University of Michigan, Law Enforcement & First Amendment
The University of Michigan’s official position is that it can communicate with outside law enforcement agencies including the FBI but not disclose the communications to the public. Should we trust this? My experience has been that the University of Michigan Office of General Counsel has repeatedly made “referrals” based on false allegations and false witnesses to law enforcement including the FBI (e.g. a “bugged” statue, a “suspicious” package, etc.) and the University of Michigan police ran numerous secret investigations against myself and my family.
More recently, there has been significant press with respect to the relationship between the University of Michigan and law enforcement and the student body on multiple issues irrespective of political ideology. What does that say about our finest academic institutions and the First Amendment?
President Grasso, University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
FOIAappeals@umich.edu
SENT VIA EMAIL
November 23, 2025
RE: Appeal For Constructive Denial of University of Michigan FOIA Request 260632 For UM OGC Gloria Hage Communications to Law Enforcement (including the FBI) regarding Bradley Foerster, Myria Petrou, Maria Petrou Duaa Altaee, Aine Kelly, Tarick Seifeddine, and/or Paul Cronin
Dear President Grasso,
I am writing to appeal the constructive denial for my November 12, 2025 FOIA request, FOIA 2060632 requesting “copy of all communications (electronic or hard copy) referencing/regarding myself, Myria Petrou, Maria Petrou, Tarick Seifeddine, Paul Cronin, Aine Kelly, Duaa Altaee, “Nick“ (an unidentified witness who Kara Morgenstern was in contact with), and/or Shonda” (a black woman from Detroit who my mother-in-law claims controls myself and my wife Dr. Myria Petrou) between Gloria Hage (copied here) and law enforcement including the FBI (including but not limited to agents Sue Lucas and Tyson Howard), the DOJ as well as the US Attorneys Office from January 1 2015 to present”
The University found responsive public records but stated “Your request is denied. Two responsive records that were located are exempt and withheld from disclosure pursuant to Section 13 (1) (m) of the Act, which allows the University to refrain from disclosing certain communications and notes of an advisory nature. We believe that in this particular instance, public interest in encouraging frank communication between employees of public bodies outweighs the public interest in disclosure. To provide a further description of the exempted records would reveal the contents of the exempt information and thus defeat the purpose of the exemption. Therefore, pursuant to Section 14 (2) of the Act, no further description is required.”
As you know under the FOIA, the University of Michigan has the burden of showing that the frank communication exemption applies, including why the public's interest in non-disclosure clearly outweighs the public's right to receive records in the particular instance. Bukowski v City of Detroit, 478 Mich 268 (2007); Hear!d Co, Inc v Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents,2 65 Mich App 185 (2005) (citations omitted). The University of Michigan has not and cannot show that the public interest in promoting frank communications clearly outweighs the public's interest in disclosure in this instance. The University’s prior FOIA replies generated documents (but not released) regarding myself and my wife Dr. Myria Petrou related to Russia-Gate. As such, the public interest in learning how and why the University of Michigan communicating to law enforcement (including the FBI) regarding its faculty involved in a Russia-Gate investigation is overwhelming on its face.
In order to overcome this extreme public interest, the public's interest in non-disclosure must "clearly outweigh" the public's interest in disclosure. Once again, the University of Michigan cannot demonstrate that the public's interest in non-disclosure clearly outweighs the public's interest in disclosure, particularly in light of the fact Russia-Gate is repeatedly in the current news cycle as there are numerous critical unanswered questions including former University of Michigan faculty Paul Cronin’s statements which mirrored (and preceded by months) the Steele Dossier.
Given that the University’s claimed exemptions are not legal (as established above) to deny release of University communications to law enforcement, I am requesting the immediate release of my FOIA request to bring the University of Michigan back into compliance with the FOIA.
Sincerely,
Bradley Foerster
9337 Copenhaver Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
(612) 354-0408
Cc: UM Lead Counsel Tim Lynch, OGC Gloria Hage, AG Nessel, Governor Whitmer, Myria Petrou Prosecutor Savit, Dean Thomas Wang
