Thread by @SeamusHughes

‘No Bias Found in F.B.I. Report on Catholic Extremists’

A thread about OSINT and PACER. 1/x

nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/…

Today, the DOI inspector general released their review of the FBI’s analytical product on “radical traditional Catholics”

I’m gonna skip for now that aspect but instead talk about how we figured out the case that was the basis for that product

oig.justice.gov/sites/default/…

The IG found that the controversial analytical product was started because of a domestic terrorism case.

Here’s how the IG described the terrorism case

Which, seems like a case that never made the news, and as reporters, we may be interested about. So we went diving. First clue to figure it out, indictment and guilty date.

So we can limit the search on pacer to that federal charge possession of ammunition while a convicted felon. The problem? A lot of people get that charge. The bigger problem? It’s not coded right in pacer. Some are felon with conviction, others possession with conviction

So use the other data point, indicted in June 2023. Great. Except that date ranges won’t work because what if he got a criminal charge before that and was indicted on that date. If you limit to June you lose those cases.

So then you think, ok, Richmond case. It’s probably out of eastern district of Virginia. Maybe western district. I guess even possibly DC. So three districts. You then search the federal charge (in various forms of 18 usc 922) in three district.

Then you need to go a bit broad so you don’t miss those cases of criminal complaint before and indictment later. So you limit the return search researches to Jan 1 2023 to September 2023.

Two dozen cases from that. You click on each one. You pay pacer fees for each one. You find three that hit right. Same charge, indicted in June. But one has him pleading guilty in March 2024 which matches with the IG report.

You click on Xavier Lopez’s criminal complaint. It’s dry and doesn’t talk about extremism.

But you notice the affadivit is filed by an FBI agent on the joint terrorism taskforce. Now you’re interested

So you pay for the indictment. Also, still dry, you’re not sure this is your guy.

But it doesn’t sit well with you, because the case seems off. You decide, against the better judgement of your monthly mortgage payment, to purchase the court transcript from his detention hearing.

From there you see at detention a law enforcement agent testify that Lopez has been arrested prior. To the left, court transcript, right description from IG report

Now you pull up sentencing records for Lopez and you check the length with IG. Matches perfectly.

Halfway down the 60 plus page court transcript, it starts describing the social media of Lopez. Now you’re pretty sure this is your guy described in the IG report.

But you’re the paper of record. Has to be perfect. So need more datapoints. To the left, IG report description of case. To the right, court testimony. The search of both the IG subject and Lopez generally match up.

Most people would call it a day there. Charges same, guilty same, sentencing date same, JTTF, and extremist positions. But the IG report said the search was November 12 and the testimony said November 13. There’s a day difference. That bothers you. It shouldn’t. But you’re you.

So now you’re down a rabbit hole of every search warranted filed in EDVA in November 2023. Click on each one. Pay for PACER fees for each one. Till you find it. Lopez’s search warrant. It was issued on the 12th. But executed on the 13th. Now it makes sense.

But you gotta get it 110% right so, for good measure your grab another search warrant of his Gab account. And you cross reference the terms and themes in the IG description with the things the Feds say he was posting.

But even all that, you still caveat your reporting. Because you should.

Thanks for reading. Check out Glenn and Adam’s piece here. Just wanted you to get a sense of what goes into one just paragraph at the Times.

nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/…