The allegedly reckless DOJ Staff cannot have it both ways, essentially threatening prosecution; but when "things get difficult," withdrawing the complaint, hoping nothing happens:

Johnson's ruling also said the government has withdrawn its request for a certification from the court endorsing the asset seizure as having had a reasonable cause.

Wrong answer, DOJ. Once you start prosecution efforts, but withdraw that complaint, a reasonable grand jury would ask:

A. Was the prosecution inappropriately started;

B. Was the prosecution started with the intent to achieve political, not law enforcement efforts

C. To what extent has the defendant's reputation been substantially undermined, warranting a sepearte cause of action

D. How will the defendant turned plaintiff possibly have confidence in a justice system that refuses to provide the defendant-turned-plaintiff access under Brady to information to prove their case of alleged defamation, malicious prosecution?

A decision to prosecute is serious business. The prosecutor is saying they have evidence to charge a defendant; and prevail in court. Suddenly, inexplicably, the US Attorney backpedals. 

It is absurd for DOJ to believe it can start prosecution efforts, harass people; then bungle the case, but expect the defendant to roll over and do nothing. Once the US Attorney makes a decision to prosecute, that decision must be based on all foreseeable outcomes; and the US Attorney cannot go on a fishing trip, hoping to ruffle the feathers of some, hoping the public capitulate. The public may not lawfully target the DOJ Staff with expansive discovery through Congressional Committees and state level discipliary boards for evidence this alleged abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Once again, the DOJ Staff expanded their illegal war on the American justice system, are abusing prosecutions, and believe they can hide behind a shield. That shield must be torn down. This defandant, now possible plaintiff, has the right to examine the evidence behind this alleged reckless conduct. The exception to privilege in this case appears to be the crime-fraud exception in re alleged prosecutorial abuse.

The days of DOJ hiding behind a wall of disater that it alone, through recklessness has created needs to end. Otherwise, the DOJ, in its present form, needs to e substantially changed through appropriate changes to the oversight of the Untied States government. Send a letter of support to Henry Frohsin, of the Birmingham office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz.