Sie sind auf Seite 1von 71



EMANUEL MCCRAY, Individually and on ) CIVIL NO:__________________________
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )
In His Official Capacity As Attorney General of )
the United States, )
Capacity As Deputy Attorney General of the )
United States, )
Official Capacity As Director of the Federal )
Bureau of Investigation, and )
Official Capacity As Special Counsel to the )
Deputy Attorney General of the United States, )

COMES NOW Plaintiff Emanuel McCray (McCray or Lead Plaintiff), individually

and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and for their complaint, alleges as follows:
1. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 10(c), Exhibit 1, pages 1-229 are
incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein.

2. This is an action brought by lead plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against the named defendants alleging (1) violation of the algorithms of
Impeachment, Removal, Supremacy, Due Process, Grand Jury, Separation of Powers, Right of
Privacy (First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments), Freedom of Association (First
Amendment), Freedom of Speech (First Amendment), Right to Petition Government for Redress
of Grievances (First Amendment), Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Tenth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States; and (2) the unconstitutionality of:
(1) Sections 600.1 through 600.10, Part 600 (General Powers of Special Counsel),
Chapter VI (Offices of Independent Counsel, Department of Justice) of Title 28
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Judicial Administration);

(2) Deputy Attorney General Order No. 3915-2017 (Appointment of Special

Counsel To Investigate Russian Interference With the 2016 Presidential Election
and Related Matters) dated May 17, 2017, Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 2;

(3) Letter of Robert William Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

U.S. House of Representatives dated July 27, 2017 urging Defendants Sessions
and Rosenstein to appoint a second special counsel to investigate, consistent
with appropriate regulations [28 C.F.R. Part 600] to pursue matters not covered
by the appointment of Defendant Mueller, Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 39;1

(4) Letters of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) dated June 30, 2017 and
August 18, 2017 refusing to release a copy of FBI Memorandum published by
The New York Times on May 16, 2017. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 116-117 and 223-
224; and

(5) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Pub.L. 95511, 92 Stat. 1783.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), 5
U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)(i), and 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1346(a)(2).
4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B); 28 U.S.C.
1391(b)(2), 28 U.S.C. 1391(e)(1) and 28 U.S.C. 1402 because the Court is authorized to
exercise jurisdiction over each Defendant by virtue of their presence within this District; this
District is where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred; the

Goodlatte is the Republican Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over legislation
affecting the federal courts, administrative agencies and federal law enforcement entities. On June 21, 1994,
Goodlatte voted against the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, S. 24 (103 rd Congress), which passed
into law as Pub. L. 103270, 3(j), (k), 4, June 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 735, 736 and expired in June 1999.

information being wrongfully withheld is located in this District and there is no district in which
all the claims can otherwise be brought.
5. This Court has authority to award declaratory relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)
and 28 U.S.C. 2201.
6. This Court has authority to award injunctive relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)
and 28 U.S.C. 2202.
7. Further, Plaintiffs have standing to pursue these claims and the requested relief
pursuant to Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011) (Tenth Amendment); Roe v. Wade, 410
U.S. 113 (1973) (Personal Right of Privacy); United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974)
(Jurisdiction, separation of powers and case or controversy), and Nixon v. United States, 506 US
224 (1993) (Justiciability and constitutional interpretation within jurisdiction of courts).
8. Lead Plaintiff Emanuel McCray is a Citizen of the United States and resides in the State
of Washington. All other Plaintiffs similarly situated are (1) Citizens of the United States and (2)
are individuals legally admitted to reside in the United States. Lead Plaintiff is also an active
supporter of President Donald J. Trumps political and social movement to Make America
Great Again (MAGA).
9. Defendant United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is an Executive Department of the
U.S. Government responsible for the enforcement of law and the administration of justice in the
United States.
10. Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is in the Department of Justice. Its
earliest predecessor was created administratively in 1908 and was first designated as the Federal
Bureau of Investigation by the Act of Mar. 22, 1935, ch. 39, title II, 49 Stat. 77. The FBI is
responsible for the conduct of the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States
and is the United States principal law enforcement agency, having jurisdiction over more than
200 categories of federal crimes.
11. Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (Sessions or Attorney General) was
confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the 84th Attorney General of the United States on February 8,
2017. Sessions assumed office on February 9, 2017 and is the head of the DOJ pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 503. With few exceptions, 28 U.S.C. 509 provides in relevant part that: All functions

of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the
Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General.
12. Christopher Asher Wray (Wray) is currently serving as the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. Wray was confirmed by the Senate on August 1, 2017 and was sworn in
on August 2, 2017. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the head of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 532.
13. Defendant Robert Swan Mueller III (Mueller) previously served as FBI Director from
September 4, 2001 to September 4, 2013 and is currently serving as Special Counsel To
Investigate Russian Interference With the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters.
14. On July 20, 2017, EIB Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh reported that Defendant
Mueller hired a massive amount of people loyal to the Democratic Party and is possibly
looking at President Trumps business transactions going back as far as 2008:
RUSH: Were supposed to believe that Trump was colluding with the Russians
back in 2008 as he was preparing his run for the presidency. Yep. Exactly right.
Now, but heres what else is going on, folks, because Mueller has no limits. Hes
hired, as we all know now, a staff of at least 14 lawyers, and it may be more, and
each of them have assistants and clerks. This is a massive, massive amount of
people that Mueller has hired.

Last I heard, they were all Hillary and Bill Clinton supporters and Obama
supporters. They were all either donors, fundraisers, bundlers. They are liberal
activists for the Democrat Party, Clinton and Obama, and thats who Mueller has
hired. Now, there was an original theory that the reason he did that is because at
some point Trumps gonna be exonerated and it wouldnt fly unless theres a
bunch of Hillary and Obama people on the investigating committee. I think thats
all wet. I dont think they want to exonerate Trump. I think theyre gonna keep
This is the point. They dont have any limits. There are no parameters. The Justice
Department has not limited the scope of Muellers investigation at all. So heres
what this also is. As it stands now, the Mueller investigation is probably going to
be the biggest, most massive opposition research operation ever conducted in
American politics. With this investigation having no bounds and no limits, this

team can go anywhere to find any dirt whatsoever. In fact, for the presidential
election in 2020, this is a godsend. A team of Obama-Hillary donors investigating
every aspect of a sitting president that they detest.
An opposition research festival that has been sanctioned by law, an opposition
research investigation that can go anywhere as deep as it wants to dredge up
anything they can find on a sitting president and to heck with what comes of the
investigation. The data being produced here, I mean as much as things leaked
now, it wouldnt be a challenge at all to have some of whatever they find end up
in the presidential campaign of 2020. An investigation certified by the presidents
own Justice Department to investigate him! A free pass with an unlimited budget!
There has never been an opposition research examination or investigation or
operation that even gets close to this! Leak: Limitless Mueller Investigation
Expands to Include Trump Business Dealings, Jul 20, 2017,

