoint an ineligible individual to a vacant office, give him a different title not set out in the statutes, and thereby avoid all statutory limits on the appointment.

Lindsey Halligan’s similar identity problem in EDVA is heating up too.

Rather, I’m talking about the identity issues that threaten to destroy his efforts to criminalize doxing in the immigration context.

In US v. Raygoza, Essayli charged three women who followed an ICE officer — believing he was headed to conduct another snatching — only to arrive at his home. They continued to livestream, and from a neighbor’s property, they both invited others to come to the neighborhood but also announced to his neighbors that he’s la migra.

Yesterday, Fucking Asshole Bill Essayli responded to Sandra Samane’s and Ashleigh Brown’s motions to dismiss (Brown is represented by the same FPDs who made a frivolous assault charge against her go away last year). It’s not so much that their arguments were rock solid; motions to dismiss are really difficult to win. Rather, it’s that in the course of two footnotes, Fucking Asshole Bill Essayli revealed grave problems with his case. The second explained why a separate motion moved to dismiss the second count of the indictment, doxing, the crime which the defendants allegedly conspired to commit.

4 Defendants failed to state the actual home address of R.H. on social media, and instead said the number of a neighbor’s home approximately 100 feet from that of R.H. Because 18 U.S.C. § 119 criminalizes making publicly available “the home address” of covered individuals, the government has moved to dismiss the substantive count (Count Two).

The definition of restricted personal information as used in the law pertains only to the alleged victims own address; the defendants here livestreamed his neighbor’s address (in detention filings in her now-dismissed assault case, Brown explained that they stayed some distance from the victim’s house so as to comply with her release conditions).

A still graver problem for Fucking Asshole Bill Essayli is that — in a filing that elsewhere focuses closely on the terms specifically defined in the doxing statute (“restricted information” and “covered persons”) and on the import of the definitions generally (which is normal in responding to a void for vagueness challenge), Fucking Asshole Bill Essayli uses his first footnote to offer a definition of doxing.

1 Doxxing is short for “dropping documents.” Vangheluwe v. Got News, LLC, 365 F. Supp. 3d 850, 858 (E.D. Mich. 2019). The practice involves “using the Internet to source out and collect someone’s personal and private information and then publicly releasing that information online.” Id. The “goal of doxxing is typically retribution, harassment or humiliation.” Id.

He’s got two problems with that footnote.

First, what the defendants did — follow a guy home unwittingly and livestream where they ended up — is entirely different from “using the Internet to source out and collect someone’s personal and private information,” which only underscores that no one alleges that the defendants specifically sought out the ICE guy’s address. They didn’t dox him, according to the definition in this footnote.

Worse still, the defined goal of doxing in that footnote — “retribution, harrassment[,] or humiliation” — differs from the intent requirement in the statute:

(a) In General.—Whoever knowingly makes restricted personal information about a covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person, publicly available—

(1) with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person; or

(2) with the intent and knowledge that the restricted personal information will be used to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person,

The defendants may have doxed the ICE goon. They may well have decided to humiliate him in front of his neighbors by revealing that he is an ICE goon.

But there’s a chasm between hoping to humiliate someone who does a disfavored job and intending for someone to use that information to commit a crime of violence against them. Fucking Asshole Bill Essayli attempts to dodge that by saying the conspiracy should not incorporate the elements of the count he’s seeking to admit and also stating that they won’t argue the defendants intended a crime of violence to happen to the ICE guy.

Separately, Brown argues the indictment must be dismissed because it does not specify the “crime of violence” Brown allegedly intended to incite. (Brown Mot. 19-21.) Even assuming this argument is applicable to the conspiracy alleged in Count One and not just the substantive count the government has moved to dismiss, at trial the government does not intend to proceed on the theory that defendants conspired to release R.H.’s home address with the intent to incite the commission of a crime of violence against him, or did so with the intent and knowledge that the restricted information would be used to facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against him. Defendant’s argument with respect to this portion of the statute is thus moot.

But he never gets around to addressing the larger point. Humiliation is not a crime of violence. But it is also not a threat or even intimidation.

The problem with this is made more apparent when Fucking Asshole Bill Essayli engages in a hypothetical dismissing Brown’s attempt to say she couldn’t have doxed the victim, because his address was already public. Brown’s tack would lead to absurd results, Fucking Asshole Bill Essayli says, because if it held, then how would they criminalize someone threatening the daughter of a judge (like Trump’s doxing of Barack Obama, something Trump has done), and how would they criminalize a defendant posting a witness’ address with the intent they they be intimidated by the criminal’s mob (again, something Trump has done more than once or twice or a hundred times).

