Federal and Appellate Judges Invalid 72 Hr Removal Requests Sent to LIT During Friday Suppertime

Delete Me Demands are emailed via a private entity called Abine, Inc, a computer software development company focused on privacy tools.

The U.S. Government Have Decided to Blitz LIT

JUN 4, 2023

This article will be updated frequently during the 72 hr window. Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.

LIT’s legal blog fits the statutory meaning of “exercise of the right of free speech” and is therefore the type of protected communications and/or is clearly related to matters of public concern, as LIT serves it’s blog to the public community.

However, when LIT’s legal blog investigates and writes negatively about the 3 Branches of Government, especially the judiciary, then this immunity is apparently rescinded. The following judges have endorsed LIT’s statement in their signed Power of Attorney letters to the third party vendor responsible for transmitting the invalid removal requests.

Abine Inc
DBA DeleteMe
P.O Box 55
Somerville, MA 02143

June 02, 2023

Dear Legal Representative:

Please be advised that Abine, Inc. dba DeleteMe, is an authorized agent through the Administrative Office of the US Courts to act on behalf of the Honorable (Andrew Oldham, Don Willett, John DeGravelles, Mark Lane Hornsby, Matthew Kacsmaryk, Stephen Higginson, Sul Ozerden, Taylor McNeel). We are requesting that the following information be removed from

Andrew Oldham 845 Bell Springs Rd, Dripping Springs, TX – 78620

Don Willett

John DeGravelles 632 Stanford Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA – 70808

Mark Lane Hornsby 4270 McKneely Rd, Shreveport, LA – 71107

Matthew Kacsmaryk 8007 Valcour Dr, Amarillo, TX – 79119

Stephen Higginson 639 Broadway St, New Orleans, LA – 70118

Sul Ozerden 385 Fly-Away Ct, Biloxi, MS – 39531

Taylor McNeel

A new bill was recently passed and now has been enacted in Congress, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2023, named Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022 (H.R. 7776, Sec. 5931 – the “Act”).

This Act prohibits individuals and businesses from disclosing covered information of at-risk individuals, who are defined as federal judges and their immediate families, as publicly available content, and upon written request from the federal judge affected or their authorized agent, requires their covered information to be removed from any publicly available content within 72 hours of the request for removal.

The Act defines a data broker as “a commercial entity engaged in collecting, assembling, or maintaining personal information concerning an individual who is not a customer, client, or an employee of that entity in order to sell the information or otherwise profit from providing third-party access to the information”.

Further, the Act sets forth that “It shall be unlawful for a data broker to knowingly sell, license, trade for consideration, transfer, or purchase covered information for an at-risk individual or immediate family member.” is a data broker website

which collects and shares name, address, relatives, and age online, therefore, is a data broker under the Act. The information discloses is publicly available content because the name, address, relatives, and age, that may include covered information of at-risk individuals, are shared on the public internet (“online”).

Therefore, this letter (the “Removal Request”) serves as a formal written request, on behalf of the Honorable (Andrew Oldham, Don Willett, John DeGravelles, Mark Lane Hornsby, Matthew Kacsmaryk, Stephen Higginson, Sul Ozerden, Taylor McNeel), for to remove all of their covered information and any included immediate family member’s covered information from and any affiliate database sites, as defined under the Act.

Please be advised that this Removal Request will not be one in a series of Removal Request letters and that under the Act receipt of this Removal Request obligates to abide by this Removal Request within 72 hours of receipt of this letter.

Likewise, any failure to remove the covered information from and any affiliate database sites within 72 hours of receipt of this Removal Request is a violation of the Act whereby the federal judge, including any of their immediate family members, “may bring an action seeking injunctive or declaratory relief in any court of competent jurisdiction” against

Should you have any questions, please send your inquiry to


Team DeleteMe

Abine provides consumers with online privacy solutions that are innovative, easy to use, and work for everyday web users. With proven tools, Abine enables people to both benefit from the web and retain control over their personal information.

Millions of consumers have used Abine’s privacy solutions.

Abine: online privacy starts here. Abine’s flagship product, Blur, is a free browser add-on that is a secure password manager which also blocks online tracking by hundreds of advertising companies and social networks.

