DOJ Claimed there were No Records about Mark Bennett’s Misconduct and his Illegal Undercover Operation that Cost Dawn Pasela her Life -- Then 626 Pages Turned Up

  • New court filings raise additional questions about disbarred federal prosecutor Mark Bennett, missing electronic evidence, and voice recordings Bennett and his colleagues ordered Dawn Pasela to make

  • The Justice Department is obligated to correct materially false statements made in criminal cases, but has yet to do so, see pleadings in Viola v. US Department of Justice, case # 1:24-cv-2026 (TSC)

  • Inspector General Caught making False Statements about decisions not to Prosecute Mark Bennett

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CLEVELAND, OHIO – August 7, 2026 – FreeTonyViola.com announced multiple developments in pending litigation over the wrongdoing inside the US Attorney’s Office in Cleveland that led to the firing of former Federal Prosecutor Mark Bennett, and his role in the illegal undercover operation to spy on defense trial preparation that led to the death of whistleblower Dawn Pasela.

Background – Mark Bennett’s Firing, the Inspector General’s Report and Bennett’s Suspension from the Practice of Law by the Ohio Supreme Court

The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General found that former Assistant United States Attorney Mark Bennett engaged in a pattern of sexually inappropriate conduct involving multiple women, including an intern, another AUSA, an FBI employee, and a U.S. Postal Inspector. Bennett’s wrongdoing included trolling women on several social media platforms, soliciting sex via social-media messages, making salacious comments about women’s bodies, discussing his own sexual relationship with his wife, Ogletree Deakins partner Rebecca Bennett, soliciting sex from the intern and demanding sexual favors in exchange for a letter of recommendation. In one instance, Bennett deliberately brushed his arm across the intern’s breast; several witnesses told OIG that his conduct made her so uncomfortable that she avoided her assigned workstation and transferred to an office 100 miles away to avoid him. Bennett’s physical and verbal sexually harassment and the unwanted touching violated Ohio’s Sexual Imposition statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.06. OIG also substantiated sexual-harassment/employee-conduct violations involving other women. Finally, OIG found that Bennett sent sexually suggestive photos of himself on government computers and lied during the investigation, falsely telling investigators that he had not used his government laptop to access Facebook or Twitter and “completely avoided” those sites, while government internet logs showed that he accessed social-media sites, including Facebook and Twitter dozens of times, OIG Report #21-005, pages 1 and 5–11.

The Bennett scandal did not end with an internal DOJ investigation and his firing, but also reached the Supreme Court of Ohio.  In Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett, 2023-Ohio-4752, Case No. 2023-0471, the Supreme Court publicly disciplined Bennett, imposing a two-year suspension from the practice of law.  Around the same time, the Justice Department blamed Mark Bennett for making false statements in federal court about evidence in Tony Viola’s criminal case, Viola v. U.S. Department of Justice, et. al., 15-cv-242, WD Pa, document numbers 99 and 164.

Background – Litigation to Obtain Records about Mark Bennett’s Wrongdoing and information about Voice Recordings

The FreeTonyViola.com Investigative Team sought records concerning the DOJ Inspector General investigation of Bennett, and the contents of his computer, particularly recordings or transcripts concerning Dawn Pasela. The FBI initially invoked a Glomar response, a FOIA doctrine under which an agency refuses even to confirm or deny whether responsive records exist, claiming that merely acknowledging their existence would reveal protected information. That doctrine is generally reserved for situations where the existence of records is itself a secret. But here, a Glomar response is inappropriate because DOJ has already officially acknowledged the investigation by publicly releasing the OIG report identifying Mark Bennett, the matter has been the subject of extensive media coverage, and Bennett's misconduct became the subject of a public disciplinary proceeding before the Supreme Court of Ohio. Once the government has publicly confirmed both the investigation and Bennett's identity, refusing to acknowledge additional records concerning that same investigation serves little legitimate purpose and prevents meaningful judicial review of whether DOJ and the FBI conducted adequate searches.

Still, the DOJ refused to produce any records or photographs.  As a result, public records litigation was launched, alleging that DOJ and the FBI failed to conduct searches reasonably calculated to locate records concerning Bennett, the DOJ Inspector General's investigation, and Dawn Pasela's recordings. After initially refusing to confirm or deny the existence of Bennett-related records, the FBI later located a less-redacted OIG report on the internet and in DOJ's own FOIA Library identifying Bennett and acknowledging FBI involvement, prompting the FBI to conduct a new but limited search for public records.

626 New Pages Suddenly Appeared

Although the FBI claimed it found no responsive records, EOUSA was later required by DOJ's Office of Information Policy to perform its own search, which produced 626 responsive pages, reinforcing Plaintiff's contention that additional records exist and that the agencies' original searches were inadequate. The Complaint also challenges OIG's withholding of records referred by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service concerning Bennett.

Justice Department Government’s Position in the Records Litigation is Undermined by its Own Admissions

In its most recent court filing, the Justice Department now claims that no additional records or recordings remain to be produced; it further contends that the FBI and EOUSA conducted adequate searches, OIG and EOUSA properly withheld limited material, and the FBI may refuse under Glomar even to confirm or deny the existence of additional Bennett-related records. The government summarizes its position by asserting that Defendants have “adequately searched for records” and “produced segregable, non-exempt records.” July 22, 2026 filing, page 5.

The government's own filing, however, contains significant admissions undermining its own position. First, the FBI acknowledges that the publicly released OIG report identified Mark Bennett by name and “indicated that an FBI forensic analyst was involved.” Gov’t Mem. at 7. The FBI declaration goes further: Bennett “sent sexual comments over social media to an FBI forensic analyst and the FBI employee was interviewed.” The FBI therefore conceded that “other FBI divisions or sections could have records responsive to Plaintiff’s request.” Hammer Decl. ¶ 22, at 10. Nevertheless, the FBI's principal search consisted of searching Sentinel indices for the single term “Mark Bennett,” which returned no responsive records. Gov’t Mem. at 13. The government also admits that Plaintiff specifically complained that DOJ “never contacted [Mark] Bennett, who made false statements” and that documents referenced in the Bennett OIG report had not been produced. Gov’t Mem. at 9. Nothing in the government's description of its search indicates that it thereafter contacted Bennett or searched his government laptop, archived emails, social-media communications, or other electronic files or reached out to additional FBI offices which could result in the production of additional records.

Justice Department Caught Lying about its Criminal Referral of Mark Bennett to local Prosecutors in Ohio

The DOJ's Inspector General Report states that, after OIG concluded Mark Bennett's conduct likely violated Ohio's Sexual Imposition statute, "the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Akron City Prosecutor's Office declined criminal prosecution." That statement conveys a clear impression: prosecutors received the evidence, reviewed the investigative file, and made an informed decision not to file charges.  But the City of Akron's own written response to a records request disproves that contention.

According to records produced by the Akron Law Department, the City does not possess the investigative file or related records concerning the Bennett referral. The pleadings further allege that Akron prosecutors were not provided the OIG investigative file, did not interview the alleged victim, and received only a telephone call before the matter was closed.  The FreeTonyViola Investigative team argues in court that the public should not have to speculate about how such an important decision was made. DOJ should release the referral letters, emails, memoranda, and communications showing exactly what information was provided to Akron, who reviewed it, and how the reported decision to decline prosecution was reached.

Quotation from Tony Viola

Tony Viola released the following statement concerning recent developments in this litigation: "The Justice Department publicly honored Mark Bennett for his mortgage fraud prosecutions, presented him with a HUD Office of Inspector General award and highlighted him as one of its premier prosecutors. It had no hesitation making Bennett the public face of justice when he was utilizing underhanded and illegal tactics to secure convictions, including mine. Today, however, the Department is asking the courts to shield records about its own misconduct investigation of that same prosecutor. The federal courts should not permit the Justice Department to have it both ways — celebrating Mark Bennett when he’s prosecuting citizens, but then later demanding secrecy when citizens ask how he conducted himself. There are also serious, unanswered questions about Dawn Pasela, the recordings she made, what federal officials knew about those recordings, and what happened to the records documenting those events. Until voice recordings with Dawn’s name on them are produced, and until Mark Bennett’s laptop is searched for relevant documents, photographs and recordings, our efforts demanding Justice for Dawn will continue."

About FreeTonyViola.com:  FreeTonyViola.com is a justice-accountability platform dedicated to exposing prosecutorial misconduct and holding public officials responsible for actions that lead to wrongful convictions.  FreeTonyViola.com exists for one reason: to expose prosecutorial misconduct and demand accountability when abuse of power results in wrongful convictions.  Wrongful convictions are rarely the result of honest mistakes or momentary lapses in judgment. They are far more often caused by “win-at-all-costs” prosecution, refusal to acknowledge error, and the deliberate locking-in of narratives that prosecutors will not revisit—even when evidence contradicts their case.  This platform documents those failures, preserves the evidence, and makes it public. Our focus is not rehabilitation services or re-entry assistance. Our focus is accountability — especially when prosecutors break the law, abuse their authority, or knowingly pursue convictions that cannot withstand scrutiny.

# # #