I could meet you there (or anywhere else) at 1 pm or later. From: Jeff M. Fischbach, ABFE Sent: Thursda Au ust 21, 2025 11:46 AM To: (USANYS) < Cc: SANYS) Ma; Robert M. Herz Samuel M. Braverman Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Propose Protocols elizabeth kelley (USANYS) Now would be perfect. We're in the Defense Review Room at the FBI. Please let me know if you need help getting in. Jeff Michael Fischbach Forensic Technologist • Litigation Consultant ■ Adviser • Lecturer • Public Speaker SecondWave, Inc., Los Angeles, CA On Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 11:42 AM wrote: (USANYS Please let me know when works to connect, so that we may discuss the below, which is both confusing to us and contains several misstatements. As we have said, email is plainly not a productive medium. From: Jeff M. Fischbach, ABFE <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 11:37 AM To: Richenthal, Daniel (USANYS) <[email protected]> Cc: Grosbard, Remy (USANYS) <[email protected]>• Robert M. Herz <[email protected]>; elizabeth kelley <[email protected]>; Samuel M. Braverman <[email protected]>; Maxwell, Rita (USANYS) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Propose Protocols By the letters/numbers: EFTA01656928

(a) I have no questions for you at this time. My offer was in response to your repeated request to speak directly, not in writing. If you would still like that, I am here until 5, or you can join us for lunch if that makes it easier for you. Thus far, in your mannor of speaking, it appears as though you have "declined" that option. Also, again for the record, I participated in your August 1st conference call because you made it a condition to gain access to my work product at the FBI, prior to what I thought at the time was the case being moved to Philadelphia. Other than when that move would happen, I had no questions prior to your conference call. I did have some I thought might be Robert's likely questions as a result of the things you proposed in that call. I believe those were all answered since in a way that remained less desirable than the RCFL. (2) Again, while I always appreciate your enthusiasm, I don't need your assistance with speaking with the RCFL. I just needed you to allow the Director to speek with me. In an abundance of optimism, I will again try to call him myself, at least to gain calendar information from him. (3) This is different than you wrote previously: "...[Eric] will not report to the case agents or prosecution team what he sees in reviewing your material, except to the extent it appears that Jeff has taken CSAM (or otherwise violated FBI security protocols)." AJ is observing us. Eric is here now. He just came in. Are you now saying that we will NOT be held accountable to any possible, and currently undefined, violations of FBI Protocols? If you can make it clear in writing that you are retracting that condition, as quoted here, then we can show that to Eric, and ask him to go head and search ONLY for violations of the Walsh Act. Which is written, and known to me. Even better, perhaps you could email that retraction to him, CC'ing this group, so he gets it directly from you. Though, I have been asking for a copy of the relevant FBI protocols -- possibly in what I was told I had to sign -- since our first day here, I believe that your retraction of any reprecussions from possible violations of those protocols would suffice. Jeff Michael Fischbach Forensic Technologist ■ Litigation Consultant ■ Adviser ■ Lecturer ■ Public Speaker SecondWave, Inc., Los Angeles, CA On Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 10:55 AM wrote: Jeff, We are confused by your email. Without commenting on the rest, (a) we are happy to speak or meet whenever works for you today — so please let us know if you have a preferred time — with a goal to answer EFTA01656929

any questions you may have, and to hear from you any concerns you may have, just as we did on August 1 and have suggested for weeks since, so that there is no unnecessary delay in your work; (2) we have informed the Philadelphia RCFL, including the Director, that you would like to speak with them, and will let you know when works; and (3) we never said there were written protocols we had to show you before you could remove your work product, and, rather, you may remove it whenever you would like after the taint agent (Eric) reviews it, as is standard practice, without any other steps. Please also note that our space remains available, namely, a private, locking conference room, with outlets, a landline, a wall screen, and without any contemporaneous monitoring by a person or equipment, should you wish to work there instead. While you appear to have declined that offer, we will continue to make this available if you would like, upon request and with reasonable notice, and we could also show you the room today if that would be of assistance. From: Jeff M. Fischbach, ABFE Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 10:20 AM To MI(USANYS) Cc: (USANYS) Robert M. Herz kelley ; Samuel M. Braverman Rita (USANYS) Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Propose Protocols ; elizabeth >; Maxwell, Again, you're ignoring the parts that suit finishing my work, and adding-in parts that suit yours. I did not write anything contrary to Robert. I did not say I'd "like to have [you] set up a call with the Philadelpha RCFL". Nor did I invite you or the FBI to join my communication with the RCFL. The reason for the RCFL was specifically to remove the DOJ from interfearing with my work. While I appreciate all your stated good intentions, I don't require your assistance IN my work. So far, it has only served to block and delay my work. I did not hear Judge Engelmayer order that having you involved in my discussions with the RCFL Director was a condition to my speaking and coordinating my work there with him. You are the first AUSA in decades of experience to insist on it. I was only requesting that you remove the roadblock from my speaking directly with Director Tanzola. That is MY request. Rober's request still stands. Dir. Tanzola is a professional, and a member of law enforcement. Like telling agents that we can no longer text, even just to get in the building without it going through you, (today being a notable exception) your insistance in being a filter between me an the RCFL Director only slows this process. EFTA01656930

As for your request to speak directly with me, because you have insisted on receivng a message every time we enter the building, you should know exactly when I am here. Because you yourself brought issue to the court over cameras in the workspace here or anywhere else, you should also be well aware that it would be a voilation of the Walsh Act, and likely FBI protocols, for me to video conference here. Beside that, your last conference call took somewehre around 24 hours for you to coordinate. I don't even know what you want to chat about, but we are here now, to answer any questions, or clear up andy confusion you may have. I believe you said, in the same building as you. And I am still waiting for you to provide me a copy of the FBI protocols you cited as a condition to remove work product from here. So, please don't forget to bring the protocols when you come. Jeff Michael Fischbach Forensic Technologist ■ Litigation Consultant ■ Adviser ■ Lecturer ■ Public Speaker SecondWave, Inc., Los Angeles, CA On Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 9:40 AM wrote: Jeff, Without commenting on your other assertions: (USANYS) < > With respect to meeting, neither I nor others on our team were available to meet with you in person earlier, but we are happy to do so later, at your convenience, just as we have offered a videoconference or call for weeks. If you would indeed like to meet, please let us know when works, or we can jump on a videoconference or call. With respect to the Philadelphia RCFL, if, contrary to what Robert said yesterday, you would indeed like to have us set up a call with the Philadelphia RCFL, we will do so. It will not be solely with the Director, but others with the FBI also (and we would join too). Please let us know when works for you and we'll work to get the call set up. EFTA01656931