And to interpret the statute as Brown would have it would lead to absurd results. Take, for example, the hypothetical of a judge’s daughter posting a photograph on Instagram that reveals her home address: a photograph of her family standing outside her home where the mailbox is visible. A defendant who later appears before the judge would not be subject to prosecution for posting the judge’s home address on an online forum with the intent to threaten the judge due to the daughter’s prior Instagram post. Similarly, a juror, informant, or witness would be cut off from statutory protection if a defendant’s family member or gang associate followed her home and posted the address on Facebook to intimidate her, but her address was already listed in the Whitepages.

In both those cases, of course, a prosecutor could — and should have, in the case of serial criminal Donald Trump — charged that as obstruction, witness tampering.

But these hypotheticals only underscore the point: in a filing asserting that doxing is done for humiliation, Fucking Asshole Bill Essayli is dodging language that requires further intent, not just to humiliate a goon in front of his neighbors, but to threaten him.

Threatening someone with social opprobrium is not the same as threatening someone with physical violence.

Yet the former is what Fucking Asshole Bill Essayli attempts to criminalize here.

Fucking Asshole Bill Essayli wants to criminalize any effort to shame someone for doing a shameful job. And while the argument may well get beyond this effort to dismiss the indictment, he has confessed in this filing that these women didn’t commit the charged crime.

DHS Assaulting Protesters Because Goons Believe They Are “Vicious, Horrible People”

/51 Comments/in , , , , /by

215 days before Jonathan Ross shot Renee Good dead after Good’s wife, Becca, engaged in First Amendment protected taunting of Ross, HSI Special Agent Ryan Ribner rushed through a gate at at a Los Angeles garment factory and — along with ICE Officer Carey Crook — assaulted SEIU CA President David Huerta, targeting Huerta rather than several other people who were more directly blocking a van, the purported crime in question.

Huerta argued in a motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds submitted last week, days before Good’s killing,  that Ribner and Crook did not arrest Huerta for obstructing a Federal officer, which is what got charged after DOJ abandoned a claim that Huerta had conspired to impede officers, much less the assault that they contemplated charging initially, but because Huerta had engaged in that First Amendment protected taunting.

It may well be that Ribner lied when he claimed he didn’t learn Huerta was a powerful union leader until after he assaulted him. Months later, the undercover officer working the crowd, Jeremy Crossen, admitted people in the crowd referred to Huerta as a union “member,” though that didn’t appear in either the texts that got shared with Huerta in discovery — which described the institutional affiliation of others — or a countersurveillance report he wrote weeks after the assault, where he included the research he had done after the fact for everyone but the state president of one of the most powerful unions in the country, the guy who got assaulted.

But if Huerta wasn’t targeted because he’s a powerful Democrat (in Ribner’s report there’s a weird claim that the agent guarding Huerta in the hospital only “feigned” interest when Mayor Karen Bass showed up to Huerta’s hospital room), then the record shows little else beyond speech.

According to videos turned over in discovery, Ribner started predicting Huerta would go to jail based solely off taunting, mostly about their masks.

Mr. Huerta asked them, “How are you keeping us safe?” Agent Ribner’s response was: “You are gonna go to jail. You are not impeding us. You are not impeding us. You’re going to jail, [unintelligible from 0:00:09–00:11] and you’re going to jail.” Id. at 0:00:01–00:12. Mr. Huerta then repeatedly asked him, “What are you doing?” and told him, “I can’t hear you through your fuckin’ mask,” and pointed at Agent Ribner. Id. at 0:00:14–00:17. Agent Ribner can be heard replying: “You’re gonna go to jail, you’re going to jail.” Id. at 0:00:17. For the next few minutes, Mr. Huerta continued to protest in front of the gate, including conversing with Agent Ribner, Officer Crook, and other officers, including, according to agents’ after-the-fact reports, “aggressively”4 asking the officers to identify themselves, stating “What are you going to do… Where’s your fucking badge number… What’s your fucking name?” Ex. B at 9. He also allegedly stated: “You’re not police! You’re not fucking police! You’re not keeping me safe!”

