I sent an email at 12:15 PM Tuesday. Tallahassee. Office of Executive Investigations. Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 2331 Phillips Road, 32308. Subject line: Suggested Investigative Focus, Sheriff Gregory Tony, NSU Dissertation, BSO Data Acquisition.
Four pages. Five records requests. One predicate document.
The predicate document is the dissertation. Tony wrote it. Tony signed the Statement of Original Work on May 12, 2024. Tony defended it in front of four committee members. Tony submitted it to ProQuest. Page 38 says Chapter 119. Page 40 says a designated officer with authorized security clearance pulled seven years of records out of RMS, CFS, CAD, and PeopleSoft. 1,500 deputies. 35,663 calls for service. Anonymized. Handed over.
Two paragraphs. Two different transactions. Tony’s name on both.
That’s the contradiction. I copied it out of his filing.
This post took a multi-model AI stack, an OSINT pass, and three decades of public records practice to produce. Municipalities, law firms, and advocacy organizations hire that whole apparatus directly.
What The Letter Does
The letter doesn’t ask FDLE to do anything FDLE wouldn’t already do.
It puts five records requests on FDLE’s desk in a form they can lift and run. Path A asks BSO if a Chapter 119 transaction occurred. Path B asks BSO and NSU what authorized the internal extraction if it didn’t. Together the five cover both possibilities and exclude every middle option Tony might invent later.
If Path A returns nothing, page 38 misstates the legal authority. If Path B also returns nothing, page 40 describes an extraction with no governing authorization on file. Either result is a finding. The third option, where records exist on both paths, is also a finding, because then we get to read them.
At least one of the five produces something. There is no scenario where all five come back empty. The records exist, or their absence is the record.
What I Didn’t Ask For
I didn’t ask FDLE to coordinate. I didn’t ask FDLE to comment on its posture. I didn’t ask FDLE to share any aspect of an active inquiry. I didn’t ask for confirmation, acknowledgment, or a phone call.
FDLE doesn’t take calls from the public during open matters. They read email. The email is, well, email. I’ve said my piece, and my work is done for the day, hour, minute, second, nanosecond, picosecond.
Welcome to me being me.
What I asked was that if FDLE is reviewing matters concerning Tony, and if the dissertation question is or becomes part of any open matter, the five requests are a starting framework. That’s the entire ask. A framework, offered, take it or leave it.
The Gonot Reference
I told FDLE this isn’t a first-time submission. I cited Gonot, Deerfield Beach, the records-engineering work they already reviewed in connection with that matter. I didn’t elaborate. They have the file.
The point wasn’t to leverage Gonot. The point was that the letter on their desk Tuesday afternoon came out of a methodology that has already produced findings inside their own building. The cover sheet says Revolt Insights. The methodology underneath is the same one they reviewed in 2024.
If FDLE opens the Gonot file and the Tony file side by side, they will recognize the architecture. Decision node, paper trail, records sufficient to show. Same engine.
The Sources Note
The letter says I have been informed by sources in a position to know that a research-funding relationship between BSO and NSU was active during the dissertation window, and that one of the four committee members who approved the dissertation has subsequently accepted a reservist appointment with BSO.
I named neither. Request 4 produces the funding documents if they exist. Request 5 produces the committee composition and any subsequent BSO affiliation any committee member has accepted. If the sources are right, the records confirm them. If the sources are wrong, the records correct them.
I am not the witness. I am the guy who tells FDLE which filing cabinet to open.
What Happens Now
Three things, on a calendar I don’t control.
The records requests get filed at BSO and at NSU. Statutory clocks start. Either institution produces, partially produces, or refuses. Each is a finding.
FDLE does whatever FDLE does. I will not know which one. That’s the point of a one-way submission.
The diploma at NSU sits where it sits until someone asks the Provost’s office to look at the methodology section against the policy on data acquisition for human-subjects research. That someone might be NSU itself. It might be a reporter. It might be an FDLE inspector reading the dissertation as part of an unrelated review and noticing the same contradiction I noticed. Doesn’t matter who. The contradiction is in the filing. The filing is in ProQuest. ProQuest doesn’t take it down.
That calendar isn’t mine. Tony has been under FDLE review since 2020 on the Pennsylvania-records and falsified-affidavit matters. The dissertation contradiction sits inside an existing investigative window. I didn’t open the window. Tony opened it. I just walked up to the building with a different envelope.
The Donut, Again
If you read this far across five parts, you know the ask.
Five FDLE-ready records requests. One revocation petition aimed at NSU’s Provost. One ethics complaint to the doctoral committee chair. The records cost money. The filings cost money. The hours cost money.
If you want Broward rid of Sheriff Gregory Tony, Doctor of Disgrace, put down the donut and chip in twenty bucks. Forward this post to three Broward voters. Tell them to read Parts 1 through 4 and then read this one. Tell them which letter just went to Tallahassee and what it asked for.
I’m doing my job here.
The desk sergeant has the selfie. The dissertation is the bank’s security tape. The Provost has a procedure already written down. FDLE has the letter.
Press play.
Chaz Stevens is a First Amendment practitioner and constitutional stress tester based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. His work has produced legislative rewrites, policy reversals, and one governor who had to put his own name on the reason he changed his own law. He is the founder of REVOLT Training.
This Substack has no paywall. That’s not an accident — it’s a policy. Free or paid subscriber, your support is what keeps it that way and gets this work in front of people who need to see it. No algorithms. No corporate underwriters. No bullshit. Just you, me, and the First Amendment. If that’s worth something to you, hit the button.
Accountability in Action
Turn transparency laws into accountability weapons.
Fund these battles, forcing states to answer their own laws—and exposing what they’d rather keep buried.
My thanks for your support.