Hastings Just Upheld Another FOIA Block. Barry County’s Evidence Problem Is No Longer Theoretical.

The May 11 Vote

On May 11, 2026, the Hastings City Council voted to uphold a disclosure denial issued by the Hastings Police Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Jeffrey Allan Snowden II.

That vote should not be treated as a routine municipal records dispute.

Snowden’s 5th Circuit Court docket shows a months-long fight over evidence access, body-camera footage, officer credibility material, Brady/Giglio disclosure, and prosecutorial certification. The public record in State of Michigan v. Jeffrey Snowden, Case No. 2025-0000000344-FH, does not show a defendant casually asking for paperwork after the fact. It shows a defendant repeatedly trying to preserve, compel, admit, and litigate video and disclosure issues before Judge Michael L. Schipper.

This Was Not The First Notice

On February 24, 2026, Clutch Justice documented that Snowden appeared before the Barry County Board of Commissioners and placed the Board on formal preservation notice. He alleged a fraudulent arrest, Brady and Giglio disclosure failures, ADA retaliation through a competency motion, and systematic FOIA denial.

That earlier article framed Snowden’s claims as a Section 1983 and Monell notice problem: once county officials are told that record obstruction, due-process failures, and retaliatory procedure may be occurring, continued inaction becomes harder to describe as ignorance.

That matters because the May 11 Hastings City Council vote did not happen in a vacuum. By then, Snowden had already put Barry County officials on public notice. His court docket already reflected repeated evidence-access litigation. His body-camera and Brady/Giglio issues were already documented. The Hastings denial was not the first warning flare. It was the next institutional choice.

The Section 1983 Track

Snowden has also attempted to frame Barry County’s conduct as a federal civil-rights problem under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That matters because Section 1983 is the statute people use when government actors, acting under color of law, allegedly deprive them of constitutional rights. It is not a vibe. It is the accountability lane for due process, retaliation, unlawful arrest, access-to-courts, and evidence-suppression claims.

That is why the February 24 notice mattered. Snowden was not merely saying, “I do not like how my case is going.” He was putting county officials on notice that the combination of arrest allegations, Brady/Giglio failures, ADA retaliation concerns, FOIA obstruction, and evidence-access barriers could create civil-rights exposure. Once a county has notice of a constitutional pattern and does not correct it, the problem starts looking less like mistake and more like deliberate indifference.

That is where Monell comes in. A municipality is not automatically liable for every bad act by an employee. But if the violation reflects policy, custom, failure to train, failure to supervise, or deliberate indifference to known misconduct, the government entity itself can become the target. Barry County has been told, repeatedly, that its prosecutor-office and records-access practices are creating constitutional problems. Snowden’s record is part of that notice chain.

The Docket Shows The Evidence Fight

The MiCOURT record gives this article documentary footing.

On May 28, 2026, the docket shows Snowden entered pleas to Counts 1 and 3, while Count 2 and the habitual-offender notice were dismissed. His sentencing was set for July 8, 2026.

That is the context for the FOIA denial.

It is also the context for the docket-compliance problem. The public docket shows repeated defense efforts to obtain Brady/Giglio disclosure and prosecutorial certification. It does not show a corresponding docketed certification, disclosure notice, compliance filing, or court-confirmed production by the prosecutor’s office after the April 17 filings. That distinction matters. A docket cannot prove every off-record production that may have occurred, but the public court record does not visibly confirm that the prosecutor’s office complied with the disclosure demand.

FOIA Is Not Discovery. But Records Still Matter.

FOIA is not discovery. A criminal defendant cannot use FOIA to replace the court’s discovery process, and a public body may have statutory grounds to withhold certain records in certain circumstances.

But that legal distinction cannot be used to erase the public-accountability problem. When a criminal defendant is forced to use every available records mechanism to reach material the court and prosecution should already be treating with constitutional seriousness, the FOIA denial becomes part of the due-process story.

And Barry County has a due-process story.

The question is not simply whether Hastings found a statutory excuse to keep police records from public view. The question is why public bodies in Barry County keep landing on the same answer whenever a defendant, journalist, or accountability record gets too close to evidence that could test a prosecution narrative.

Can The State Block Brady/Giglio Like This?

No, not if the material is actually Brady or Giglio material.

