What FOIA or military records would be relevant to verifying a claimed 2010 court‑martial referenced in Sascha Riley’s testimony, and how are such requests filed?
Executive summary
Verifying a claimed circa‑2010 U.S. military court‑martial referenced in Sascha Riley’s testimony requires targeted requests for courts‑martial records, investigative case files, and personnel records across the relevant service, and those requests must be routed to the specific FOIA release authorities that control trial records and investigative files (Navy/Marine Corps Criminal Law Division for Marine courts‑martial; NCIS for criminal investigations; National Archives for personnel files) [1] [2]. The reporting notes that some investigators believe corroborative materials may exist in permanent military records and could be sought by FOIA, but access will be constrained by Privacy Act protections and prosecutorial or evidentiary exemptions [3] [4] [2].
1. What records would most directly corroborate a 2010 court‑martial
The most probative records are the official record of trial (ROD/OPR) and transcripts from special or general courts‑martial, the convening authority’s action, and any related filed charges/charge sheets; these are the documents the Criminal Law Division (Code 20) controls for Navy and Marine Corps cases and is the primary release authority for such trials [1]. Equally important are military investigative files compiled by the service investigative arm (for Marines and Navy, NCIS) that would include investigative reports, exhibits indexing, and potentially forensic materials noted by reporting as “attendant” evidence tied to a circa‑2010 report [3] [1]. Service personnel files (Official Military Personnel File/OMPF) can corroborate unit assignments, service dates, and notations of non‑judicial or judicial actions and are obtainable through the National Archives’ personnel records channels [2].
2. Secondary corroboration: exhibits, lab reports, and supporting agency files
Beyond the court papers and investigative reports, corroboration often hinges on exhibits logs, forensic lab reports (digital forensics of media), child protective or local law enforcement case files if civilian agencies were involved, and prosecutorial correspondence; reporting asserts such items—videos, CPS and FBI reports—are claimed to exist in base permanent records and could be sought, although the reporting also says some evidence has been suppressed [3] [4]. Requests to the investigative agency (NCIS for Navy/Marine matters) should be lodged separately because investigative files are managed by that agency rather than by the Criminal Law Division [1].
3. How to file: offices, routing, and request language
Begin with the release authority for the service: for Marine Corps courts‑martial, submit a FOIA to the Navy JAG Criminal Law Division (Code 20) which handles special and general court‑martial records of trial, clearly identifying the case by approximate year, names, service number or unit, and the nature of the allegation; the JAG office’s FOIA page explains this division is the initial authority for such records [1]. Simultaneously submit a separate NCIS FOIA request for investigative files to ncis_foia@ncis.navy.mil if NCIS conducted the probe, and submit an OMPF request through the National Archives for personnel and administrative records if public‑release information about assignments or NJP is sought [1] [2]. Where relevant to other services, use service FOIA coordinators listed in public guides (e.g., Army/AF/Coast Guard contacts) and follow their electronic submission instructions [5].
4. Practical constraints, exemptions, and next steps
Expect redactions and possible denials under Privacy Act protections and exemptions for law‑enforcement‑sensitive material, classified information, or material involving child sexual abuse imagery—reporting notes allegations that corroborative items exist but that much has been suppressed or is sensitive [3] [4] [2]. If initial FOIA responses are denied or heavily redacted, administrative appeals to the service FOIA appellate authority are available; investigative or legislative subpoena powers (Congress, prosecutors) are often required to compel release of highly sensitive exhibits that FOIA will withhold, a reality the cited reporting implies by urging investigators and Congress to act [6] [3].
5. Verification strategy and limitations in the public record
A systematic verification plan starts with naming the service and likely unit, filing parallel FOIAs with the Criminal Law Division (Code 20), NCIS, and the National Archives OMPF office, and tracking responses while preparing appeals or seeking congressional assistance if needed [1] [2] [7]. The sources consulted emphasize starting with the “most verifiable” documents—court‑martial records and aviation/personnel logs—and caution that while some publishers claim materials are obtainable, public reporting so far does not produce independently verified court docket numbers or released evidentiary exhibits, so FOIA is the practical next step rather than relying on circulation of unverified audio or assertions [6] [4].