Indeed, Ribner’s own report describes himself predicting that Huerta and others would obstruct them, so he instructed his colleagues to be prepared to make arrests.

Later, HUERTA approached the gate and began yelling and about wanting to see agents’ faces. At times HUERTA was putting his arms through the fence as he yelled, and on at least one occasion he pointed as well. HUERTA stated, “Your boss” [believed to be referring to President Trump] wants things “made in America”. HUERTA went on and said that the things were manufactured inside of Ambiance. HUERTA appeared to be aggressive and angry by his voice, demeanor, and facial features. At some point HUERTA walked up to the gate and asked either about the purpose or legit impact of agents’ duties. SSA Ribner asked HUERTA the purpose of what he was doing [regarding being belligerent with law enforcement]. HUERTA made a comment that he lived in the community and /or cared about the community. SSA Ribner advised HUERTA that “we” [agents] also live in the community. SSA Ribner made the comment to HUERTA in the hopes of obtaining HUERTA’s compliance by advising HUERTA that law enforcement agents are just like him and care about the community and are also part of the demographic of the southern California area.

[snip]

STRONG, and LENEHAN would highly likely block or impede law enforcement vehicles, cause damage to USG property, or commit a battery against agents as they attempt to depart. SSA Ribner informed the DEA agents that if anyone in the crowd impedes, blocks, or physically batters an agent that arrests would be made. [my emphasis]

“He pointed as well”!!! And from that (and perhaps in his view that Huerta was Hispanic? — though several other people present looked more obviously Hispanic), Ribner concluded Huerta was aggressive.

Even though a vehicle had already entered the gate Ribner stood behind without major obstruction, Ribner predicted that a white detainee van that pulled up shortly after the conflict with Huerta occurred, while the gate was still closed, would incite some response. Huerta was on the public sidewalk in front of the gate, though several other people were more directly in front of the van’s path. But when the gate did open, at which point Huerta was to the side of the van, Crook and Ribner rushed Huerta and pushed him down.

That’s when Ribner conducted a brutal arrest, even applying pepper spray to his hand and smothering Huerta’s face with it, because — he claimed after Huerta sought hospital treatment for a head injury — Ribner did not want Huerta to hit his head on the curb he was driving it into.

SSA Ribner decided to deploy a chemical agent (pepper spray) on HUERTA due to HUERTA actively resisting arrest, the angered crowd, and HUERTA’s safety as his head was near a cement curb and SSA Ribner didn’t want him suffering an injury. Due to the concern of over spraying the chemical agent with others nearby (SDDO C and the crowd) or spraying HUERTA directly in the eyes, SSA Ribner decided to spray a small amount of the chemical agent in his hand and place his hand near the upper nose area of HUERTA’s face. HUERTA began to make noises and say that he couldn’t breathe.

Huerta’s head got slammed, and Huerta sought immediate hospital care. In his arrest report — again, written after he learned Huerta had a head injury — Ribner describes feeling no lump on Huerta’s head but said he did so to help Huerta to clean the pepper spray that Ribner’s post hoc reports claim he specifically avoided getting in his eyes out of Huerta’s eyes.

Agent’s Note: During the arrest encounter SSA Ribner never personally observed HUERTA strike his head on the ground. Additionally, when SSA Ribner was decontaminating HUERTA, he placed his hands on the back of HUERTA’s head to help move his head back to place water in his eyes and face area. SSA Ribner never felt any bumps or cuts on the back of HUERTA’s head. Additionally, SSA Ribner didn’t observe any physical bumps or cuts on HUERTA’s head.

As so often has happened after DHS assaults and hurts someone, that night make-believe US Attorney Bill Essayli accused Huerta of assault.

And sometime later, Ribner was in a meeting with Todd Blanche, and Essayli promised Blanche this would go to trial in September or October.

GS Ribner stated he spoke with United States Attorney Bill Essayli about this case and others, such as the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) and Special Agent in Charge Eddie Wang. During the briefing, USA Essayli told the DAG that “this case is going to trial in September or October

It did not go to trial in September or October. Instead, as AUSAs learned more about what happened, they gave up the felony charge.

As you can tell from Ribner’s attempt to build in deniability for the head injury, Ribner obviously tried to reverse-engineer his actions, to provide some excuse for the assault.

As I noted at the time, when Ribner wrote the arrest affidavit back in June, he absurdly claimed that Huerta intimidated him because he banged on the gate.