The State does not get to block constitutionally required disclosure just because the evidence is inconvenient, embarrassing, officer-credibility related, or bad for the prosecution. Under Brady, prosecutors must disclose material favorable evidence. Under Giglio, that includes impeachment evidence that could affect a government witness’s credibility. That duty belongs to the prosecution, and it extends to information known to police and investigative agencies working on the case.

The legal fight usually comes through the side doors. Prosecutors may argue the material is not Brady, not Giglio, not material, not suppressed, already available, outside the prosecution team’s possession, privileged, sealed, or protected by some other procedural rule. Courts may then fight over timing, prejudice, remedy, and whether the nondisclosure affected the outcome.

But if the evidence is favorable, material, and in the prosecution team’s orbit, the Constitution beats the keep-away game. FOIA exemptions, police-record barriers, personnel-file discomfort, and docket silence cannot erase a defendant’s due-process right to material exculpatory and impeachment evidence.

Another Barry County FOIA Warning Sign

This is also why the WOOD TV8 Target 8 report, “Widow: Husband killed by Barry County deputy did not deserve to die”, belongs in the file. Target 8 reported that U.S. Army veteran Jeremiah J. Johnson, 37, was shot and killed by a Barry County sheriff’s deputy after a domestic-violence call near Delton. His widow, Siphiwe Johnson, told WOOD that she witnessed the shooting and that it should not have happened.

The FOIA problem is right there in the report. WOOD wrote that the Barry County Sheriff’s Office had not said what led up to the shooting and denied Target 8’s FOIA request for dashboard-camera video. WOOD also reported that Michigan State Police were investigating the shooting and that an MSP Fifth District spokesman said the investigation would be turned over to the Barry County prosecutor to determine whether the shooting was justified.

That is not a side issue. If Barry County blocks dashcam footage in a fatal deputy shooting while MSP investigates and the Barry County prosecutor later reviews justification, the public has the same problem it has in Snowden: the government controls the evidence, the government controls the explanation, and the public is told to wait outside the records room.

A user-provided public-record analysis of the Johnson shooting adds more reasons the case belongs in the independent-review file. The analysis identifies Deputies Odette and Skaggs as the responding deputies; Deputy Travis Moore as the author of a primary narrative after arriving post-shooting; and Sgt. Janette Maki as author of a supplemental narrative stating that, because Johnson was dead, “no further investigation will be conducted” by the Barry County Sheriff’s Office while MSP was separately investigating.

The same analysis identifies the core contradiction: Johnson’s widow publicly challenged the official account, while Prosecutor Julie Nakfoor Pratt later released the county’s justification decision on February 11, 2025. According to the analysis, Pratt’s account said Johnson drew his gun, a deputy struggled with him over the weapon, and another deputy fired the fatal shots. The widow’s account, as summarized in the analysis, said she witnessed the shooting, that Johnson did not fire at deputies, and that the official account was not believable.

That is exactly why video matters. The report also notes that Barry County Board Chair David Jackson publicly supported body cameras, saying they would protect officers and would be critical in a “he said she said” situation. That statement is almost painfully on the nose. Barry County officials know the absence of video creates public-trust problems. Yet in the Johnson case, Target 8 asked for dashboard-camera video and the Sheriff’s Office denied the FOIA request.

It also raises a serious investigator-credibility question. If Shane Criger, Bryan Fuller, or any investigator tied to the Fuller/McCann credibility universe touched the Johnson shooting investigation, that file cannot be treated as clean without independent corroboration. Fuller has a federal civil-rights verdict attached to fabricated-evidence conduct. Criger has already appeared in Clutch’s Fuller/McCann disclosure coverage. In a fatal-force case, that is not background noise. That is Brady/Giglio-adjacent credibility material for the public record and any later prosecution or civil-rights review.

A reader-provided LinkedIn analysis titled Investigative Report Analysis: Jeremiah Johnson Shooting raises additional questions about the investigative handling of the Johnson shooting. Clutch Justice has not independently verified that analysis through primary records in this article, but it identifies the right audit target: pull the FOIA correspondence, denial letters, dashcam and bodycam records, MSP investigative reports, investigator assignments, prosecutor communications, justification review, and any materials showing whether Criger, Fuller, or other credibility-compromised investigators had any role.

