@robertbarnes

HAROLD WILLIAM VAN ALLEN
351 North Road
Hurley, New York 12443
[email protected]
845-389-4366
August 4, 2026
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes
Chief United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of New York
James T. Foley United States Courthouse
445 Broadway
Albany, New York 12207
Re: Van Allen v. United States Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, No. 1:26-
cv-01333-BKS-DJS - Updated Status Letter and Revised Preliminary-Injunction Submission
Dear Chief Judge Sannes:
I respectfully submit the enclosed revised preliminary-injunction papers and this focused status
update. The revision reflects the June 30, 2026 merits disposition in Trump v. Barbara, Supreme
Court No. 25-365, the expiration of the Rule 44 rehearing period without a publicly filed
petition, the resulting completion of the OSG decision-making episode addressed by my FOIA
requests, and the approaching November 3, 2026 federal general election.
The submission does not ask this Court to reconsider Trump v. Barbara, direct the Supreme
Court, require a rehearing petition, or decide whether any Justice was required to recuse. It asks
only that DOJ and OSG preserve, search for, process, and produce non-exempt agency records
concerning their own receipt, handling, consideration, routing, and disposition of the relevant
communications and historical materials.
1. The FOIA controversy remains live and the responsive record is now crystallized.
The expiration of the Rule 44 period ended one prospective use of the records, but it did not
eliminate existing OSG or DOJ records. It completed the period in which records may have been
created concerning whether OSG considered, prepared, circulated, declined, or abandoned
rehearing; whether recusal or quorum issues were identified or communicated; and whether OSG
distinguished Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship from Article II natural-born-citizen
eligibility. Those agency records remain the subject of this FOIA action, subject to lawful
exemptions.
2. The Barbara merits disposition is relevant to urgency, not as a collateral merits
challenge.
The Supreme Court decided the birthright-citizenship merits and identified the five-Justice
opinion alignment. Plaintiff contends that the participation of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and
Jackson was significant to that alignment, while three recusals would still have left the statutory
six-Justice quorum under 28 U.S.C. § 1. The revised papers therefore seek records showing
whether OSG evaluated or communicated about recusal and quorum during its completed post-
judgment review. The Court need not decide the underlying recusal questions to recognize the
relevance of the requested agency communications.
3. Justice Jackson's public Van Allen v. Gibson disclosure supplies concrete search context.
"I recused myself from Van Allen v. Gibson, 16-cv-1426, because the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint that named as defendants all judges who had been
appointed by President Barack Obama, including me."
Ketanji Brown Jackson, Questionnaire for Nominee to the Supreme Court 120 (2022), U.S.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The disclosure is not offered as proof that recusal was
required in Trump v. Barbara. It demonstrates that Plaintiff's request is grounded in a publicly
documented recusal arising from his prior litigation and helps identify possible DOJ/OSG
administrative records, classifications, and communications to be searched.
4. The November 3, 2026 federal election supplies a concrete public deadline.
The election will choose the full House of Representatives and a portion of the Senate - the
institutions vested with investigation, oversight, impeachment, and impeachment-trial powers.
Plaintiff seeks to disseminate information concerning actual or alleged federal-government
activity while voters can still use it. Disclosure only after the election would not restore the lost
opportunity for pre-election evaluation. The revised motion therefore requests preservation, an
immediate search declaration, and rolling production on a schedule calculated to permit
meaningful disclosure before November 3, 2026.
5. Prior actual notice is distinct from formal service of the complete packet.
Plaintiff previously sent summons materials by USPS Priority Mail Express with signature
confirmation to OSG, the Attorney General at Main Justice, and DOJ/U.S. Attorney destinations.
Those deliveries establish documented receipt and actual notice, including notice of the need to
preserve responsive records. Plaintiff does not characterize them as completed service of the
entire packet. Robert L. Schulz is separately serving, or will serve, the summons, complaint,
revised preliminary-injunction papers, supporting materials, and exhibits by certified United
States Mail. Proof of that service will be filed when completed.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Court accept this update and the revised preliminary-
injunction submission; recognize that the FOIA claim remains live; direct preservation of
responsive records; require a sworn description of the search, custodians, repositories, cut-off
date, and processing status; and establish a rolling-production schedule reasonably calculated to
permit meaningful disclosure before November 3, 2026. Alternatively, I request an expedited
status conference and a sworn preservation-and-processing declaration before that conference.
Respectfully submitted,
/S/ Harold William Van Allen
Harold William Van Allen
Plaintiff, Pro Se
351 North Road
Hurley, New York 12443
845-389-4366
[email protected]