“Banged on a gate” and “pointed as well”!?!?! No wonder they asked to detain Huerta pretrial.

Ribner’s initial arrest report (the same report where he denied knowledge of a head injury, which he wrote almost two weeks after the arrest) is full of things — including some alleged assaults by protesters, but also including exchanges like the local San Diegans who, days before the Huerta assault, shouted “shame” until ICE abandoned their effort to raid a local restaurant — that Ribner cited to explain why he implanted an undercover agent at the scene to seek out a vast conspiracy Ribner was sure existed.

Mostly, though, I suspect it was the shame.

Huerta was lucky. Because he’s an American citizen, he couldn’t be shunted off to a GEO prison and refused access to his attorneys, which is what make-believe US Attorney Essayli did to prevent Carlitos Ricardo Parias from unpacking the problems with the claims of assault against him. Because — unlike Renee Good — Huerta survived, DOJ had to try to invent a criminal case out of Ribner’s own actions.

But, it appears that by August, after several delays in attempting to indict Huerta, the whole charade started falling apart. Ribner’s report (which, on top of the obvious retconning of his actions, did not match the documented timeline in a few other areas) and the absence of any crime was bad enough. But the witness stories didn’t match, even though there’s good reason to believe they were coordinated after the fact. In addition to claiming he noticed Huerta arrive in real time rather than after Ribner called him out, Crossen described Huerta push back, something not captured in video (and which Crossen may not have been able to see from where he stood). Carey Crook (the guy who first pushed Huerta), falsely claimed Huerta had splayed himself across the van in an X, and similarly invented a claim that Ribner had sprayed Huerta, rather than smother his face in pepper spray. The driver of the van, Brian Gonzales, didn’t remember seeing Huerta in a first interview, but in a follow-up the day before he would start a new permanent job at CBP, he did, though he disputed Crook’s claim that Huerta had splayed across the van grill.

Crossen explained that his video didn’t capture Huerta in front of the van because he started filming just after that. He said he did all this on his personal phone because his government phone wasn’t working that day (in addition to the motion to dismiss, Huerta is also demanding the Cellebrite metadata for the texts extracted from the personal phones both Ribner and Crossen used that day). He admitted that Ribner gave instructions on how to write up his countersurveillance report, but didn’t tell him what to say.

Ribner’s was the last interview from this period when DOJ was stalling the case, a week before a new case opening date possibly focused on Ribner. When asked to describe his actions, as problems with the arrest must have become evident, Ribner explained simply that the peaceful protesters were “vicious, horrible people.”

GS Ribner stated HUERTA and other protesters are “vicious, horrible people”.[In reference to a still photo of video 2774 at 0:03], GS Ribner identified HUERTA. He recalled telling HUERTA, “You better not block the cars”. He stated that HUERTA was not in the way of vehicles or personnel at this point.

Stephen Miller has told all Trump supporters, especially those who work at DHS, that people who support immigration are vicious, horrible people. And he gave them rules of engagement that invited assaults like this, assaults they simply bury in often-failed attempts to criminalize the victim.

It’s surprising it took seven months before someone Stephen Miller has defined as a vicious horrible person got killed.

Timeline

June 6: Arrest

9:00 AM: HSI task force officer (and Inglewood cop) Jeremy Crossen arrives under cover

9:20: Agents start executing search

9:57: Crossen interacts with Asian woman

10:26: Crossen interacts w/Hispanic protestor, claims he is monitoring the police

10:33: Crossen texts Ribner

11:07: Crossen sees pick-up without plates whose Hispanic driver films

11:19: Crossen describes a Hispanic woman with a neck gaiter; his report provides background on a Kids of Immigrants sweatshirt she wears; start time of alleged criminal conduct

11:25: A sedan enters the gate; after an agent instructs those filming it to step away, they do; Crossen texts Ribner,

 

11:31: A Hispanic woman whom Crossen IDs by name shows up, makes phone calls

11:36: Crossen describes a white woman by name, describes that she masked as the crowd grew

11:37: Crossen describes the Hispanic leader of ACCE Action, Council Member Jose Delgado, show up, make calls

11:49: Crossen claims he sees Huerta walk up

11:51: A white woman from Tenants Union starts yelling obscenities

11:53: Ribner instructs Crossen to focus on Huerta

11:54: Huerta and others sit in front of the gate

12:01 PM: Ribner leaves the property and assaults Huerta [note his report timeline goes haywire in here]