Because that is the recurring Barry County move: the case is serious, the records matter, the public asks questions, and the system finds a way to make the paper trail harder to see.

The Fuller Problem Makes The Pattern Worse

Clutch Justice has already reported that Barry County prosecutors Julie Nakfoor Pratt and Christopher J. Elsworth were alerted in writing to MSP Sgt. Bryan Fuller four days before the September 19, 2023 federal jury verdict against him.

Clutch has also documented Fuller’s Hastings Post and SWET footprint, his proximity to Barry County cases, and the obvious Brady/Giglio implications for prosecutions touched by a detective associated with fabricated-evidence litigation and a $14.5 million verdict.

This is not an obscure doctrine. Brady requires disclosure of favorable material evidence. Giglio requires disclosure of impeachment material affecting government witnesses. Officer credibility is not a side issue when the officer’s reports, video, probable-cause claims, testimony, or investigative decisions drive the case.

Snowden appears to have told Barry County officials, on video, that they had a Brady/Giglio problem. The docket shows he then tried to litigate that same problem in court. Hastings then upheld a police denial of records connected to the same universe of evidence-access issues.

That is why the missing compliance signal matters. If the prosecutor’s office complied, the public docket does not make that compliance visible. If it did not comply, the docket documents the warning signs in real time. Either way, the public record is not reassuring. It shows the defendant asking, asking again, and asking with constitutional specificity, while the visible record fails to show the clean prosecutorial certification that would answer the concern.

The Court of Appeals Has Not Solved This

The Court of Appeals has not solved this. The docket shows a Court of Appeals order dismissing a related complaint for superintending control in part on February 19, 2026, and another Court of Appeals order denying reconsideration on April 21, 2026.

That may be procedurally tidy. It is not institutional oversight.

When a county accumulates repeated claims of hidden credibility evidence, blocked police records, officer-misconduct files, and defendants pressured toward pleas while evidence fights remain unresolved, appellate restraint becomes part of the machinery.

Snowden is not landing on a blank board. In Clutch Justice’s current case tracking, this is the 12th recent matter where Judge Michael L. Schipper and Julie Nakfoor Pratt’s office have appeared in connection with Brady/Giglio disclosure issues. That is no longer a single-defendant complaint, a one-off discovery fight, or a personality conflict dressed up as constitutional law.

It is a pattern. And this week, during the week of June 29, 2026, that pattern was explicitly escalated to the Judicial Tenure Commission. According to sources close to the complaint, the Schipper concerns have been transferred directly to the JTC Acting Director. Clutch Justice is not publishing the underlying source communication at this time, but the escalation itself matters: this is no longer a loose pile of complaints sitting in the public fog.

The JTC does not prosecute criminal cases and it does not run county prosecutor offices. But when the same judge keeps appearing in records where disclosure, officer credibility, evidence access, and due-process preservation are the recurring pressure points, judicial oversight becomes part of the accountability map.

The Due Process Implications

Due process is not a decorative phrase courts hang over the door before letting the government do whatever it planned to do anyway. It is the minimum condition that makes a criminal judgment legitimate: notice, access to material evidence, a meaningful chance to challenge the State’s case, and a decision-making process that is not rigged by hidden information.

That is why Brady and Giglio matter so much here. A defendant cannot test a police report he cannot see, impeach an officer with misconduct records he was never given, challenge a video narrative without the underlying footage, or make a knowing plea decision while the government controls the evidence that could change the risk calculation.

When the State withholds, delays, narrows, or blocks access to material evidence, the injury is not only informational. It changes the entire shape of the case. It affects bond posture, motion practice, plea leverage, trial preparation, sentencing exposure, appellate review, and public confidence in the judgment. The harm compounds because every later step rests on an earlier record the defense was not allowed to fully test.

That is the office-wide problem for the Barry County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. If the same office repeatedly treats disclosure as optional, officer credibility as negotiable, and FOIA or discovery fights as leverage, then the taint does not stay politely inside one case file. It spreads across the office’s case universe wherever the same witnesses, officers, prosecutors, policies, practices, or suppression incentives appear.