Additionally, Blur’s masking tools allow consumers to used “Masked” identities, helping them control the amount of personal information that they’re giving away online.

Abine’s DeleteMe is a premium service that removes consumers’ personal information listings from the largest data collection websites.

Abine has partnered with global security companies, including Check Point and Avira, to power the Do Not Track technology in their security offerings.

Abine is also partnered with numerous organizations to deliver its DeleteMe service, including

the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV),

the California Judges Association (CJA)


The Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC).

Abine is backed by premier venture capital firms Accomplice Venture and General Catalyst Partners.


$6 million

$5.00 Million

81(36 on RocketReach)


Boston, Massachusetts, MA, United States, US

(800) 928-1987

JavaScript, HTML, PHP +65 more (view full list)

Business Services, Software Development, Network Management Software, Ad Network, Internet privacy software, Software Development & Design, Application Software, Advertising, Browser add-ons, E-Commerce, Extensions, Software, Commerce and Shopping, Privacy, Tracker blocking, FinTech, Privacy protection and management, Financial Services, Information Technology, Online Privacy, Internet, Internet Privacy, Internet Services, Privacy and Security

Web Rank

Web Visits
1 Million

blur, blur abine, abine, deleteme, delete me


73, 7371

5112, 511210

Judge Willett taking his own family security seriously on Social Media

This was tweeted on May 26. The removal request on June 2. That’s only a week later.

LIT is neither a “Data Broker”, nor a “Commercial Entity”

JUN 2, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 3, 2023
JUN 4, 2023

Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.

Can a non-profit be called a ‘commercial entity’?

No, a non-profit organization cannot be called a commercial entity. Non-profit organizations, also known as not-for-profit organizations, are established with the primary goal of furthering a particular social cause or providing a public benefit. They are typically exempt from certain taxes because their profits are not distributed to owners or shareholders but are reinvested into the organization to support its mission.

On the other hand, a commercial entity, such as a corporation or a business, is established with the intention of making a profit for its owners or shareholders. Commercial entities engage in activities and transactions primarily for financial gain.

While both non-profit organizations and commercial entities operate in the realm of business and can have revenue streams, their fundamental purposes and structures are different. Non-profits are focused on fulfilling a social mission, while commercial entities are primarily concerned with generating profits.

– ChatGPT

“To curb the rise in threats and harassment against federal judges, the Threat Management Branch of the AO’s Judiciary Security Division has recently instituted various initiatives to identify, remove, and monitor judges’ PII including email addresses which appear in;

data-broker websites,

state and local public records,

social media,


the dark web.

A public filing which republishes federal judges’ email addresses undermines these efforts. ”

Several states have enacted legislation to help keep PII of judges and public officials confidential, see e.g. , Nev. Rev. Stat . §§ 247.500 -600, 250.100-230, 293.900-920; Ill. Comp. Stat . §§ 90/1, 90/2, 90/3, 90/4; Va. Code Ann . § 18.2-186.4:1 ; Utah Code Ann . § 63G-2-303 ; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann . 66 § 10B, and there is promising proposed federal legislation which would also protect judges’ PII. See Madison Alder, Judicial Security Measure Added to Must-Pass Senate Defense Bill , Bloomberg Law , Oct. 11, 2022 (reporting that the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021 – a bill that would protect federal judges’ PII online – has been added to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2023).

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion for recusal links my spouse to me and discloses certain information about my spouse (through their linkage to me) that likely would be considered “covered information” in the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021. S. 2340, 117th Cong. (2021). The motion for recusal gratuitously paid lip service to the notion of privacy by redacting only a picture of Dr. SL, while leaving repeated instances of “covered information” intact in the filing.”

Download the Overview (2020 Edition) (PDF)


The “Overview of the Privacy Act of 1974,” prepared by the Department of Justice’s Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCL), constitutes a discussion of various provisions of the Privacy Act, as addressed by court decisions in cases involving the Act’s disclosure prohibition, its access and amendment provisions, and its agency recordkeeping requirements.

Tracking the provisions of the Act itself, the Overview provides reference to and legal analysis of court decisions interpreting the Act. It is a comprehensive — but not exhaustive — resource that describes the current state of the law.