15. Rod Jay Rosenstein (Rosenstein) is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
On May 17, 2017, Rosenstein issued Order No. 3915-2017 appointing Defendant Mueller to be a
Special Counsel To Investigate Russian Interference With the 2016 Presidential Election and
Related Matters. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 2.
16. On June 25, 1948, the 80th United States Congress enacted in Title 28, ch. 646, 1, 62
Stat. 869 (1948), comprehensive legislation to implement key provisions of the U.S. Constitution
and to govern the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure in the United States. Part I, 1-471 governs
the organizations of the Courts. Part II, 501-2599A governs the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Part III, 601-613 governs the Administrative Office of the Courts; Part IV, 1251-1260
governs the jurisdiction and venue of the Supreme Court of the United States; Chapter 83,
1291-1296 governs Courts of Appeals; Part V, 1651-2101 governs Court procedures; and Part
VI, 2201-2202 governs Declaratory Judgments.
17. On October 25, 1978, President Carter signed into law the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) 1978, Pub.L. 95511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36, which governs
procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence
information between foreign powers and agents of foreign powers suspected of espionage
or terrorism. The Act also created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee
requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

18. On February 1, 2008, the Internet domain, is registered. On January
13, 2009, the domains Internet Protocol (IP) address, which is the principal communications
protocol in the Internet protocol suite for relaying datagrams across network boundaries, along
with other IP addresses, become associated with the home of Bill and Hillary Clinton in
Chappaqua, New York.
19. On January 21, 2009, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (Hillary Clinton) assumed Office
as the 67th United States Secretary of State, under U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama and
served from January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013.
20. On January 21, 2009, Title 50 U.S.C. 3381(c)(2)(C) required that Hillary Clinton or a
member of her Office must provide membership to the National Counterintelligence Policy
Board (NCIB).
21. On December 29, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13526
(Classified National Security Information),
22. On December 29, 2009, Hillary Clinton became an Original Classification Authority
pursuant to Part 1 of E.O. 13526, and 22 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 9.5 (Original
Classification Authority).
23. On October 7, 2010, Congress enacted Title 50 U.S.C. 3344, Pub. L. 111258, 7, 124
Stat. 2652.), which mandated in part that:
The head of each Executive agency, in accordance with Executive Order 13526,
shall require annual training for each employee who has original classification
authority. Such training shall(1) educate the employee(2) ensure such
training is a prerequisite, once completed successfully, as evidenced by an
appropriate certificate or other record. The head of each Executive agency shall
ensure that the training required by subsection (a) is conducted efficiently and in
conjunction with any other required security, intelligence, or other training
programs to reduce the costs and administrative burdens associated with carrying
out the training required by subsection (a).

24. In or about November 2010, Civil Society 2.0, an initiative purporting to assist non-
governmental (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) in using new digital tools and
technologies to increase the reach and impact of their work, was introduced by Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, through the U.S. State Department. The first application took place in Santiago,

Chile by a Tech@State: Civil Society event called TechCamp. In its training and operation,
the program teaches journalists and activists how to create and sustain fake news propaganda
using fake/modified infographics. Fake Climate Change propaganda is among the basic
skills taught and financed by U.S. taxpayers. https://2009-
25. On March 9, 2012, a hot microphone picked up President Obama colluding on camera
telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev he would have more flexibility to negotiate on issues
like missile defense after he wins reelection.
26. On September 11, 2012, members of Ansar al-Sharia attacked the American diplomatic
compound in Benghazi resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher
Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, among others.
Reportedly, at the behest of the CIA, top U.S. officials, using Tech Camp supporters, initially
described the attacks as the results of a spontaneous protest triggered by recently released anti-
Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.
27. On September 16, 2012, Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., used talking points
from a CIA memo to falsely state that: Based on the best information we have to date, what our
assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to
what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a
violent protest outside of our embassysparked by this hateful video.
28. On September 18, 2012, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney falsely explained the
Benghazi attack to reporters as: Im saying that based on informationwe saw no evidence to
back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attackwe saw evidence
that it was sparked by the reaction to this video.
29. On September 20, 2012, President Obama, during an appearance on Univision, a
Spanish-language television network in the United States, explained the Benghazi attack by
falsely stating that: What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the
outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm
U.S. interests.

30. During March 2013, The Smoking Gun2 and GAWKER3 began reporting on a hacker
named Guccifer who had successfully accessed the email account being used by Sidney
Blumenthal to communicate with Hillary Clinton at to discuss sensitive
foreign policy issues involving the U.S. State Department.
31. Gawkers John Cook stated that: Neither the State Department nor the White House
would immediately comment on whether the White House knew that Blumenthal was digitally
whispering in Clintons ear, or if the e-mails were preserved as the law requires.
32. In March 2013, 50 U.S.C. 3381(e)(1), known also as a Section 811 Referral,
mandated that the head of each department or agency within the Executive Branch
immediately notify the FBI when classified information may have been improperly handled:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (5), the head of each department or agency
within the executive branch shall ensure that
(A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation is advised immediately of any
information, regardless of its origin, which indicates that classified information is
being, or may have been, disclosed in an unauthorized manner to a foreign power
or an agent of a foreign power;
(B) following a report made pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Federal Bureau of
Investigation is consulted with respect to all subsequent actions which may be
undertaken by the department or agency concerned to determine the source of
such loss or compromise; and
(C) where, after appropriate consultation with the department or agency
concerned, the Federal Bureau of Investigation undertakes investigative activities
to determine the source of the loss or compromise, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation is given complete and timely access to the employees and records of
the department or agency concerned for purposes of such investigative activities.

33. The mandatory reporting requirements set forth in 50 U.S.C. 3381(e)(1) were not met
until July 5, 2015, notwithstanding the fact that Congress learned of this compromise while
investigating the Benghazi events.
34. In a letter dated February 12, 2013, the FBI in Seattle informed lead Plaintiff that it was
responding to lead Plaintiffs correspondence sent to the Director of the [FBI], which at the
time was one Robert Swan Mueller III.

Hacker Begins Distributing Confidential Memos Sent To Hillary Clinton On Libya, Benghazi Attack, March 18,
Hacked Emails Show Hillary Clinton Was Receiving Advice at a Private Email Account From Banned, Obama-
Hating Former Staffer, by John Cook, March 20, 2013,

34. On April 9, 2013, an individual identifying himself as with the FBI Field Office in
Vancouver, Washington left a message that was recorded substantially as follows:
Hi, this message is for Emanuel McCray. This is the FBI here in Vancouver
Washington. We received multiple correspondences from you. In an effort to uh
try and save you some postage money I just wanna let you know that
unfortunately were not going to be able to look into this matter um this
something you need to continue to pursue with the Department of Labor um any
other questions free to contact their office. Thank you.

35. On June 3, 2013, an individual identifying himself as with the FBI Field Office in
Vancouver, Washington left a message that was recorded substantially as follows:
Hi, this message is for Emanuel McCray. This is the FBI here in Vancouver
Washington. I just wanted to pass on to you that we received your correspondence
from the last month and I wanted to assure you that our office is not going to be
able to do anything investigatively-related to your complaints. This is a matter
that would be looked into by the U.S. Department of Labor. So Im just trying to
save you some uh postage money and duh you know any further (end of

36. The aforementioned messages were odd and out of place because in May 2012, lead
Plaintiff had filed formal complaints with U.S. DOJ; the FBI Director; the FBI Field Offices in
Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, WA; and the DOL (OLMS) in Seattle, WA. In a letter dated
June 26, 2012, the Department of Justice (DOJ) (Criminal Division) notified lead Plaintiff that
he was dealing with an organized crime ring, to wit:

37. The aforementioned messages were further odd and out of place because organized
crime is listed among the 200 crimes within the agencys criminal investigation jurisdiction.