That does not mean every Barry County case is automatically invalid. It means the public can no longer presume the office’s files are clean simply because the docket closed. Cases involving Hastings Police Department body-camera footage, officer credibility disputes, Fuller-linked evidence, late discovery, disputed police narratives, plea pressure after unresolved evidence motions, or Brady/Giglio filings now require independent review.

For the first time, Clutch Justice has caught a Brady/Giglio problem in action. Not as a cold case. Not as a remand years later. Not as a footnote in appellate cleanup after the damage was already done. This one has been visible while it was happening: the motions, the body-camera fight, the officer-credibility dispute, the request for Brady/Giglio disclosure and prosecutorial certification, the FOIA denials, the public notice, and the plea pressure all moving in real time.

The Barry County Board has watched that play out for months. It was not deprived of notice. It was not waiting on a time machine. Snowden put the issue in front of the Board on February 24, 2026, and the docket continued to fill with exactly the kind of filings that should make a county government stop pretending this is someone else’s constitutional mess.

The Barry County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office should therefore be treated as an audit target, not as a trusted self-reviewer. No office can credibly investigate the constitutional consequences of its own disclosure culture while still defending the outcomes that culture produced.

The Cheat-To-Win Model

There is a polite way to describe this. One could call it an adversarial disclosure posture, a records-access failure, a prosecutor-office culture problem, or a troubling pattern of institutional noncompliance.

But the cleaner phrase is the Barry County Prosecutor’s Cheat-To-Win model of prosecution.

Not because anyone has produced a memo titled “How To Cheat.” Institutions are rarely that generous. The model is visible because the same moves keep appearing in the public record: resist disclosure, narrow the paper trail, treat Brady/Giglio as a defense obstacle instead of a government duty, force defendants to litigate for evidence they should not have to beg for, then use the delay, cost, uncertainty, and threat exposure to make a plea look like the only survivable exit.

That is not strong prosecution. It is prosecution by informational asymmetry. The State has the files, the police relationships, the charging power, the calendar, the plea leverage, and the public presumption that if someone is charged, someone responsible must have checked the facts. A defendant has whatever can be pried loose before the pressure becomes unbearable.

The intellectual problem is simple: a criminal system cannot claim legitimacy while allowing one side to control the evidence, define the narrative, suppress the impeachment material, and then congratulate itself when the accused folds. A plea entered under information starvation may close a file. It does not clean the record.

That is the part Barry County keeps trying to skip. Notice changes the story. Once the Board knows there are recurring allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, record obstruction, Brady/Giglio failures, and evidence-access fights, the Board cannot keep playing the role of shocked bystander in its own county government.

So what is it actually going to do?

Will it require an independent Brady/Giglio audit? Will it demand a public accounting of Fuller-touched cases? Will it condition prosecutor funding on disclosure compliance? Will it ask why defendants, journalists, and citizens keep having to use FOIA, appeals, grievances, public comment, and post-conviction litigation to find records the government should have preserved and disclosed in the first place?

Or will the Board continue performing concern while funding the machine, paying the lawyers, defending the office, and pretending the smoke is just weather?

The Hastings Police Conflict Problem

The Hastings Police Department cannot be treated as some neutral outside agency floating at a clean distance from the Barry County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. The relationship web is too tight for that fiction to hold.

Julie Nakfoor Pratt has multiple conflict concerns involving Hastings Police Department records and personnel. Dale Boulter has known and worked with her for years in the same local law-enforcement ecosystem, including through her former husband, Jeff Pratt, who served as Hastings Police Chief before quietly stepping down in 2021. That history matters because this article is not about a parking ticket file or a routine records request. It is about police evidence, body-camera footage, officer credibility, disclosure duties, and a prosecution record where the defendant was actively trying to compel material that could test the State’s case.

And then there is Hastings Councilmember Jon Rocha. Rocha voted to uphold the Hastings Police Department’s FOIA denial to Snowden despite records reviewed by Clutch Justice identifying Rocha as connected to the Barry County Sheriff’s Department as a corrections officer. At minimum, that raises an appearance-of-conflict question in a police-records appeal involving body-camera evidence, officer credibility, and Brady/Giglio disputes. A councilmember with law-enforcement employment ties voting on whether another law-enforcement agency has to release records in a criminal evidence fight is not a minor footnote. It is exactly the kind of local overlap that makes independent review necessary.

