What public records requests (FOIA, state open-records) have been filed relating to Sascha Riley and what were their outcomes?
Executive summary
There is widespread public discussion and repeated calls in reporting and advocacy pieces for FOIA and state open-records requests tied to Sascha (Sasha/William Sascha) Riley’s allegations, and Riley himself has publicly demanded release of unredacted Epstein files, but the sourced reporting contains no confirmed records of specific FOIA/state-request filings or of any completed requests producing documents as of January 2026 [1] [2] [3].
1. What reporters and advocates say should be requested
Multiple pieces covering Riley’s audio testimony explicitly list the public records that journalists and investigators have urged be sought: CPS case files from Texas, Tennessee and Alabama, FBI investigative files tied to incidents Riley describes (including a purported “Tennessee basement raid”), and military records or court-martial files connected to alleged service-member prosecutions and child‑pornography evidence — all identified as FOIA- or state-open-records‑eligible repositories for corroboration [1] [3] [4].
2. Requests Riley and his publisher have publicly demanded
Riley, according to reporting, has asked for the full release of unredacted Epstein files to support his story, a demand echoed by the publisher of the released interviews who frames FOIA access as central to verification; those public demands are documented in coverage but are described as requests for agency release, not as formal FOIA-tracking entries in the public record described by reporters [2] [5].
3. Claims that material is “obtainable by FOIA” vs. evidence of filings
Several authors and the interviewer assert that “much” of the alleged evidence — pornography films, videos, CPS reports, FBI reports, a military court‑martial file — is “obtainable by FOIA” or by investigator records requests, and encourage such steps for verification [3] [6]. Those statements recommend avenues for documentary proof but do not themselves document that records requests were actually filed or that agencies produced responsive records [1] [6].
4. What the reporting actually confirms about FOIA outcomes
The assembled sources repeatedly note the absence of independent verification of Riley’s claims and explicitly state that alleged materials have not been publicly produced through FOIA or other releases as of January 2026; one report further notes that Riley “does not appear to be a notable or easily identifiable figure in the Epstein‑related documents” that were unsealed by the Department of Justice in late 2025/early 2026 [4] [2]. In short, published coverage documents calls for records and public demands for release but does not establish completed records requests or successful disclosures tied to Riley.
5. Why there’s a gap between “fileable” requests and records produced
The sources illustrate several reasons for the gap: complex jurisdictional custody of different types of records (local CPS files vs. federal FBI files vs. military court records), routine suppression/redaction of child‑sexual‑abuse material and CSAM under law, and the difficulty of matching alternate names and adoption histories in archival indices — all factors reporters say can delay or block public delivery even when requests are filed [1] [3] [6].
6. Conflicting narratives, implicit agendas, and what transparency would look like
Coverage divides between publishers and advocates pressing for rapid disclosure to corroborate survivor testimony and skeptical journalists urging caution and verification; those pushing records requests emphasize accountability and corroboration, while critics warn of sensational claims that lack documentary support, an implicit tension visible across reporting and opinion pieces [3] [6] [7]. The sources make clear that the next verifiable step would be documented FOIA/state‑records filings and the disclosure notices or releases those filings generate — items not present in the cited reporting [1] [2].
7. Practical next steps noted in reporting for anyone seeking records
Reporters and commentators in the cited pieces recommend targeted public‑records strategies — filing state CPS open‑records requests in the specified states, submitting FOIA requests to the FBI for named incidents, and seeking military service and court‑martial files through Department of Defense channels — while acknowledging legal limits around CSAM and privacy redactions; those recommendations are presented as investigatory roadmaps rather than reports of completed requests or outcomes [1] [4] [3].