Dear Judge Perry-Bond: That's Not How the First Amendment Works.

The Office of Court Administration acknowledges receipt of your FOIL request dated October 25, 2026, seeking:

 

1. Contracts, procurement, and program records

 

All existing OCA contracts, subscription agreements, purchase orders, statements of work, amendments,

 

invoices, procurement approvals, vendor evaluations, solicitations and procurement records concerning

 

DeleteMe, JoinDeleteMe or Abine, Inc., whether procured for OCA, court employees, judges, or a judicial

 

security/privacy program. Include any agreement for group accounts, subsidized employee benefits, or

 

vendor referrals administered or funded by OCA.

 

 

2. Records identifying recipients or beneficiaries

 

Nonexempt administrative records reflecting whether Justice Perry-Bond was named, designated, enrolled,

 

approved, reimbursed, or otherwise listed as a user or beneficiary of the above services, including through a

 

central procurement or court-funded benefit. For wider programs, records sufficient to identify the approving

 

unit, eligibility criteria, expenditures, and general scope of services; sensitive security details may be

 

redacted.

 

 

3. Funding and privately financed arrangements involving official resources

 

Administrative records showing who paid for relevant services, including agency purchase or payment

 

records, reimbursements, expense reports, outside funding, cost-sharing arrangements, or instances where

 

a privately paid subscription was authorized, coordinated, administered, processed, or supported using OCA

 

personnel, procurement systems, or other official resources. We do not seek personal banking or

 

payment-card information.

 

 

4. Scope of service: personal privacy versus professional reputation

 

Existing contracts, service descriptions, onboarding materials, statements of work, vendor proposals,

 

policies, authorizations, or correspondence in OCA's administrative custody describing whether the services

 

encompass (a) removal of home addresses, family information, or information-broker entries; (b)

 

search-engine delisting; (c) requests about reporting on judicial rulings, opinions, proceedings, or

 

professional conduct; (d) reputation-management or public-relations activity; or (e) complaints or demands

 

to remove critical commentary concerning a judge's official work. This item requests documents reflecting

 

the scope, not a newly created explanation.

 

 

5. Communications and content-removal requests

 

Nonexempt OCA administrative correspondence, including emails, attachments, referrals, memoranda,

 

instructions, and vendor submissions, concerning DeleteMe, Justice Perry-Bond, judicial reputation or

 

security services, LucyCraig.blog, the domain lucycraig.blog, or requests to remove, modify, deindex, or

 

restrict publication of material about the judicial work of Justice Perry-Bond. Include records discussing

 

whether a proposed request was for a private safety concern, a professional reputation concern, or both.

 

 

6. Public-resource participation and oversight

 

Policies, directives, approvals, and records of internal administrative review concerning use of court email

 

accounts, staff time, state equipment, official titles, official stationery, public funds, or referral channels in

 

assisting commercial information-removal services. Include existing administrative records of any applicable

 

conflict-of-interest or authority review, but not confidential ethics proceedings or protected judicial

 

deliberations.

 

 

7. Time period and search scope

 

For contracts, procurement, payment, and policies: January 1, 2020 through October 25, 2026. For

 

communications specifically referring to Justice Perry-Bond, LucyCraig.blog, the cited publication, or

 

content-removal requests: January 1, 2025 through October 25, 2026. Search OCA offices reasonably likely

 

to maintain procurement, finance, legal administration, technology contracting, and vendor-management

 

records. The search terms should include "Phaedra Perry-Bond," "Phaedra Perry," "DeleteMe,"

 

"JoinDeleteMe," "Abine," and "lucycraig.blog," as appropriate.

 

 

We have begun to process your request, and we will provide you with a response on or before November 27, 2026.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

FOIL Officer

 

Office of Court Administration

 

Agency Building 4 ESP, Suite 2001

 

Albany, NY 12223

We are sending an invoice to DeleteMe for wasting our legal team's time.

If they do not pay, we will sue them in small claims court.

Dear DeleteMe,

 

I am so fucking tired of the online censorship industry and companies like DeleteMe pretending that sending an intimidating legal notice is the same thing as having a legitimate legal argument.