The conflict question does not require proof of a secret handshake in a back room. The appearance problem alone is enough. When the prosecutor’s office, city police department, former police chief, current police leadership, and county officials all occupy the same small accountability ecosystem, the public cannot be asked to trust an internal explanation from the very institutions whose conduct is at issue.

If the Barry County Board cannot do its job, then it needs to bring in independent investigators. Not a friendly local review. Not another attorney hired to manage optics. Independent investigators with authority to examine communications, FOIA handling, council-level conflict disclosures, police evidence preservation, prosecutor communications, body-camera access, Brady/Giglio review practices, plea negotiations, and any potential meddling or evidence suppression involving Hastings Police Department cases.

So when people say Hastings and Barry County are corrupt, this is exactly why. Not because every person in the building is taking envelopes in a parking lot. Because corruption also looks like this: insiders voting on insider records, law-enforcement relationships going undisclosed or unexamined, police evidence being shielded from scrutiny, prosecutors treating disclosure like a favor, and public bodies acting shocked that the public can see the pattern.

This is the bullshit people are naming. The local-network version of corruption does not always announce itself with a cartoon villain confession. Sometimes it is a FOIA denial, a conflict no one bothers to address, a prosecutor’s office that keeps the evidence tight, and a board that watches the whole thing happen while insisting its hands are clean.

Why I Am Writing About Snowden

I have never met Jeffrey Snowden. I have never met his family. This is not personal loyalty, family advocacy, or a favor for someone I know.

It is pattern recognition.

I have been watching Barry County infringe on people’s constitutional rights for four years now. After a while, the shape becomes familiar. The names change. The docket numbers change. The procedural label changes. One week it is FOIA. Another week it is body-camera footage. Another week it is Brady/Giglio. Another week it is a competency motion, a plea pressure problem, a proof-of-service issue, a missing record, a strange appellate posture, or a county board pretending it has never heard any of this before.

But the architecture stays the same: the government controls the record, the defendant has to fight to see it, the court treats the fight as inconvenience, and the institution asks the public to trust the outcome while blocking the documents that would let anyone verify it.

You know it when you see it. And you really know it when a slew of cases keep coming across the radar with the same pressure points, the same officials, the same courthouse, the same prosecutor’s office, and the same allergy to disclosure.

This time, Clutch did not have to reconstruct the Brady/Giglio problem from the ruins. It was happening in front of everyone. The Board saw the warning. The court docket showed the fight. The FOIA process showed the wall. That is the difference here: this is not hindsight. This is a live constitutional pattern being documented while the county still has time to stop making it worse.

That is why Snowden matters here. Not because he is the only case. Because he is not.

What Barry County Should Do Now

Barry County does not need another private explanation. It needs a public audit.

Every Fuller-touched case should be identified. Every Hastings Police Department case involving disputed body-camera footage should be reviewed. Every prosecution involving officer credibility claims, late discovery, withheld personnel material, or Brady/Giglio motions should be mapped. Barry County fatal-force records, including the records underlying the WOOD TV8 Target 8 report about Jeremiah Johnson being killed by a Barry County deputy, should be pulled into the same independent-review universe. Investigators should identify every MSP and local law-enforcement officer who touched that file, including whether Shane Criger, Bryan Fuller, or any credibility-compromised investigator had a role.

The Board should also commission independent investigators to examine potential conflicts between the Barry County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and the Hastings Police Department, including communications and evidence-handling decisions in cases where Hastings police evidence, body-camera footage, or officer credibility material was disputed. That review should include the May 11 Hastings FOIA appeal vote, councilmember conflict disclosures or recusals, and any law-enforcement employment ties relevant to the decision to uphold the denial.

Every plea entered after contested evidence-access litigation should be examined for whether the defendant had the information necessary to make a knowing decision.

The Hastings City Council had a choice on May 11. It could have treated Snowden’s FOIA appeal as part of a serious public-confidence problem. Instead, it upheld the denial.

That vote now belongs in the same file as the blocked Dean Myers documentation, the Elsworth personnel-record interference, the Fuller notice problem, and the county’s repeated habit of treating disclosure as a threat instead of a duty.

Barry County’s problem is not that defendants keep asking questions.