38. In its response to Plaintiffs complaints, the DOL District Director, R. Bruce Edgington,
confirmed the organized crime rings Trusteeship was imposed on December 15, 2006, but
refused to investigate because lead Plaintiff was not a member of UNITE HERE, to wit:

39. In February 2014, a series of violent events involving protesters, riot police, and
unknown shooters in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine became known as the Ukrainian Revolution of
2014, also known as the Euromaidan Revolution or Revolution of Dignity. The events were
aided by Tech Camps that had been trained by the U.S. State Department under Secretary
Clinton and culminated in the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was
reportedly friendly with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
40. The Ukrainian Revolution was preceded by an Order from President Obama in August
2010 to his advisers to produce a secret report on unrest in the Arab world where countries
from Bahrain to Yemen were ripe for popular revolt. Source: Secret Report Ordered by
Obama Identified Potential Uprisings, by Mark Landler, The New York Times, 4 February 16,
2011. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 103-105.
41. On July 10, 2015, the FBI initiated a Full Criminal Investigation of the Section 811(c)
Referral received from the Inspector General, Intelligence Community (IGIC) with respect to
Hillary Clintons emails.
42. On July 23, 2015, IGIC issued Summary of ICIG support to State Department IG to
members of Congress wherein it was stated:

Landler was among the journalists making inquiry into the June 2016 tarmac scandal involving former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch and former President Clinton. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 92-93. Peter Carr, who served as a
DOJ Public Affairs Specialist for the Criminal Division, was included in the email chain coordinating the tarmac
scandal. According to the ACLJ: Carr now serves as the Spokesman for [Defendant] Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 100.

My office discovered that an inadvertent release of classified national security
information had already occurred in the State FOIA process as a result of
insufficient coordination with Intelligence Community (I C) elements (State
personnel continue to deny the classified character of the released information
despite a definitive determination from the IC Interagency FOIA process).5

43. On July 24, 2015, IGIC and the IG U.S. Department of State issued a joint statement
describing the Section 811(c) Referral as a security referral, which was inconsistent with the
FBIs classification of the Referral as an criminal investigation wherein it was stated:
The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified
information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not
in the governments possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not
make a criminal referral-it was a security referral made for counterintelligence

44. On July 27, 2015, the FBI issued two Request for Preservation of Records to Internet
Service Providers associated with the Clinton Emails pursuant to the Stored Communications
Act (SCA), Title 18 U.S. Code 2703(f).
45. On August 27, 2015, the FBI filed its Grand Jury (GJ) Subfile Opening Document (GJ-
1)/ FBI (LA-CI-7).
46. On August 31, 2015, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (USDC,
EDVA), by email, issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum (GJ-5)/FBI (WFO).
47. On October 6, 2015, FBI HQ received from Day Pitney LLP law firm a copy of a letter
from Chairman Ron Johnson of U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs dated October 5, 2015 and addressed Austin McChord, CEO of Datto,
Inc., regarding the Committees examination of Hillary Clintons use of a private email account
and the Datto SIRIS S2000 server which was purchased for Hillary Clinton in May 2013 to
provide on-site, immediate recovery of backup data in the event that the primary server failed.
(FBI Vault HRC-2750 to 2757).
48. On October 15, 2015, FBI (HQ) Counterespionage Section opened a full investigation
based on specific articulated facts provided by section 811 referral from IGIC dated July 6, 2015

Summary of ICIG support to State Department IG,
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the
Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails.

regarding potential compromise of classified information, (Serial #1)/Computer Analysis
Response Team (CART).
49. On October 20, 2015, FBI (HQ) requested assistance from FBI Operational Technology
Division (OTD) Investigative Analysis Unit (IAU) in support of Hillary Clinton emails case to
conduct intrusion analysis and malware/virus analysis on digital evidence on a Dell PowerEdge
R620 server, two Blackberry cell phones and other digital equipment. (FBI Vault HRC-2985).
50. On November 3, 2015, Benjamin G. Ziff, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. State Department, gave testimony before Chairman
Johnson, Ranking Member Shaheen and other members of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, Europe Subcommittee on the State Departments Tech Camp fake news
digital coup dtat/counter-Russia propaganda in Ukraine. Ziff indicated in part that:
In the face of the Kremlins attack on the truth, the free flow of reliable, credible
information is the best defense. This is why the State Department has focused its
efforts on supporting independent media; improving access to high quality,
objective information; exposing false narratives; and building the capacity of civil
society. After all, truth should be discovered, not dictated. In FY 2015, the
State Department and USAID allocated $66 million dollars in U.S. foreign
assistance funding to sustain civil society and independent media in the Eurasia
and Southeast Europe region, of which more than $16 million supports
independent media. In addition to our foreign assistance funds, we have also
dedicated $4 million from the public diplomacy budget to bolster our staff and
programming. These funds help our partners who are susceptible to Russian
aggression build democratic principles, independent media, and a civil society
intolerant of corruption.
In FY 2016, President Obama is requesting a 26 percent increase to the State
Department and USAID foreign assistance budget in this sector, proposing $83
million to surge our support for civil society and independent media in countries
most vulnerable to Russian pressure. This increase is needed in countries that
continue to be under threat of democratic backsliding, especially where the
Kremlins influence is strong and growingnot just in Russian-speaking areas,
but also in the Western Balkans.
In Western and Central Europe, we work with our European partners to
underscore allied unity and bolster resolve to work together on global challenges.
We also offer Western journalists opportunities to view the realities on the ground
in countries, like Ukraine, where the Kremlin tries to distort the facts.
We are proud of the exchange programs and tech camps we sponsor to link and
train regional and transatlantic journalists and other opinion leaders. By
November, we will have trained 120 Tech Camp alumni60 in Prague and
Riga and 60 more in Kyiv (Kiev, Ukraine)who will go on to support strong
independent journalism by sharing best practices and resources.

We are also working with the EU to cooperate on supporting the creation of new
regional programs to support Russian-language media, based on the European
Endowment for Democracys (EED) Feasibility Study on Russian Language
Media Initiatives. Altogether, in FY15, the State Department and USAID
allocated approximately $16 million to support independent media.

51. On January 27, 2016, the FBI HQ interviewed a Walk-In Informant (WII) regarding the
criminal investigation of Mrs. Clintons Misuse of Classified Information. The WII, who was a
long-term government employee who had worked for many years at Department of State,
indicated that he had sent criminal evidence of Hillary Clintons misuse of classified documents
to FBI Director James Comey earlier in January 2016, but when he called to confirm receipt he
could not do so, which prompted the WII to personally appear to make sure the criminal
information was received by the right people at the FBI. The source also offered to provide
additional information in a SCIF to further explain his other highly classified evidence. The
FBI sent copies of this Interview to Jonathan C. Moffa (Moffa) and others. (Serial #142).
Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 118-120.
52. On March 3, 2016, The New York Times reported that the Governments criminal
investigation of Hillary Clintons emails is simply a security inquiry and that it would end by
early May:
A federal law enforcement official said that barring any unforeseen changes, the
F.B.I. investigation could conclude by early May. Then the Justice Department
will decide whether to file criminal charges and, if so, against whom. As we
have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the
Justice Departments security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with
them to assist their efforts if needed, said Brian Fallon, a campaign
spokesman. In an interview on MSNBC last Friday, Mrs. Clinton described the
Judicial Watch case as a partisan one, too, and referred to the F.B.I.s
investigation as a security inquiry. She added that the two were often wrongly
conflated. I am personally not concerned about it, she said. I think there will
be a resolution of the security inquiry. The F.B.I.s case did begin as a security
referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and the nations
intelligence agencies, who were concerned that classified information might have
been stored outside a secure government network. But multiple law enforcement
officials said the matter quickly became an investigation into whether anyone had
committed a crime in handling classified information.7