 

The business model deserves serious scrutiny. Companies charge people to remove information from the internet, then send demands to websites and platforms hoping somebody will comply rather than challenge them. When those demands are legally defective, unsupported by evidence, or absurdly overbroad, the entire exercise starts looking less like privacy protection and more like an attempt to sell people the illusion of control over other people's speech.

 

And let's be clear: protecting genuinely private information is one thing. Attempting to erase lawful criticism, public records, and reporting about public officials is something entirely different.

 

What kind of half-assed legal review produces a demand to remove an entire article about a sitting judge without adequately identifying the protected information, establishing that the cited federal statute applies, or explaining why constitutionally protected commentary should disappear?

 

That is not persuasive legal advocacy. That is a demand looking desperately for a legal justification.

 

Apparently, the hope is that publishers will see an official-sounding statute, references to federal agencies, and a deadline, then panic and start deleting.

 

Wrong fucking publisher.

 

LucyCraig.blog is SELF-HOSTED. We do not answer to a social media platform's moderation department. There is no convenient corporate abuse-report button that automatically overrides our editorial judgment.

 

We will not be intimidated into removing lawful reporting. We will not confuse an allegation of illegality with proof of illegality. And we will not accept the outrageous proposition that someone holding public office can simply purchase immunity from public criticism.

 

Public officials are subject to public scrutiny. Their professional conduct, public decisions, official records, and use of government authority are legitimate subjects of reporting and debate.

 

That does not mean private security information is fair game. It means judicial privacy laws are not a magic wand for making unfavorable journalism disappear.

 

As for the purported DeleteMe demand submitted on behalf of Judge Phaedra F. Perry-Bond: we reject the demand for wholesale removal as submitted.

 

We demand that the sender substantiate its authority, identify the precise legal basis for its request, and withdraw its unsupported demand. If the judge personally authorized it, we are also requesting a direct explanation and apology.

 

We have provided a 72-hour response period.

 

If the demand persists, our legal counsel may evaluate litigation and other remedies against any responsible parties, including DeleteMe and, if legally warranted and supported by evidence, those who authorized the demand.

 

We are not claiming that sending a defective notice automatically constitutes bad faith or creates a cause of action. We are saying that unsupported demands to suppress lawful reporting will be challenged.

 

And to the entire industry built around making embarrassing but lawful information disappear:

 

WE ARE SICK AND FUCKING TIRED OF PEOPLE TREATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT LIKE AN INCONVENIENT TECHNICALITY.

 

You do not own our reporting. You do not dictate our editorial policies. You do not get to erase public records because your client dislikes what they reveal.

 

If something is factually wrong, show us the evidence. If something genuinely violates an applicable privacy law, identify it precisely. If you have a valid court order, produce it.

 

Otherwise, spare us the legal theater, the intimidating language, and the ridiculous assumption that we're too stupid to read the statutes you cite.

 

YOUR LEGAL NOTICE IS NOT OUR EDITORIAL POLICY.

 

YOUR CLIENT'S REPUTATION IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE.

 

AND LAWFUL PUBLIC-INTEREST JOURNALISM IS NOT FOR SALE.

 

— LucyCraig.blog Editorial Administration

 

The article in question remains and will not be modified, ever: https://lucycraig.blog/article/judge-phaedra-f-perry-bond

 

P.S. we are fully transparent here. We publish our errors, our decisions, our privacy policy, our moderation policy (any legal stays, no spam), and importantly, we will publish demands made to our admins.

 

Our policy is straight forward, the answer to speech we do not like, like a horrifically stupid legal demand, is more speech, not less. We will be doing a records demand for contracts, communications, emails, and actions taken by, between the State of New York officials, court officials, and public officials with DeleteMe as a company. It is illegal for state officials to censor others, a sitting judge should know that.

I love how they quote federal law and then say that federal law doesn't apply to a New York State judge. Clowns. Dollars to donuts that DeleteMe was hired by someone in the NYS Office of Court Administration with taxpayer dollars. Judge Perry-Bond didn't spend her own money because there are two things that don't pay: crime and judges.

NEW ARTICLE: Dear Judge Perry-Bond: A Privacy Request Is Not a Delete Key.

 

Judge Perry-Bond retains DeleteMe.com to serve LucyCraig.blog with takedown demands. We promptly respond publicly. WE WILL NOT DELETE ANYTHING, AND WILL NOW ADD MORE TO THE RECORD.

 

GFY.