Barry County’s problem is that the questions keep making sense.

How You Can Help

If you are concerned about the Barry County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, one concrete step is to send a signed Request for Investigation to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. The AGC is the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the Michigan Supreme Court for allegations of attorney misconduct. It has jurisdiction over Michigan attorneys, including prosecutors.

The AGC states that anyone may file a Request for Investigation by completing and signing its form or by sending a signed letter. The request should describe the alleged misconduct, including approximate time and place, and may include copies of relevant documents. The AGC also states that requests are not accepted electronically or by fax at this time.

[Your Name]
[Your Mailing Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Phone Number]
[Email Address]

[Date]

Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission
755 W. Big Beaver Rd. - Suite 2100
Troy MI 48084

Re: Request for Investigation - Barry County Prosecuting Attorney's Office disclosure, Brady/Giglio, and evidence-access concerns

To the Attorney Grievance Commission:

I am submitting this signed Request for Investigation concerning attorney conduct connected to the Barry County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, including Prosecuting Attorney Julie Nakfoor Pratt and any assistant prosecutors or supervisory attorneys responsible for disclosure practices, Brady/Giglio compliance, and prosecution conduct in Barry County cases.

I am requesting that the Commission investigate whether the Barry County Prosecuting Attorney's Office has complied with its professional and constitutional disclosure obligations in cases involving officer credibility evidence, body-camera footage, Brady/Giglio material, public-records obstruction, plea pressure after unresolved evidence disputes, and cases touched by Michigan State Police Sgt. Bryan Fuller or other officers whose credibility may be material.

This request is based on public records and reporting showing a pattern of evidence-access concerns, including but not limited to:

1. The MiCOURT docket in State of Michigan v. Jeffrey Snowden, Case No. 2025-0000000344-FH, which lists repeated defense filings involving body-camera footage, officer credibility, Giglio material, digital video evidence, Brady/Giglio disclosure, and prosecutorial certification.

2. Jeffrey Snowden's February 24, 2026 public notice to the Barry County Board of Commissioners alleging FOIA denials, Brady/Giglio failures, ADA retaliation concerns, and civil-rights exposure.

3. The May 11, 2026 Hastings City Council vote upholding a Hastings Police Department FOIA denial involving Snowden, after months of documented evidence-access litigation.

4. Public reporting by Clutch Justice that Barry County prosecutors were alerted in writing to MSP Sgt. Bryan Fuller four days before the September 19, 2023 federal jury verdict in McCann v. Fuller, and that Fuller-related credibility concerns may implicate Barry County cases.

5. WOOD TV8 Target 8 reporting that Barry County denied a FOIA request for dashboard-camera video after Jeremiah J. Johnson was shot and killed by a Barry County sheriff's deputy, and that MSP's Fifth District was investigating the shooting for later prosecutor review.

6. The public-record analysis of the Johnson shooting identifying Deputies Odette and Skaggs, Deputy Travis Moore, Sgt. Janette Maki, conflicting narratives, a February 11, 2025 justification decision by Julie Nakfoor Pratt's office, and county body-camera policy comments by Board Chair David Jackson.

7. Broader public reporting and records concerning Barry County cases where defendants, journalists, or citizens have had to fight for records, officer credibility material, personnel information, body-camera evidence, or other evidence necessary to evaluate the fairness of prosecutions.

I understand that the Attorney Grievance Commission does not function as an appellate court and does not vacate convictions. My request is not asking the Commission to decide any defendant's guilt or innocence. I am asking the Commission to investigate whether Michigan attorneys responsible for prosecution in Barry County have complied with their ethical obligations, including duties of candor, fairness, disclosure, supervision, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The concern is that this may not be an isolated case-specific dispute. The public record suggests an office-wide disclosure and due-process problem that may affect multiple cases. If prosecutors have withheld, delayed, minimized, or failed to disclose Brady/Giglio material, officer impeachment evidence, body-camera evidence, or evidence material to plea decisions, that conduct requires independent disciplinary review.

Please treat this as a formal Request for Investigation. I have attached the documents and links listed below.

Attachments / supporting records:

1. [List document or link]
2. [List document or link]
3. [List document or link]
4. [List document or link]

I certify that the information in this request is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Respectfully,

[Signature]
[Printed Name]