12:00-12:09: Crossen texts Ribner

12:15: Crossen claims van arrives (his description describe others who were in front of the van, then says Huerta also was)

12:15: Ribner calls 911 (claiming this is about pepper spray)

12:18: Crossen describes a scrimmage line

12:20-12:40: Discussions about Huerta’s attempt to call his attorney

12:30: LAFD responds; Huerta asks to be brought to the hospital; Crossen describes LAFD arrival this way:

At approximately 12:28 p.m., TFO Crossen observed a Los Angeles City Fire truck with activated emergency lights and loud audible siren, attempting to gain entry to the business, still being blocked by protestors, to render aid for HUERTA, inside the business, who had been exposed to OC Spray, during his arrest.

12:40: Ribner reports arrest to CACD US Attorney office

12:42: Ribner tells Crossen his personal phone is out of battery, asks him to use his government one

12:47: Ribner admits he used pepper spray

1:05: Ribner speaks to USAO again

1:30: Huerta taken to hospital w/agent in car

2:45: Ribner asks Crossen for pictures of Huerta

Unmarked time: Mayor Bass shows up to hospital room; they ask her to leave (and she does)

9:12: Crossen sends last clip from videos to Ribner (the discovery turned over provides nowhere near the “4 hours” or “100 videos” that Crossen told Ribner, five hours earlier, that he had taken (though the defense did not include all the texts in their exhibit)

9:36: Ribner obtains warrant for Huerta’s phone

10:30: Huerta attorney turns over the phone

June 8: Huerta charged with felony conspiracy

June 9: Case opened

June 17: Date created for one photo provided in discovery

June 19: Initial incident report; Ribner would later (in his September 10 interview) admit he wrote the report from memory and simply did not “recall that he told HUERTA, ‘You are not impeding’. He does not know why he did not include that statement in his report and agrees that his statement could sound exculpatory.”

June 23: Countersurveillance report from Crossen

July 2: Second set of discovery

July 17: Third set of discovery

July 28: Fourth set of discovery (including agent texts)

August 20: USAO interviews Brian Gonzalez, who drove the van allegedly blocked

August 27: USAO interviews Carey Crook; he told AUSAs that, contrary to Ribner’s claim, Huerta did not assault him

August 27: USAO interviews Crossen

September 9: USAO reinterviews Gonzalez; he says he does not remember Huerta straddling the van, as Crooks claimed

September 10: USAO interviews Ribner

September 11: Gonzalez starts at a new job at CBP

September 17: Later case opening date, possibly focusing on the lying agents

October 17: Huerta charged with misdemeanor

November 5: Huerta’s attorneys ask AUSA to identify the obstructive conduct

December 19: AUSA finally provides vague description of conduct

Bill Essayli Moves to Dismiss Key “Assault” Case before DOJ Has to Explain What It Knew

/20 Comments/in /by

The high profile politicized prosecutions — of Jim Comey, Tish James, and John Bolton (and of LaMonica McIver if the press weren’t broken) — are really important tests of Trump’s attempt to turn DOJ into a weapon.

But the relatively anonymous cases — as often as not, defended by Federal Public Defenders — are just important a vindication of rule of law.

Today’s important victory goes to Ashleigh Brown. She was charged in conjunction with a confrontation with Federal Protective Services (not, NOT ICE or CBP) outside Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles on August 2.

c. Approximately three [Federal Protective Services] Officers, including FPS Officer Z.C., walked out to remove REDONDO-ROSALES from the path of the government car. As the group of FPS officers approached REDONDO-ROSALES, he moved backwards away from the FPS officers in an apparent attempt to avoid being apprehended. Then, FPS Officer Z.C. approached REDONDO-ROSALES in an effort to detain him, and REDONDO-ROSALES intentionally struck Officer Z.C. in the face with his left hand (at the time, REDONDO-ROSALES had a tan, wide-brimmed hat in his left hand).

d. After FPS officers were able to detain REDONDORO-SALES, Officer Z.C. and approximately four other FPS officers began to escort REDONDO-ROSALES towards the Alameda Street Entrance.

e. As Officer Z.C. walked a few feet in front of the two FPS officers who were escorting REDONDO-ROSALES toward the Alameda Street Entrance, BROWN approached Officer Z.C. and stepped into Officer Z.C.’s path. Officer Z.C. continued past BROWN toward the Alameda Street Entrance, but as he did so, BROWN intentionally hit Officer Z.C. in his left side with her right arm.