As Campaign Unfolds, So Do Inquiries Into Hillary Clintons Emails,

53. On March 9, 2016, the Daily Beast reported that Hillary Clinton gave a defiant answer
during Wednesday nights debate when moderator Jorge Ramos asked if she would leave the
presidential race if indicted as a result of the investigation into her private email server. Oh for
goodness, Clinton said getting frustrated. Its not going to happen. Im not going to answer that
54. On March 9, 2016, Washington Posts Erik Wemple published Hillary Clintons
reassertion that she believed she wouldnt be indicted:
After disclosing that his daughter, Paola Ramos, worked for the Clinton
campaign, moderator Jorge Ramos got right down to the business of declaring
that this connection wouldnt mellow his approach to the former secretary of
state. A whopper of a multi-pronged question about Clintons email use ensued:
Ramos charged her with issuing one set of email rules for herself and another for
the rest of the State Department. He asked who specifically gave her the
permission to use a homebrew server for her work emails. And this one: Would
you drop out of the race if you get indicted? In her response, Clinton issued an
immediate and full-throated endorsement of talking-pointsism. Well, Jorge,
theres a lot of questions in there, and Im going to give the same answer Ive
been giving for many months. As she talked about over-classification, Ramos
barged in, repeating his question about who authorized the setup. There was no
permission to be asked, quipped Clinton. Ramos repeated his question about
how shed respond to an indictment. Oh, for goodness and its not going to
happen. Im not even answering that question, responded the former secretary of
state. That was enough for Ramos, who turned to Sanders with a question about
his position on Clintons emails. The FBIs probe into Clintons email practices
could conclude by early May, according to the New York Times.9

55. The New York Times and the Washington Post disseminated fake news when they
assured the public that: The FBIs probe into Clintons email practices could conclude by early
May. At the time these statements were made, the FBI had yet to interview Hillary Clinton and
had yet to conduct any forensic analysis of the servers of the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) to determine whether Russia had hacked this entity. The FBIs interview of Hillary
Clinton did not take place until July 2, 2016.

Clinton: I Wont Be Indicted for Emails,
Hillary Clinton to Jorge Ramos on email: Im not even answering that question,

56. The following events, recorded by the FBI, tends to indicate The New York Times and
the Washington Post were engaged in an agreement to interfere in the 2016 Presidential Election
by disseminating fake news regarding Russia and the Clinton email scandal:
03/17/2016 FBI (WFO) Conducts Interview of MICHAEL MORELL in Washington, D.C. Full FD-302a is housed
in the sub TS-SCI file due to the classification level of the content discussed in the Interview. (302-64)
03/31/2016 FBI HQ, National Security Law Branch, Office of the General Counsel Requests Assistance From
U.S. Secret Service In Coordinating Interview With A Witness in Investigation of Section 811(c)
Referral Regarding Hillary Clinton emails.
04/08/2016 Associated Press reported Hillary Clinton reaffirming why she wont be indicted: Republicans are
living in a world of fantasy and hope if they think shell be indicted over her use of a private email
server while serving as secretary of state. Clinton laughed at the suggestion, saying the suggestion
shows how desperate the GOP has become and that their fondest wishes wont come true. Of the
ongoing investigation, Clinton calls it a security review that is conducted in our government all the
04/09/2016 FBI (WFO) Conducts Interview of CHERYL MILLS in Washington, D.C. Full FD-302a is housed in
the sub TS-SCI file due to the classification level of the content discussed in the Interview. (302-71)
(FBI Vault HRC-162 to 168.)
05/13/2016 CART IT Specialist/Forensic Examiner (ITS/FE) (WFO) Submits Two CDs for Additional Analysis
(CART Serial # 17)/FBI (WFO)
04/04/2016 FBI (WFO) Interviews HUMA ABEDIN at FBI-WFO. (FBI Vault HRC-142 to 152.)
04/09/2016 FBI (WFO) Conducts Interview of CHERYL MILLS at the law offices of Wilkinson Walsh &
Eskovitz in Washington, D.C. (FBI Vault HRC-157 to 161.)
05/26/2016 FBI Interviews MARCEL LEHEL LAZAR a/k/a GUCCIFER in person at the office of the U.S.
Attorney in Alexandria, Virginia regarding his hacking activities and his access to the email accounts
of Hillary Clinton and SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL. (FBI Vault HRC-209 to 212.)
06/22/2016 FBI (WFO) ITS/FE Interviewed BRYAN PAGLIANO telephonically regarding the Apple email
server set up by JUSTIN COOPER. (FBI Vault HRC-221 to 223.)
06/30/2016 Investigation Conducted on June 2, 2016 At Washington, D.C. was Transcribed (GJ-64)/FBI (WFO)
07/01/2016 Investigation Conducted on July 1, 2016 At Washington, D.C. was Transcribed (GJ-65)/FBI (WFO)

57. On July 2, 2016, the FBI conducted an Interview of HILLARY CLINTON in

Washington, D.C. Full FD-302a is housed in the sub TS-SCI file due to the classification level of
the content discussed in the Interview. CLINTON stated the following relevant to the July 5,
2016 Statement by COMEY ending the investigation and declaring Hillary Clinton innocent of
any crimes:

Clinton: I wont be indicted, Posted: Fri 9:47 AM, Apr 08, 2016,

Source: (302-90) (FBI Vault HRC at 26.),

58. At the time Hillary Clinton gave the aforementioned Interview to the FBI regarding her
employment with the U.S. Government, Title 50 U.S.C. 3344, mandated that:
The head of each Executive agency, in accordance with Executive Order 13526,
shall require annual training for each employee who has original classification
authority [and] shall ensure that the training required by subsection (a) is
conducted efficiently and in conjunction with any other required security,
intelligence, or other training programs.

59. At the time Hillary Clinton gave the aforementioned Interview to the FBI regarding her
employment with the U.S. Government, 18 U.S.C. 793(e), (f) and (g) did not require any
document containing defense information in the possession of any person to be marked
classified, to wit:
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any
document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to
the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which
information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates,
delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or
attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or
willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any
document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information,
relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to
be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of
his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge
that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or
delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or
destruction to his superior officer
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of
this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the
conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the
punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

60. By participating in the aforementioned Interview, Hillary Clinton appears to have
engaged in self-incrimination due to the fact that the Search Warrant issued by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on October 30, 2016 for the computer belonging to
Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin, which had been in communication with Hillary Clinton, was
based on probable cause by the FBIs Affiant to believe 18 U.S.C. 793(e) and (f) had been
violated. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 121-141.
61. Additionally, paragraph 2 of the Probable Cause Affidavit of the FBIs Affiant
corroborates the allegation contained in paragraph 41, supra, of this Complaint that the FBI had
opened a full criminal investigation of Hillary Clintons emails, to wit:

Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 127,


62. Notwithstanding the fact that former FBI Director Comey was aware his agency had
opened a full criminal investigation into Hillary Clintons emails, Comey testified before the
Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017 that he had agreed with his boss, former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, to intentionally mislead the world that the Clinton emails was a matter
rather than a criminal investigation, to wit:

Source: Congressman Goodlatte, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives,

dated July 27, 2017 addressed to Defendants Sessions and Rosenstein, Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 41.

