Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
11 opinions for “Gregory Bartko v. DOJ”
Bartko v. United States Department of Justicepublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GREGORY BARTKO, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 17-781 (JEB) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is the latest chapter in the ongoing saga between pro se Plaintiff Gregory Bartko and various agencies of the fed
Bartko v. United States Department of Justicepublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GREGORY BARTKO, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 17-781 (JEB) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION The saga of pro se Plaintiff Gregory Bartko’s Freedom of Information Act reque
Bartko v. United States Department of Justicepublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge Plaintiff Gregory Bartko, currently serving a 23-year prison sentence for securities fraud, is seeking to exonerate himself by proving prosecutorial misconduct. To that end, he has brought this pro se suit under the Freedom of Information Act against many Department of Justice components, including the Office of Professio
Bartko v. United States Department of Justicepublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GREGORY BARTKO, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 13-1135 (JEB) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pro se Plaintiff Gregory Bartko is currently serving a 23-year prison term for conspiracy, mail fraud, and selling unregistere
Bartko v. United States Department of Justicepublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge Plaintiff Gregory Bartko, currently serving a 23-year prison sentence for securities fraud, is seeking to exonerate himself by proving prosecutorial misconduct. To that end, he has brought this pro se suit under the Freedom of Information Act against a num
Bartko v. United States Department of Justicepublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge Plaintiff Gregory Bartko is currently serving the fourth year of a 23-year prison term for conspiracy, mail fraud, and selling unregistered securities. Driven by his belief that the Department of Justice — and, in particular, Clay Wheeler, the Assistant U.S. Attorney who secured
Bartko v. United States Department of Justicepublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge Pro se Plaintiff Gregory Bartko, who is currently serving a lengthy prison term for white-collar offenses, has sent a spate of Freedom of Information Act requests to various federal agencies, hoping to obtain records demonstrating prosecutorial misconduct in his case. The Court
Stein v. Central Intelligence Agencypublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JEFFREY STEIN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 17-189 (TSC) CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Jeffrey Stein brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROJECT FOR PRIVACY : AND SURVEILLANCE : ACCOUNTABILITY, INC., : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 22-1812 (RC) : v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROPERTY OF THE PEOPLE, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, No. 17-cv-1728 (EGS) v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Property of the People, Inc., a non-profit organization, and its founder, Ryan Noah Shapiro, bring this lawsuit against the United States Department of Ju
United States v. Caropublic domain
OPINION JAMES P. JONES, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background.............................................................823 II. Standards of Review....................................................828 III. Analysis................................................................829 A. Claim I: Strategic Delay of t