{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"WIJDR_Response_to_DeleteMe_Legal_Submission.pdf","alternateName":"WIJDR_Response_to_DeleteMe_Legal_Submission.pdf","caption":"WIJDR_Response_to_DeleteMe_Legal_Submission.pdf","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/598/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-22T22:02:42+00:00","description":"WIJDR_Response_to_DeleteMe_Legal_Submission.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"598","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/598/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/598/index.md"},"name":"WIJDR_Response_to_DeleteMe_Legal_Submission","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nLUCYCRAIG.BLOG \u2022 FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE\nPage 1\nLUCYCRAIG.BLOG | EDITORIAL ADMINISTRATION\nFORMAL RESPONSE TO LEGAL REMOVAL REQUEST\nDate: October 22, 2026\nTo: DeleteMe Support \nFrom: Editorial Administration, LucyCraig.blog\nRe: Purported request on behalf of Justice Phaedra F. Perry-Bond \u2014 rejection, withdrawal request, and\nreservation of rights\nTo DeleteMe Support:\nWe write in response to the October 22, 2026 communication submitted through LucyCraig.blog\u2019s\nlegal-submission portal, purportedly on behalf of New York Supreme Court Justice Phaedra F. Perry-Bond. The\ncommunication seeks immediate removal of our article and invokes the federal Daniel Anderl Judicial Security\nand Privacy Act. This is a response to a legal/privacy request, not a copyright or DMCA notice.\nThe demand for wholesale removal is rejected as submitted. It does not identify each allegedly protected\npassage, photograph, or data element; adequately establish the requested relief under the federal law cited; or\nexplain why removal of an entire article about a public judicial officer would be required notwithstanding\nprotections for news reporting and commentary on matters of public concern.\nLegal grounds\nThe federal Daniel Anderl Act addresses protected information of defined categories of federal judicial officers and\ncertain family members. The submission does not establish that its federal statutory provisions cover this New\nYork State justice. This does not mean state judicial privacy protections are inapplicable. New York Judiciary Law\n\u00a7 859 independently protects qualifying judges, subject to statutory requirements and exceptions, including for\nnews reporting, commentary, and speech on public concerns. We will review any specifically identified, properly\nsupported claim concerning genuinely protected personal information.\nRequested resolution within 72 hours\nWe request a written response within 72 hours after receipt of this letter addressing the following:\n1. Confirm withdrawal of the blanket demand that the entire WIJDR article be deleted.\n2. Confirm the identity of the submitting entity and supply reasonable verification of its authorization to represent\nJustice Perry-Bond in this matter.\n3. Identify the exact content alleged to be protected, the statute and provision relied upon, the applicable notice\nrequirements, and the legal basis for the specific remedy requested.\n4. Correct or withdraw any inaccurate assertion about federal statutory coverage or available enforcement\nremedies.\n5. If the judge personally authorized the blanket demand, convey our request for a direct, authenticated written\nacknowledgment and apology for the demand\u2019s unsupported breadth.\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nLUCYCRAIG.BLOG \u2022 FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE\nPage 2\nThe 72-hour period is a requested opportunity to resolve this dispute, not a purported statutory deadline.\nNeither nonresponse nor refusal to apologize, standing alone, establishes legal liability.\nReservation of rights\nWe reserve all editorial and legal rights, including the right to seek advice and pursue any remedy supported by\nevidence of actionable unlawful conduct and resulting harm. We do not claim that this submission alone proves\nbad faith, frivolous litigation, or a presently viable cause of action. Please preserve the original request,\nauthorization records, and related communications relevant to its preparation and transmission.\nAn elected or appointed judicial officer\u2019s public work, qualifications, rulings, professional record, and other lawfully\nreported matters of public concern remain proper subjects of scrutiny. Legitimate judicial security concerns\ndeserve consideration; a generalized demand to erase public-interest commentary does not.