63. On March 2, 2017, Defendant Attorney General Sessions announced that he would recuse
himself from any investigations into Russias interference in the 2016 presidential election.
64. On March 4, 2017, David Z. Morris of Fortune reported that President Trump may have
been correct about wiretaps aimed at Trump Towers:
The Guardian has reported that the FBI applied for a Foreign Intelligence
Service Act (FISA) warrant last summer to monitor members of the Trump
campaign, but was denied in its initial attempt. Last November, former British
MP and openly anti-Trump journalist Louise Mensch reported that the FBI had
succeeded in its second request for a FISA warrant, which was later confirmed by
the BBC.

Such a warrant would only have been granted if the FBInot the Obama
administrationwas able to convince a judge that the Trump campaign had
credible links to a foreign power.
The key distinction is that this was an FBI investigation, not an order from the
White House itself. Commenting on this mornings tweets, an Obama spokesman
told the New York Times that no White House official ever interfered with any
independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. FBI Director James
Comey downplayed the existence of such an investigation at the time, perhaps
explaining Trumps having just learned about the efforts. Source: Trumps
Wiretapping Claim Based on Reports of FBI Warrants,

65. On March 31, 2017, Senator Chuck E. Grassley wrote a letter directed to Acting Deputy
Attorney General Dana Boente regarding Fusion GPS and the Magnitsky Act, among other
things. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 106-111. It is clear from this letter that Congress was misled in
some of its assertions. For example:
A. In 1998, one William Felix Browder, to avoid paying U.S. income taxes, which
is the same crime for which he was found guilty of in Moscow, relinquished his U.S.
citizenship pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 877, 877A and 6039G to become a UK subject:


B. In March 2009, Hermitage Capital Management, Ltd. caused to be

published a Private Briefing Document titled The Hermitage Case: Organized
Crime and Legal Nihilism Inside the Russian Government. The Document
included the following disclaimer on the last page:

The information is based on data obtained from publicly available sources,

which have not been verified by Hermitage Capital Management Limited, or any
of its respective associates or affiliates (Hermitage). As a result of the difficulty

in obtaining reliable data in Russia, Hermitage does not represent this information
to be accurate and complete, and Hermitage does not accept any responsibility for
the reasonableness of any conclusions based upon such information.

C. On July 11, 2013, the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow convicted

William Felix Browder and Magnitsky S.L. of tax evasion. Plaintiffs
Exhibit 1 at 142-169.

66. On April 28, 2017, the House Committee on the Judiciary informed then FBI Director
Comey that his responses to the Committees letters requesting information regarding the
relationship between the FBI and the fake Trump Dossier prepared by Christopher Steele
failed to answer the Committees questions and were merely the standard closing boilerplate
language in all FBI letters. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 112-114.
67. On May 9, 2017, President Trump informed then FBI Director James Comey that he had
accepted the recommendations of Defendants Sessions and Rosenstein and in consideration
thereof Comey was hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately.
Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 3-8.
68. On May 16, 2017, The New York Times reported that someone had leaked to the
newspaper confidential one-on-one conversations between former FBI Director James Comey
and President Trump regarding Michael Flynn. Source: Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to
End Flynn Investigation, by Michael S. Schmidt, May 16, 2017,
69. On May 16, 2017, Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the Committee On
Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, notified Andrew G.
McCabe, Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), that the Committee was aware
from The New York Times that former FBI Director Comey leaked sensitive communications to
this newspaper and that McCabe provide all memoranda associated therewith by May 24, 2017.
Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 1.
70. On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Defendant
Mueller to serve as special counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice regarding Russias
interference in the 2016 presidential election. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 2.

71. On May 22, 2017, Congressman Jason Chaffetz tweeted that former FBI Director James
Comey informed him that he wanted to meet with Defendant Mueller before giving testimony
before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees:

72. Before testifying, Comey did meet privately with Defendant Mueller, and on June 8,
2017, during testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey testified that he
intentionally orchestrated the leak of his private confidential conversations with President Trump
to The New York Times because he thought it might lead to the appointment of a special
prosecutor to lead the FBIs Russia investigation.
73. In a letter dated July 4, 2017, lead Plaintiff informed Defendant Sessions that Defendant
Mueller was acting unconstitutionally and had a few conflicts of interest regarding an organized
crime ring which the FBI, under the direction of Defendant Mueller and Comey refused to
investigate involving a labor union pension fund and the heirs of Al Capones Chicago Outfit.
Lead Plaintiff has never received a response from these Defendants. Available on-line at: and
74. The aforementioned letter was delivered on July 17, 2017 via U.S. Postal Service
tracking number 9505 5150 3741 7194 0922 89. As of the date of this Complaint, the Defendants
have refused to cause Defendant Mueller to end his alleged unconstitutional agency with the U.S.
Department of Justice.
75. On July 21, 2017, the House Committee on the Judiciary informed Defendant Sessions
that numerous inquiries made to the Obama Administration remain unanswered or
inadequately addressed, with some outstanding requests approaching two years overdue.
Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 22-35.
76. In a letter dated June 30, 2017, the FBI informed lead Plaintiff that it was refusing to
provided a copy of the memorandum Comey deliberately leaked to The New York Times because
it was exempt from disclosure. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 116-117.
77. In a letter dated August 1, 2017, the U.S. DOJ informed Judicial Watch that it was finally
responding to its request regarding the June 27, 2016 meeting on the tarmac between then
Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 46-47.
78. On March 21, 2017, Freedom Watch informed Chairman Devin Nunes, House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, that whistleblower Dennis Montgomery was blown off by
other congressmen and senators. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 48-57.
79. On November 2, 2016, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) informed the
public that the organization had to file a number of lawsuits against the Obama Administration to
unearth information about the arrogance and inappropriate actions of the Obama
Administration. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 58-71.
80. On August 3, 2017, Jordan Sekulow, ACLJ, informed the public that the ACLJ possessed
persuasive evidence that the Comey FBI lied to us. The FBI, under the then directorship of
James Comey, replied that No records responsive to your request were located. The documents
we received todayinclude several emails from the FBI to DOJ officials concerning the
meeting on the tarmac. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 72-102.
81. On July 24, 2017, TruNews reported that Pastor Rodney Howard-Brown informed his
congregation that a senior Republican congressman told him of a plan to take out President
Donald Trump. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 36-38.
82. WikiLeaks reported that while the Obama Administration in 2009 was publicly
promoting the notion that Russia and Putin were evil and a threat to the U.S., former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton made arrangements for Defendant Mueller to deliver highly enriched
uranium (HEU) to the Russian Security Services which was seized during a sting operation
involving the country of Georgia and the CIA. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 9-17.
83. On August 24, 2016, Raffi Williams,, reported that while the Obama
Administration in 2009 was publicly promoting the notion that Russia and Putin were evil and a
threat to the U.S., former Secretary of State Clinton made arrangements for the sale of one-fifth
of the uranium being mined in Wyoming to be sold to Uranium One and Russias Rosatom. In
exchange, Uranium One donated more than $2.6 million to the Clinton Foundation. Plaintiffs
Exhibit 1 at 18-21.
84. As a direct result of Defendant Muellers alleged unconstitutional agency, Plaintiffs and
all taxpayers are suffering injury to the Treasury of the United States which is paying the salaries