The Overview is not intended to provide policy guidance or create policy, as that role statutorily rests with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and where OMB has issued policy guidance on particular provisions of the Act, citation to such guidance is provided in the Overview. The 2020 edition of the Overview includes cases through April of 2020. It was published electronically in October 2020 and sent for print publication in November 2020. The online version will be a living document, and updated by OPCL in its discretion as appropriate.

OPCL is very pleased to provide this updated revision of the Overview, and could not have done so without the commitment of OPCL’s dedicated staff and the interagency Overview Working Group, who are recognized individually on the accompanying masthead. The organization and development of legal materials are the work product of OPCL, which is responsible for the Overview’s content.

Peter A. Winn
Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer
United States Department of Justice


A. Legislative History
B. Privacy Protection Study Commission
C. Office of Management and Budget Guidance
D. Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act


A. Extension of Privacy Act Remedies to Citizens of Designated Countries
B. Attorney General Designations Related to the U.S.-EU Data Protection and Privacy Agreement

1. Covered Countries under the DPPA
2. Designated Federal Agency or Component under the DPPA


A. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(1) – Agency
B. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2) – Individual
C. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(3) – Maintain
D. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(4) – Record
E. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5) – System of Records


A. The “No Disclosure without Consent” Rule
B. Twelve Exceptions to the “No Disclosure without Consent” Rule

1. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(1) – Need to Know within Agency
2. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(2) – Required FOIA Disclosure
3. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(3) – Routine Uses
4. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(4) – Bureau of the Census
5. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(5) – Statistical Research
6. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(6) – National Archives
7. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(7) – Law Enforcement Request
8. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(8) – Health or Safety of an Individual
9. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9) – Congress
10. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(10) – Government Accountability Office
11. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11) – Court Order
12. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(12) – Debt Collection Act



A. The Privacy Act and the FOIA
B. FOIA/Privacy Act Interface Examples: Access
C. Records Requests and Searches
D. Third Party Interests



A. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1) – Maintain Only Relevant and Necessary Information
B. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(2) – Collect Information, to the Greatest Extent Practicable, Directly from the Individual
C. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3) – Inform Individuals when Asking to Collect Information
D. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4) – Publish System of Records Notice
E. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) – Maintain Accurate, Relevant, Timely, and Complete Records
F. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(6) – Review Records Prior to Dissemination
G. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(7) – Record Describing The Exercise of Rights Guaranteed by the First Amendment
H. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(8) – Notice of Court Disclosure
I. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(9) – Rules of Conduct
J. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(10) Establish Safeguards
K. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(11) Publish New or Intended Use


A. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(f)(1) – Establish Notification Procedures
B. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(f)(2) – Define Time, Place, and Requirements for Identifying Individuals
C. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(f)(3) – Establish Procedures for Disclosure of Records to Individuals
D. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(f)(4) – Establish Procedures for Requests and Appeals
E. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(f)(5) – Establish Copying Fees


A. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(A) – Amendment Lawsuits
B. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(B) – Access Lawsuits
C. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(C) – Damages Lawsuits for Failure to Assure Fairness in Agency Determination
D. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(D) – Damages Lawsuits For Failure to Comply with Other Privacy Act Provisions
E. Principles Applicable to Damages Lawsuits

1. Intentional or Willful Standard
2. Actual Damages
3. Limits on Injunctive Relief for Damages Claims
4. Additional Considerations for Damages Claims

F. Principles Applicable to All Privacy Act Civil Actions

1. Attorney Fees and Costs
2. Jurisdiction and Venue
3. Statute of Limitations
4. Jury Trial



A. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(5) – Special Exemption for Information Compiled for Civil Action
B. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j) – Two General Exemptions for Central Intelligence Agency and Criminal Law Enforcement
C. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k) – Seven Specific Exemption Rules Agencies May Promulgate

1. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(1) – FOIA Exemption 1, Classified Information
2. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(2) – Investigative Law Enforcement Materials
3. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(3) – Secret Service Records
4. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(4) – Statistical Records
5. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(5) – Source-Identifying Investigatory Material Compiled for Determining Suitability, Eligibility, or Other Qualification
6. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(6) – Testing or Examination Materials
7. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(7) – Source-Identifying Armed Services Promotion Material


A. Exception for Disclosures Required by Federal Statute
B. Exception for Laws and Regulations in Effect before January 1, 1975
C. Federal, State, and Local Government Notice Requirements
D. Causes of Action




Overview of the Privacy Act, 2020 Edition References
Updated October 12, 2022

View PDF (41 Pages)

Student Loan Servicing Alliance v. Dist. of Columbia, 351 F. Supp. 3d 26, 60 (D.D.C. 2018)

“The Privacy Act governs the disclosure of individuals’ personal information by federal government departments and agencies.

