Have any court‑martial records or military proceedings been publicly released that reference the soldier and child pornography described by Lisa Noelle Voldeng?

1. What the primary sources claim about a military court‑martial

Voldeng’s Substack posts and associated summaries repeatedly state that among the corroborative materials she has handled are “copies of a circa 2010 report (and attendant child pornography material) stored in the permanent records of a United States military base” and that those records “detail the court‑martial of a soldier” found with child pornography allegedly depicting Riley and Samantha ^{[1] [2] [7]}. Those claims form a central piece of the narrative she published and redistributed to journalists, advocacy contacts and, she says, law enforcement ^[8].

2. What independent reporting has verified (and not verified)

Multiple outlets summarizing the viral audio emphasize that the testimony and associated documentary claims remain unverified and that mainstream media had not independently corroborated the records or authenticated the tapes as of January 2026 ^{[3] [4] [6]}. Recurring language across these reports frames the military record as an allegation offered by Voldeng and Riley rather than as a publicly posted or government‑published court‑martial file ^{[3] [5]}. None of the provided reporting supplies a link, docket number, Freedom of Information Act release, or scanned document from military judicial channels that would show a publicly released court‑martial transcript, charge sheet, convening order, judge’s opinion, or other formal proceeding record.

3. Law‑enforcement contact and chain of custody claims

Voldeng states that she distributed audio and a “list of corroborative evidence” to police, the OSBI, congressional offices and others, and that Riley provided a deposition to Oklahoma police which was later transferred to OSBI (Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation) because of multi‑state jurisdictional issues ^[8]. Reporting notes these claims but also records that OSBI “hasn’t followed up” publicly and that there is no independent confirmation in the cited reporting that prosecutors or military authorities have released or publicly acknowledged the specific military court‑martial documentation Voldeng references ^{[8] [5]}.

4. Alternative explanations, implicit agendas, and limits of the record

The absence of a publicly released military proceeding in the reporting leaves open several possibilities that reputable coverage typically flags: the documents may exist but remain sealed or classified within military records; they may be mischaracterized in secondary accounts; or they may be claimed by the publisher without independent documentary proof available to journalists ^{[3] [5]}. Voldeng and her supporters present an agenda of urgent disclosure and protection for a purported survivor, while mainstream outlets prioritize corroboration and published evidence before treating such claims as proven—an epistemic tension visible across the sources ^{[7] [6]}. The material provided to journalists and the public in these sources does not include an actual military court‑martial docket, judgment, or other proceeding transcript that could be cited as a publicly released record ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Bottom line

Based on the corpus of reporting supplied, there is no publicly released court‑martial record or military proceeding document presented in independent coverage that substantiates Voldeng’s specific claim about a circa‑2010 military report and attendant child‑pornography materials depicting Riley and Samantha; the claim exists as an allegation in Voldeng’s Substack and related summaries, and outlets that reviewed the material label it unverified ^{[1] [3] [4] [5] [6]}. That remains the factual limit of what the provided sources support; they do not prove the existence of a publicly accessible military court‑martial file nor do they provide evidence that such a file has been made available for third‑party inspection ^{[3] [5]}.