of Defendant Mueller and his team of lawyers and the costs of their alleged unconstitutional
85. Further, Defendant Mueller, and all persons employed by Defendant Mueller, are
engaged in an alleged unlawful agreement to perpetrate a variety of frauds against the People and
the Government of the United States.
86. Further, the so-called Russian investigation and Russian wiretaps threatens the
safety, liberty, freedom of association, pursuit of happiness, business contracts and other
essentials of life by painting Russians in general as anti-American.
87. The Russian-American population in the U.S. is estimated at approximately 2.9 million
people. It is the second largest ethnic market representing 10.3% (2.9 Million people) of the total
foreign-born population of 28.4 million. The Russian language is among the top fifteen most
spoken languages in the United States. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many Russians
have migrated to the United States and brought the language with them. According to the 2010
United States Census, Russian is the 12th most spoken language in the U.S. At least 16 of
Plaintiffs co-workers speak Russian, Bosnian or a similar foreign language.
88. The alleged fake claims that Russia is an enemy of the people of the U.S. has prevented
the Russian grandmother of one of Plaintiffs co-workers from visiting the U.S.
89. On several occasions, the American people and the world were deliberately told lies to
support the advancement of the Fake Russian Narrative concocted by the heads of one or more
U.S. Intelligence agencies. For example, the world was told by James Clapper that all 17
members of the U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) had agreed with the Fake Russian
Narrative, only to change this tune after several months according to the Washington Examiner:
The Times published a story on Sunday, titled Trumps Deflections and Denials
on Russia Frustrate Even His Allies, overstating the number of U.S. intelligence
agencies involved in a Jan. 6 assessment concluding the Russians interfered in the
2016 presidential election to benefit then-GOP nominee Donald Trump.
The Times story originally included the following line [emphasis added]: The
latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trumps party
that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American
intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and
did it to help get him elected. That figure is not accurate.
The Jan. 6. hacking assessment was a conclusion drawn by analysts representing
three intelligence agencies acting under the aegis of the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence, former DNI chief James Clapper testified on May 8

He said specifically that the conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to
benefit Trump was a coordinated product from the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency, not all 17
components of the intelligence community. Clapper added that the CIA, FBI and
NSA analysts were hand-picked. Though the three agencies worked
independent of one another, and each came to the same conclusion, its inaccurate
to claim the entire community came up with the agreement, the former ODNI
chief testified in response to questions from Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.
[T]here were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus
my office, Clapper said. Franken pressed, But all 17 signed on to that?
This was a special situation because of the time limits," Clapper said, adding,
the sensitivity of the information, we decided, it was a conscious judgment, to
restrict it to those three. Im not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
when it came out. Source: A rather large New York Times correction, by
Becket Adams, June 30, 2017,

90. Another example of the members of the USIC engaging in fraud upon the People and the
Government of the United States include the silence of the heads of other Directors of the USIC
while James Clapper and others misrepresented the huge volume of intelligence sources and
methods that tended to indicate that persons known and unknown to them were perpetrating a
digital coup dtat against President Trump and the First Family and their relatives, friends and
associates and the voters through the use of the Fake Russian Narrative, as Clapper pointed
out: Im not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed when it came out.
91. Clapper knew that the initial statement that all 17 agencies were in agreement with his
Report, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), ICA 2017-01D, dated January 6, 2017,
titled Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections, was a fraud on the
USIC itself. Although the Report was presented on its face and Cover to be a product of the U.S.
Intelligence Community, on page (i), the Report made clear that it was not a product of the
USIC, to wit:
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence
information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. When we use
the term we it refers to an assessment by all three agencies. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-
elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. We also assess
Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trumps
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly

contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment.
CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate
confidence. Source: Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US
Elections, at pages i and ii, Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 188,

92. At the time Clapper and the CIA, FBI and NSA perpetrated their fraud, Congress had
defined the term intelligence community in 50 U.S.C. 3003(4) to include more than 19
agencies and not 17 or the three agencies making the assessment, to wit:
(4) The term intelligence community includes the following:
(A) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
(B) The Central Intelligence Agency.
(C) The National Security Agency.
(D) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(E) The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
(F) The National Reconnaissance Office.
(G) Other offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of
specialized national intelligence through reconnaissance programs.
(H) The intelligence elements of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine
Corps, the Coast Guard, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, and the Department of Energy.
(I) The Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State.
(J) The Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of the Treasury.
(K) The Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland
(L) Such other elements of any department or agency as may be designated by the
President, or designated jointly by the Director of National Intelligence and the
head of the department or agency concerned, as an element of the intelligence

93. Of the above-mentioned intelligence collection agencies, the National Reconnaissance

Office (NRO) would be among the most important. The NRO explains its Supersecret mission
as follows:
Develop. Acquire. Launch. Operate.
When the United States needs eyes and ears in critical places where no human can
reach be it over the most rugged terrain or through the most hostile territory it
turns to the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The NRO is the U.S.
Government agency in charge of designing, building, launching, and maintaining
Americas intelligence satellites. Whether creating the latest innovations in
satellite technology, contracting with the most cost-efficient industrial supplier,
conducting rigorous launch schedules, or providing the highest-quality products to
our customers, we never lose focus on who we are working to protect: our Nation
and its citizens. From our inception in 1961 to our declassification to the public in

1992, we have worked tirelessly to provide the best reconnaissance support
possible to the Intelligence Community (IC) and Department of Defense (DoD).

94. Writing for The New York Times in 1985, James Bamford explained that the NRO was
the principal intelligence agency relied upon by other members of the USIC:
Added to the shuttles list of customers will be the most secret organization in
the American intelligence community, the National Reconnaissance Office
(N.R.O.). Since its establishment on Aug. 25, 1960, the N.R.O. has been an
entirely black organization: The Federal Government has never admitted that it
exists, and its name is officially secret. As a result of this continuing secrecy,
few people are aware of how increasingly dependent the American intelligence
community has become on the countrys network of spy satellites. To give a
recent example, it was satellite surveillance that produced the famous photos of
the crates on the dock of the Soviet Black Sea port of Nikolayev. (That some
American officials erred in suspecting that the crates were used for shipping
Soviet MIGs to Nicaragua was not the N.R.O.s doing.) It was the same satellite
capability that revealed Libyas failure to abide by its recent promise to France to
withdraw its troops from Chad. And if President Reagans Star Wars plan for
placing antimissile defenses in space ever moves from research to development, it
will be the N.R.O.s task to provide the eyes that could detect Soviet offensive
missile launchings from their very first stages. The United States still relies on
high-flying reconnaissance planes, such as the U-2 and the SR-71, when pictures
are needed in a hurry and when a satellite is unavailable or hampered by cloud
cover. Originally, the N.R.O. had responsibility for these aircraft, as well as for
satellites. But in 1969 it turned over all control of spy planes to the Strategic Air
Command. Source: Americas Supersecret Eyes In Space, by James Bamford,
published January 13, 1985.