See 5 U.S.C. § 552 ;

see also Alexander v. FBI, 971 F.Supp. 603, 605-06 (D.D.C. 1997).” – “Filegate”, Hillary Clinton.


Hiding Public Records Starts at the Highest Court

The Judiciary Cannot “Police Themselves”.  However, the Ochlocracy Continues while Citizens and Journalists Access to view Public Records regarding Real Property transactions by Judges and Justices is Extinguished. Watch MSNBC’s video below and read our articles on LIT for proof. We’ve amassed a substantial dossier of the corruption.

The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022 Does not Apply to, a Legal Blog providing commentary and news which is a matter of public concern

Courts have held articles reporting on an attorney’s legal services and practice of law, legal misconduct, judicial corruption, and public corruption is a matter of public concern, thus LIT is exercising the right to free speech.

Who introduced Bill S2340? A Senator Under Investigation. And look at the related articles in the search results below.

May 12, 2023, NYTimes

Federal investigators leading an inquiry into Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the powerful Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, subpoenaed records this week from at least one longtime New Jersey mayor and state senator, Nicholas Sacco, several officials said.

The subpoena was delivered at about 6:30 a.m. on Wednesday, the day after a momentous election in Hudson County, a famously sharp-elbowed political proving ground in northern New Jersey where Mr. Menendez cut his teeth as a lawmaker.

The request for the documents made clear that Mr. Sacco, a Democrat who has served in the State Senate for 30 years and on Tuesday was re-elected to his ninth term as mayor of North Bergen, N.J., was not a target of the inquiry, according to his spokesman, Phil Swibinski.

Mr. Sacco will “cooperate fully and provide any requested information, as he would with any law enforcement inquiry,” Mr. Swibinski said in an email.

“Mayor Sacco has been assured that he is not a target of the investigation and was approached only as a potential witness,” added Mr. Swibinski, whose public relations firm also does work for the state’s Democratic Party.

Nicholas Sacco has served in the New Jersey Senate for 30 years and is also the mayor of North Bergen, N.J.

There have been few outward signs of movement in the federal investigation of Mr. Menendez since an initial blitz of subpoenas became public in October. And Mr. Menendez, 69, has continued to raise funds at a brisk clip for his expected run next year for a fourth term in the United States Senate.

But even while amassing more than $1 million in donations during the first quarter of the year, Mr. Menendez was also paying large bills related to the investigation, according to Federal Election Commission records filed last month.

Michael Soliman, a spokesman and close political adviser to Mr. Menendez, has said that the senator planned to create a legal-defense fund to pay for costs associated with the investigation, which is being led by prosecutors in the United States attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.

“Senator Menendez is confident that this official inquiry will be successfully closed,”

Mr. Soliman said last month.

“But as it is still unresolved, he will be opening a separate legal-defense fund so as not to drain any further campaign funds.”

The nature and extent of the investigation into Mr. Menendez is unclear, but it is related at least in part to a New Jersey start-up company, IS EG Halal, which over the course of a year became the sole entity authorized to certify that halal meat imported into Egypt from anywhere in the world was prepared according to Islamic law.

Wednesday’s subpoena seeks records related to the halal enterprise as well as information about a bill that Mr. Sacco has twice sponsored in Trenton with Senator Brian Stack, according to a person familiar with the details of the subpoena, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the document publicly.

The subpoena specifically asked for any correspondence about the bill from Mr. Menendez; his wife, Nadine Arslanian Menendez; or Fred Daibes, one of the region’s most prominent developers, who pleaded guilty last year to a federal banking crime, the person said.

