Ms. Hubbard,

I received the September 3 production under PR27478 and have reviewed all sixteen files. You asked me to confirm the production is sufficient. It is not, and this letter states what remains outstanding.

The production has been published in full, as received, in the public record of this matter, filed as Document 01M1M4WF78XJPEJJ48D1JZ4SJ8:

https://oprdvolunteerabuse.org/accountability/osp/01M1M4WF78XJPEJJ48D1JZ4SJ8

Everyone copied on this letter can read the documents cited below directly:

The release letter: 
https://oprdvolunteerabuse.org/records/osp/attachments/01m1m4wf78xjpejj48d1jz4sj8-PR27478.pdf

The threat-assessment report SP26096984: 
https://oprdvolunteerabuse.org/records/osp/attachments/01m1m4wf78xjpejj48d1jz4sj8-Report-and-Attachements-from-Niche-RMS-SP26096984.pdf

The Department's electronic communications: 
https://oprdvolunteerabuse.org/records/osp/attachments/01m1m4wf78xjpejj48d1jz4sj8-Electronic-Communications-Electronic-Communications.pdf

The CAD record SP26096984: 
https://oprdvolunteerabuse.org/records/osp/attachments/01m1m4wf78xjpejj48d1jz4sj8-Dispatch-SP26096984-CAD.pdf

My request of April 2, 2026 covered all records related to the March 24, 2026 visit, including all communications related to its planning, authorization, or coordination. The records you produced establish that further responsive records exist. They fall into
two groups.

First, records your production identifies by name and does not include:

The body-worn camera video. The report states: "For exact details and statements please see attached BWC." The video is an attachment to the case file you produced. The Attorney General's July 29 order records that the Department cited ORS 192.345(40)
for this video. That is a conditional exemption; my July 29 letter set out the public interest grounds, and the report you have now released confirms both that the recording exists and what it depicts.

"OSP Hasty Form Robert White.pdf." Attached to Detective Nelson's March 23 email to Sergeant Henderson, subject "Robert White Hasty Plan SP26096984," and forwarded by Sergeant Henderson to Lieutenant McQuillan on the morning of March 24. This is the
planning document for the visit.

"WHITE,ROBERT SAMUEL DMV.pdf." Attached to Detective Hyde's March 13 emails to Detective Nelson.

"ReportRobertWhite.pdf." Attached to the same March 13 emails.

Second, records your production shows must exist and does not include:

Records of the telephone calls the produced emails arrange or reference. Lieutenant McQuillan to Detective Hyde, March 6: "Can you give me a call when you have a moment about some concerns in the Florence area." Detective Hyde to SA Oliver, March 18:
"Thank you for the call yesterday about the person we are looking for." Detective Hyde to Detective Nelson, March 10: "Give me a call later this week and we can talk about heading down there." For each of these calls: call logs from state-issued phones, and
any notes, memoranda, or summaries documenting what was discussed.

Text messages among the involved personnel. SA Oliver to Detective Hyde, March 22: "Shoot me a text or call Monday to confirm for Tuesday." I am requesting the text messages between Detectives Hyde and Nelson, Sergeant Henderson, Lieutenant McQuillan,
and SA Oliver concerning me, the visit, or its planning.

Calendar and scheduling records for the March 24 visit, including the Tuesday confirmation the March 22 email arranges.

Complete copies of the messages produced with headers and no body. Rebecca Long's March 6, 1:51 PM reply is one example. These messages carry no redaction markings. If content was withheld, identify it and state the exemption. If the messages are blank
as held, state that.

All remaining communications concerning me held on OSP systems or by OSP personnel, in any account or medium. This includes Detective Hyde's task force communications regarding me, to the extent held or accessible by the Department, and any OSP communications
with the Oregon TITAN Fusion Center beyond the March 11 chain you produced.

Any other attachments to case files SP26096984 and SP26097765 in your records management system that have not been produced.

For each record withheld, identify the record and state the specific statutory exemption asserted for it, as ORS 192.329 requires. If the Department's position is that no further responsive records exist in a category above, state that in writing for that category.

Every record above is subject to the litigation hold your Risk office acknowledged on September 1. The $95.00 refund is noted, and I appreciate the production of the records that were included.

SA Oliver's March 27 email states that OSP was interested in interviewing me "due to multiple veil threats." That is the characterization your file offers for what was set in motion. Yet Detective Hyde, after reviewing my website on March 6, wrote: "nothing
is standing out to me more than what Parks and Rec sent you. Sounds like this person does have a grievance with the former employer." And Detective Nelson's own report concludes that I made no direct threats, showed no leakage toward violence, and committed
no crimes.

So: before two detectives and a federal agent were driven to my home, did anyone identify an actual statement of mine claimed to be a veiled threat, and look at it? If such a statement exists, produce it, or quote it in your response. If none exists, state
that.

Robert Samuel White