95. Clappers fraudulent intelligence report titled Assessing Russian Activities and
Intentions in Recent US Elections, made no mention of the NROan agency whose capabilities
of collecting and confirming intelligence would have exposed the massive intelligence fraud
Clapper and others were engaged in against the People of the U.S. and their Government.
96. Among the authorities cited by Department of Defense Directive Number 5105.23 dated
June 28, 2011, is the September 21, 2010 Memorandum of Agreement Between the Secretary of
Defense [Gates, R.M.] and the Director of National Intelligence [(DNI), Clapper, J.R.]
Concerning the National Reconnaissance Office. This Directive further explains Clappers very
important role involving the NRO when he served as the DNI:

The NRO is a Defense Agency. The Secretary of Defense exercises authority,
direction, and control over the NRO. The NRO is also an element of the
Intelligence Community (IC), subject to the oversight of the DNI. The DNI
provides objectives, priorities, and guidance for, determines requirements and the
budget of, and exercises transfer and reprogramming authorities over the National
Intelligence Program (NIP) portion of the NRO budget. The DNI also exercises
National Intelligence tasking and oversight; authorities for IC-wide policies
relating to personnel, acquisition management, security, information technology,
education, and training; oversight of intelligence coordination with foreign
governments and international organizations; and other applicable authorities over
the NRO. Source:
of-Defense-Directive-Number-5105-23-of-June-28-2011. See also Brief History
of NRO,

97. The NRO and other members of the USIC were available to shed light on two additional
examples of this massive intelligence fraud perpetrated by the DNI. On June 5, 2017, Matthew
Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle and Ryan Grim of The Intercept, reported that: Russian
military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent
spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last Novembers
presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The
Intercept. Source: Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016
98. The top-secret National Security Agency document referred to above did not make such a
definitive connection. The aforementioned alleged fake intelligence assessment begins with a
disclaimer that it was produced for INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES ONLY. It next authorizes
the U.S. Attorney General to approve the use of this document in a civil or criminal proceeding,
notwithstanding the fact that the Attorney General is not a statutory member of the USIC:

Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 208-212.
99. The NSA report, at page 5, made a guess that the campaign was tied to Russian
Military Intelligence as demonstrated by the use of yellow arrows, to wit:

100. More importantly, there existed more than 17 other members of the Intelligence
Community to whom the NSA could have turned to identify the location of the equipment and
personnel involved and to rule out CIA involvement using Vault 7 techniques revealed by
101. In an interesting twist, Betsy Reed of The Intercept, reported on July 11, 2017 that:
The Intercepts parent company, First Look Media, has taken steps to provide
independent support for the legal defense of Reality Winner, the NSA contract
employee who was recently arrested in the first instance of the
Trump administration using the 100-year-old Espionage Act to prosecute an
alleged journalistic source. Winner, who has pleaded not guilty, is accused of
having anonymously mailed a document to The Intercept relating to a federal
investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Source:
First Look to Support Defense of Reality Winner in Espionage Act Prosecution,

102. In a third alleged fake intelligence report, the Department of Homeland Security and the
FBI released on December 29, 2016 their Joint Analysis Report (JAR) titled GRIZZLY
STEPPE Russian Malicious Cyber Activity. This Report begins with a disclaimer to the
public that this report is provided as is for informational purposes only, to wit:

Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 170-182.

103. Again, there existed more than 17 other members of the Intelligence Community to
whom DHS and FBI could have turned for assistance in their cyber analysis.
104. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), code-named Vault 7:
The first full part of the series, Year Zero, comprises 8,761 documents and files
from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIAs Center for Cyber
Intelligence in Langley, Virgina. It follows an introductory disclosure last month
of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012
presidential election.

Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including
malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized zero day exploits, malware remote
control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection,
which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its
possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA. The archive appears to have
been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an
unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the

Year Zero introduces the scope and direction of the CIAs global covert
hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of zero day weaponized
exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include
Apples iPhone, Google's Android and Microsofts Windows and even Samsung
TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.

Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S.
National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now
infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force
its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agencys hacking division freed it from
having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary
bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSAs hacking capacities.

By the end of 2016, the CIAs hacking division, which formally falls under the
agencys Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and
had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other
weaponized malware. Such is the scale of the CIAs undertaking that by 2016,
its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had
created, in effect, its own NSA with even less accountability and without
publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on
duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified. Source:

105. On November 5, 2014, Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of
New York filed an Amended Verified Complaint against Prevezon Holdings Ltd. and others in

the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action was brought by the
Government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(A), 985, and 1956(b)(1) and sought the
forfeiture of certain property involved in laundering the proceeds of a Russian tax refund fraud
scheme and the imposition of civil money laundering penalties. On-line at:
106. Prevezon Holdings Ltd. and other Defendants were clients of Russian Lawyer Natalia
Veselnitskaya (Veselnitskaya). On January 5, 2016, Veselnitskaya filed a Declaration with the
District Court wherein she informed the Court that the U.S. had denied her a Visa to enter the
U.S. for purposes of representing her clients and that she had even been harassed by the U.S. and
U.K. Governments after she had been paroled into the U.S., to wit:
107. On May 15, 2017, the U.S. settled the Prevezon case in exchange for the Defendants
releasing their claims against the U.S.:


108. The Settlement further provided at page 9 that:

109. The Tverskoy District Court of Moscow criminal conviction of Browder and Magnitsky
on July 11, 2013 and the United States settlement of the Prevezon case directly undermines the
Russian sanctions imposed by Congress in 2012 and 2017 which were based upon Prevezons
collusion with corrupt Russians to launder $230 million mentioned in Senator Chuck E.
Grassleys March 31, 2017 letter to Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente regarding
Fusion GPS and the Magnitsky Act, among other things. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 106-111.
110. Congress sanctions against Russia are further undermined by the U.S. Constitution the
fact that many of the close family members of Congress primary witness, William Felix
Browder, are of Soviet/Russian ancestry, for example:
William Felix Browder, born April 23, 1964, is the Chief Executive Officer and
co-founder of the investment fund Hermitage Capital Management. Further, he is:

1. Son of Felix Earl Browder, a Russian-born American

mathematician known for his work in nonlinear functional analysis who was born
July 31, 1927 in Moscow, Russia;

2. Nephew of William Browder, born 1934 in New York City, a
mathematician specializing in algebraic topology, differential topology and
differential geometry. Browder was one of the pioneers with Sergei Novikov,
Dennis Sullivan and Terry Wall of the surgery theory method for classifying high-
dimensional manifolds. He is the son of Raissa ne Berkmann and former
American Communist Party leader Earl Browder, and the brother of
mathematicians Felix Browder and Andrew Browder;

3. Nephew of Russian-born American mathematician Felix Earl

Browder, born July 31, 1927 in Moscow, Russia. He was a child prodigy who
entered MIT at age 17 in 1944 and graduated in 1946 with his first degree in
mathematics. At MIT he achieved the rank of a Putnam Fellow in the William
Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition. In 1948 (at age 20), he received his
doctorate from Princeton University. Before arriving at Rutgers University in
1986 as its first vice president for research, he headed the University of Chicagos
mathematics department for 12 years, and also held posts at MIT, Boston
University, Brandeis and Yale;

4. Nephew of Russian-born American mathematician Andrew

Browder, born January 8, 1931 in Moscow, Russia;

5. Grandson of Earl Russell Browder, born May 20, 1891 in Wichita,

Kansas, the former Chairman of the National Committee of the Communist Party
of the United States of America.