\nSincerely,\nEditorial Administration\nLucyCraig.blog\nReference article: https://lucycraig.blog/article/judge-phaedra-f-perry-bond\nSubmitted request: https://lucycraig.blog/media/590 | Company screenshot: https://lucycraig.blog/media/589\nAuthorities: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/JUD/859 | https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-III\nVerification note: The identity and claimed authorization of the original sender have not been independently authenticated.","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nLUCYCRAIG.BLOG \u2022 FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE\nPage 1\nLUCYCRAIG.BLOG | EDITORIAL ADMINISTRATION\nFORMAL RESPONSE TO LEGAL REMOVAL REQUEST\nDate: October 22, 2026\nTo: DeleteMe Support \nFrom: Editorial Administration, LucyCraig.blog\nRe: Purported request on behalf of Justice Phaedra F. Perry-Bond \u2014 rejection, withdrawal request, and\nreservation of rights\nTo DeleteMe Support:\nWe write in response to the October 22, 2026 communication submitted through LucyCraig.blog\u2019s\nlegal-submission portal, purportedly on behalf of New York Supreme Court Justice Phaedra F. Perry-Bond. The\ncommunication seeks immediate removal of our article and invokes the federal Daniel Anderl Judicial Security\nand Privacy Act. This is a response to a legal/privacy request, not a copyright or DMCA notice.\nThe demand for wholesale removal is rejected as submitted. It does not identify each allegedly protected\npassage, photograph, or data element; adequately establish the requested relief under the federal law cited; or\nexplain why removal of an entire article about a public judicial officer would be required notwithstanding\nprotections for news reporting and commentary on matters of public concern.\nLegal grounds\nThe federal Daniel Anderl Act addresses protected information of defined categories of federal judicial officers and\ncertain family members. The submission does not establish that its federal statutory provisions cover this New\nYork State justice. This does not mean state judicial privacy protections are inapplicable. New York Judiciary Law\n\u00a7 859 independently protects qualifying judges, subject to statutory requirements and exceptions, including for\nnews reporting, commentary, and speech on public concerns. We will review any specifically identified, properly\nsupported claim concerning genuinely protected personal information.\nRequested resolution within 72 hours\nWe request a written response within 72 hours after receipt of this letter addressing the following:\n1. Confirm withdrawal of the blanket demand that the entire WIJDR article be deleted.\n2. Confirm the identity of the submitting entity and supply reasonable verification of its authorization to represent\nJustice Perry-Bond in this matter.\n3. Identify the exact content alleged to be protected, the statute and provision relied upon, the applicable notice\nrequirements, and the legal basis for the specific remedy requested.\n4. Correct or withdraw any inaccurate assertion about federal statutory coverage or available enforcement\nremedies.\n5. If the judge personally authorized the blanket demand, convey our request for a direct, authenticated written\nacknowledgment and apology for the demand\u2019s unsupported breadth.\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nLUCYCRAIG.BLOG \u2022 FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE\nPage 2\nThe 72-hour period is a requested opportunity to resolve this dispute, not a purported statutory deadline.\nNeither nonresponse nor refusal to apologize, standing alone, establishes legal liability.\nReservation of rights\nWe reserve all editorial and legal rights, including the right to seek advice and pursue any remedy supported by\nevidence of actionable unlawful conduct and resulting harm. We do not claim that this submission alone proves\nbad faith, frivolous litigation, or a presently viable cause of action. Please preserve the original request,\nauthorization records, and related communications relevant to its preparation and transmission.\nAn elected or appointed judicial officer\u2019s public work, qualifications, rulings, professional record, and other lawfully\nreported matters of public concern remain proper subjects of scrutiny. Legitimate judicial security concerns\ndeserve consideration; a generalized demand to erase public-interest commentary does not.\nSincerely,\nEditorial Administration\nLucyCraig.blog\nReference article: https://lucycraig.blog/article/judge-phaedra-f-perry-bond\nSubmitted request: https://lucycraig.blog/media/590 | Company screenshot: https://lucycraig.blog/media/589\nAuthorities: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/JUD/859 | https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-III\nVerification note: The identity and claimed authorization of the original sender have not been independently authenticated.","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/598/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/598"}