What FOIA records, if any, have been requested or released related to Sasha/Sascha Riley’s claims?
Executive summary
The available reporting shows widespread public claims that documents relevant to Sasha/Sascha Riley’s viral audio exist and “can be obtained” via FOIA or public records requests, but there is no verified reporting that specific FOIA requests have produced records directly tied to Riley’s allegations; most stories say the materials remain unverified and recommend FOIA as a next step [1] [2] [3]. Advocacy and the publisher pushing the audio assert that records—police reports, CPS files, FBI files and depositions—are or should be obtainable, yet the sources reviewed do not document any confirmed FOIA release of those Riley-specific files [3] [2] [1].
1. What proponents and publishers claim is FOIA‑accessible
Those promoting the Riley recordings repeatedly state that there are official records—police reports, CPS case files in multiple states, FBI files about specific raids, and filmed depositions—that can be obtained through FOIA or public-records requests, and some pieces of that narrative are being explicitly urged to be requested by journalists and activists [3] [2]. The Substack publisher and others argue the audio was released “in the interest of the public” and say corroborative materials exist with law‑enforcement agencies and courts, framing FOIA as the mechanism to verify the recordings [4] [1].
2. What reporters have actually found and published so far
Major and regional outlets reporting on the viral audios emphasize that the recordings and the linked documentary claims are unverified and that no mainstream investigations or courts have authenticated them, while noting earlier large public releases tied to the Epstein investigations that did include thousands of pages but were heavily redacted—context that supporters cite when demanding additional FOIA releases [5] [6]. Reporting reviewed does not document any concrete FOIA production—no named FOIA request with release dates or released Riley‑specific police/CPS/FBI files appears in these sources [5] [2].
3. Demands, FOIA strategies and third‑party dossiers
Independent investigators and newsletter writers have laid out explicit FOIA strategies—listing CPS jurisdictions (Texas, Tennessee, Alabama), FBI file requests (for a referenced Tennessee raid), and local police records as the paper trail that could corroborate or disprove Riley’s account—and they have urged readers and reporters to file those requests [3]. A social media post claims a filmed deposition was given and that “a judge has ordered that it be made public,” but that claim appears in a Threads post and has not been substantiated by a corresponding public docket or posted court order in the reporting provided [7].
4. Contradictions, caveats and political context to FOIA talk
News coverage repeatedly flags that the audio’s authenticity remains unverified and warns against assuming FOIA‑ability equals public availability: federal and state records can be exempt or redacted, and earlier DOJ releases tied to Epstein were incomplete and heavily redacted—an explicit political flashpoint that fuels calls for more disclosures and accusations that “the most important documents are missing” [5] [6]. That context suggests dual agendas: publishers and activists use FOIA as a tool to validate explosive claims, while political actors and the public use the absence of immediate FOIA confirmation to either amplify suspicion or demand proof depending on partisan leanings [5] [4].
5. Bottom line and limits of current reporting
Based on the reviewed reporting, there are widespread assertions that FOIA or public records requests can yield police, CPS, FBI, and deposition files relevant to Sasha/Sascha Riley, and investigative writers have encouraged filing such requests, but the sources do not document any specific FOIA request that has produced and released Riley‑specific records to date; the absence of such a documented release is repeatedly noted by the outlets covering the viral audio [3] [2] [1]. If additional records are released or specific FOIA productions occur, those developments are not captured in the sources provided and would require follow‑up reporting or direct searches of FOIA portals and court dockets.