The felony charge against Brown was reportedly no-billed by a jury. For whatever reason, Bill Essayli charged her with misdemeanor interference instead, only to succeed in getting her detained after she allegedly violated bail by following an ICE officer home, for which she and two others were charged with conspiracy to dox him.

Though in Brown’s response to a 404(b) notice attempting to present the doxing case to the “assault” jury, her lawyers claimed that, “R.H. got into his personal vehicle and drove to where Ms. Brown was parked. He stopped his vehicle in the driveway, blocking Ms. Brown’s vehicle from leaving.” That is, even on the case that did get indicted, the cop in question arguably instigated the confrontation.

There were a number of things that would have been interesting if this had gone to trial, including Brown’s sealed filings about why she had a claim of self defense, as well as her success, after submitting them, in getting an order to share DHS’ Use of Force guidelines.

But things got interesting today when Brown submitted a motion to disqualify the victim in this case, ZC, from testifying based on DOJ’s failure to tell the defense that he had a (misdemeanor) criminal record, most notably a conviction in a harassment involving physical contact charge just four years ago.

C. Defense Discovers Z.C.’s Criminal History

On October 23, 2025, while preparing for trial in this matter, defense counsel learned that Z.C. has criminal history that includes at least:

  • Harassment – subjecting a person to physical contact, in violation of Pennsylvania Statute § 18.2709(a)(1), convicted on June 17, 2021;
  • Disorderly conduct, in violation of Florida Statute § 509.143, arrested on August 31, 2014; and
  • Driving under the influence, in violation of Florida Statute § 316193(1), convicted on November 4, 2013.

Exhibits H, I, filed under seal.

These records were obtained through independent defense investigation. Of note, the defense does not have access to law enforcement databases and thus cannot confirm whether this is Z.C.’s complete criminal history or whether there is additional relevant information about these or any other arrests or convictions.

D. Defense Contacts the USAO With Its Findings. The USAO States It Was Not Aware of Z.C.’s Assault History.

On October 26, 2025, after further research and internal discussion, defense counsel contacted government counsel regarding its findings. Government counsel requested a few hours to investigate and respond. Later that evening, the parties conferred by telephone. Government counsel indicated that it was not previously aware of Z.C.’s 2021 conviction for assault. The government had asked Z.C. about his prior convictions in interviews. The government was only aware of Z.C.’s 2014 arrest for disorderly conduct and his 2013 conviction for driving under the influence. In addition, government counsel stated that it had not conducted an independent Henthorn review of Z.C., but had relied on the word and responsiveness of another agency (FPS) to conduct a Henthorn review of Z.C.’s personnel file.

The judge in the case, Obama appointee Fernando Olguin, was not only interested in learning more about DOJ’s failure to disclose this detail, but also who, if anyone, knew about ZC’s criminal history, and if so, why they didn’t disclose it.

Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Complete Personnel Files and Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Z.C., (Dkt. 83, “Motion”), the court concludes that it would benefit from full briefing on the issues presented in the Motion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The government shall file its papers in opposition to the Motion by no later than Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 5:00 p.m.

2. Together with its opposition, the government must submit a declaration signed by counsel for the government that sets forth the names and titles of the individuals who conducted the Henthorn and/or Brady reviews of the relevant personnel file materials, and the dates on which such reviews were conducted. Counsel for the government is cautioned that failure to provide such a declaration may lead to the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to the exclusion of evidence and/or witnesses.

Normally, when DOJ has decided they have to abandon false assault charges, they attempt to dismiss without prejudice.

Not so here. They’re filing to dismiss with prejudice.

The United States moves to dismiss its information with prejudice against defendant in the interests of justice under Federal Criminal Rule 48(a), and therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion. Defendant does not oppose dismissal and the parties agree all pending motions should be denied as moot.

Brown’s legal troubles are not done. The doxing case is a felony, and as a conspiracy case, DOJ has broader leeway for introducing evidence against Brown. She remains detained (based on her prior violation of bail) in that case.

But DOJ has been attempting to link these two cases, presumably as a way to salvage the initial assault case.

And even that tactic could now backfire.

US v Brown (assault) docket

US v. Raygoza (conspiracy to dox) docket