Mr. Soliman declined to comment on the subpoena. Mr. Stack, who is also the mayor of Union City, N.J., a job Mr. Menendez held in the 1980s and early ’90s, did not return calls.

The bill, the Palisades Cliffs Protection and Planning Act, has not advanced in the Legislature but would limit the height of development projects near the Palisades, along the Hudson River. The legislation faced opposition from construction trade unions and some developers.

Mr. Daibes’s negotiated plea agreement required no prison time. And this month, Mr. Daibes, an Edgewater, N.J.-based builder whose projects transformed the Hudson River waterfront, was the subject of a scathing 83-page report from New Jersey’s Commission of Investigation.

The commission found that Mr. Daibes had provided direct and indirect financial benefits to elected leaders in Edgewater, and that he held outsize influence on policy decisions in the borough. Neither he nor his lawyer could be immediately reached for comment.

Mr. Menendez has maintained from the start that he would cooperate fully with any investigation. And F.E.C. reports indicate that his lawyers have been doing so.

Since January, his campaign committee has paid $127,000 to Winston & Strawn, a law firm led by Abbe Lowell, who represented Mr. Menendez during a two-month bribery trial in 2017, the records show. The case ended in a mistrial after jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict, and prosecutors declined to retry Mr. Menendez after a judge dismissed many of the charges.

Mr. Menendez’s campaign committee also paid $48,000 to Schertler Onorato Mead & Sears, a Washington law firm, and $55,000 to Haystack ID, a company enlisted last year by the Trump Organization to respond to subpoenas from New York’s attorney general after former President Donald J. Trump was held in contempt of court for failing to do so.

Representatives from Haystack and the two law firms did not reply to calls or emails.


This Act may be cited as the “Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021”.



In this Act:



Amounts appropriated to the Federal judiciary for fiscal year 2022, and each fiscal year thereafter, may be used for biannual judicial security training for active, senior, or recalled Federal judges described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 3(4) and their immediate family, including—




If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the remaining provisions of this Act and amendments to any person or circumstance shall not be affected.


Calendar No. 190

1st Session
S. 2340

To improve the safety and security of the Federal judiciary.

December 16, 2021
Reported with an amendment

Mark Lane Hornsby

LIT Audit Results: LIT holds ZERO data on Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby

The following page has references to Hornsby, a case citation to a plaintiff of same surname.

Matthew Kacsmaryk

LIT Audit Results: LIT holds ZERO data on Federal Judge Kacsmaryk.

The following page has three references to Kacsmaryk

The reference is from a republished  “Dallas Morning News” article, which is still active (paywalled).

The following page has two references to Kacsmaryk

The reference is from a republished  “” article, which is still active.

There’s also a link to the Senate Judiciary Questionnaire and a web archive page about the judge from NDTX US Courts website.

John DeGravelles

LIT Audit Results: LIT holds ZERO data on Federal Judge DeGravelles.

The following page has two references to John DeGravelles

The reference is from a republished  “The Advocate” article, which is still active.

Sul Ozerden

LIT Audit Results: LIT holds ZERO data on Federal Judge Ozerden.

The following page has two references to Sul Ozerden

The following page republishes active Politico article(s) regarding Sul Ozerden

The following page republishes active Politico article(s) regarding Sul Ozerden

Taylor McNeel

LIT Audit Results: LIT holds ZERO data on Federal Judge McNeel.

Texas Supreme Court Affirms Time-Barred Foreclosure Decision in Landmark Bank Loss

Bandit Appellate Lawyer Mark Hopkins was relegated to second chair at Supreme Court oral argument as his case crumbled before the court.

A Federal Notice of Appeal is Not Limited to 30 Days, that’s a Judicial Rule Subordinate to Statute

Re: timeliness of appeals in federal civil cases: Section 2107 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code (a federal statute) v FRAP 4 (a court-made rule).

Rewind 2008: Terrence W. Boyle is Still a Biased Wall St. Federal Judge in North Carolina in 2022

Here is a perfect example of why lifetime appointments without any accountability as a sitting federal judge leads to bias and ochlocracy.

Federal and Appellate Judges Invalid 72 Hr Removal Requests Sent to LIT During Friday Suppertime
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top