111. In retaliation for the new U.S. sanctions against Moscow, Russian President Putin
informed the U.S. that it had to shed 755 diplomatic personnel from its staff by September 2017.
According to Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told
his U.S. counterpart on July 28 that Moscow was forced to respond to Congress tough new
sanctions legislation but is still willing to try to improve ties with Washington. Lavrov said
Moscows announcement earlier in the day of a reduction in U.S. Embassy personnel and
planned diplomatic property seizures were necessitated by a series of Washingtons hostile
steps. Source: After Retaliating Against U.S. Sanctions, Moscow Says Cooperation Still
112. Congress sanctions and Russias retaliation will directly affect the number of Russians
being processed for entry into the U.S. from Russia and further creates the unconstitutional
condition whereby anyone having an association with a Russian-speaking person is likely to be
caught in Defendant Muellers fishing net and the net of the U.S. Intelligence Community who

have been alleged to have engaged in the wiretaps of Trump Tower and the well-known cases
involving unmasking of U.S. persons.
113. On April 26, 2017, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) filed a declassified
99-page Order setting forth the many abuses of the FISA and the FISC by members of the U.S.
Intelligence Community (USIC) involving significant non-compliance with the NSAs
minimization procedures involving queries of datausing U.S. person identifiers:

Available on-line at:

114. In response to the attempts of the FISC to understand the compliance problems, the
Government informed the Court that, due to the complexity of the issues involved, NSA would
not be in a position to provide thorough responses to the Court, to wit:

115. The FIS Court further learned from the USIC that notwithstanding assurances given in
2011, violations of FISA increased with much greater frequency than had previously been
disclosed to the Court, to wit:

116. Of the complex issues, at least one issue involved the uncomplicated, alleged unlawful
queries of datausing U.S. person identifiers in violation of the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments, which were subsequently leaked to The New York Times and the Washington Post,
among other main stream media outlets, to prepare fake news products such as the fake
Russian Narrative and the fake Trump Dossier prepared by Fusion GPS and former British
spy Christopher Steele, Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 106-114.
117. Using graphics, the Washington Post was able to demonstrate, with near precision, how
unmasked information discloses the U.S. person identifiers which were then linked to targets
involving the names of foreigners. In President Trumps case, the names were Russian citizens.
Here, the Washington Post demonstrates how the unmasking of U.S. persons associated with
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya produced links and information to Paul Manafort,
Donald Trump Jr., and Jared Kushner:

Source: Heres what we know so far about Team Trumps ties to Russian interests, By Bonnie
Berkowitz, Denise Lu and Julie Vitkovskaya, Published March 31, 2017; Updated August 10,

118. Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya had links to other U.S. citizens such as those who
denied her Visa requests in Moscow and those who participated in the Governments case
against Prevezon, Ltd., paragraph 106-109 at pages 32-33, supra.
119. The Washington Post graphics further demonstrate the numerous constitutional issues
and violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments associated with unmasking, for which no
judicial approval is provided, and the unlawful leaking of the name of a U.S. citizen for inclusion
in a news product for general public consumption without the individuals prior consent.
120. The Washington Post and similar media outlets crafted a narrative based on Team
Trump Russian Ties. The term ties is defined as to attach or fasten someone or something;
to connect or link; a piece of string, cord, or the like used for fastening or tying something
together; and a rod or beam holding parts of a structure together.

121. President Trump is an international businessman; author; husband; father-in-law;
grandfather and television personality, among many other things and links. When the name of
the President or any American is collected pursuant to a FISA surveillance Order issued by the
FISC, these names are tied to the same classification as the other information and the intelligence
systems, sources and methods used to collect these names. Shown below, the Washington Post
uses a fake news graphic to create President Trumps links to evil Russians who are also
enemies of America:

122. As the graphic makes clear, it is impossible to declassify President Trumps unmasked
name because the links themselves are also classified and are further tied to the intelligence
systems, sources and methods used to collect these names and create these links. The
Washington Posts graphics would further constitute classified information.
123. The unmasking of names that are leaked represents an abuse of power at the
Legislative, Executive, Judicial, Administrative and Civil Service levels of the American
Government because the algorithm providing for constitutional checks and balances fails to
support and defend the Constitution for the United States and American citizens.
124. Stated differently, the request to unmask is not presented to the FISC that issued the
original FISA Order. Instead, the individual directing that an Americans name be unmasked
may have had no role at all in obtaining the original FISA collection Order from the FISC. Thus
the constitutional chain is broken, which is precisely why leakers of classified masked names and
the Washington Post and others, are currently able to unlawfully expose leaked unmasked names
with impunity.
125. Writing for the Abuse of Power segment of The Daily Beast, John Batchelor asked the
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, why the NSA, CIA, and FBI
were subpoenaed; whether Comey has obstructed the probe; and whether more Obama officials
are suspected.11 In part, Chairman Nunes responded that:
The subpoenas, Nunes explained, actually went to the NSA, the CIA, and the
FBI, requesting specifically, of those three individuals that were named, the
unmaskings they have done, that they did, from the time period of 2016, the entire
year, leading up to Jan. 20 of this year. I cant get into why we chose those
individuals, but clearly this is just further escalation in the concern we have of the
unmaskings of Americans by the senior leaders of the Obama administration.
Americans that didnt know about it, and, of course, potentially Trump transition
officials. Every American is masked. The intelligence agencies are bound by
law to mask all American citizens that get picked up in foreign collection. What
has to happen, if you want to find out who the American istheres a process and
procedure in place for that. Its actually very uncommon in most cases, and
seldom happens. But the concern I have had, that I expressed publicly, quite
publicly, actually, a couple months ago, was that it became excessive. That
Obama administration officials were unmasking people in the Trump transition,
and it made me quite uncomfortable. So these individuals [Brennan, Rice, and
Power,] that we named are the ones we have particular interest in, but I can say
that those are not the only ones we have interest in. However, what clearly has
happened hereat a minimumI dont know if its illegal, but its clearly an
abuse of power, that senior Obama administration officials would unmask
someone. But also, what is illegaland I cant say it was the Obama
administration officials who did thisbut we know that names were unmasked in
intelligence products. And if you believe The Washington Post and The New
York Times and NBC News, you know that names were unmasked, and
intelligence was leaked, and Americans that were picked up in intelligence
products were leaked out to the media. We cant confirm these stories are true,
but if the press reports are true, then clearly people were unmasked out of
intelligence products, and leaked out to the media. Which is what? A crime. Its a
crime to do that. So were trying to get to the bottom of these crimes, if in fact
they were committed. Asked why the diplomat Power was included in the list
with two intelligence officials, Nunes observed: It would be very unusual for any
ambassador under any circumstances, at any level, to unmask names of American
citizens, no matter where they are serving, whether its the UN, or in the U.K., or

Devin Nunes on Unmasking: Oh, This Is Only the Beginning, June 5, 2017,

in Germany, or in China. I think it would be very unusual for any ambassador to
request an unmasking. Asked if more former Obama officials beyond these
three names are suspected of excessive unmaskings, Nunes was frank: Oh, this is
only the beginning. There are many more officials that we have concerns about
abusing the intelligence programs.

126. The FISC and Chairman Nunes identified two distinct types of abuses of power and
constitutional violations. The FISC observed violations of law involving queries of datausing
U.S. person identifiers. Chairman Nunes observed excessive unmaskings with remarkably
few individualized justifications for access to this U.S. person information.
127. Further, neither type of violation identified by the FISC or Chairman Nunes pointed to
any crimes being committed by the foreign targets against the U.S. and or its citizens.
128. In a letter dated July 27, 2017, Chairman Nunes asked Daniel Coats, Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), to assist his Committee in understanding how U.S. person information
contained in intelligence reports could be leaked to the media[and how] one official, whose
position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests
during the final year of the Obama Administration. Of those requests, only one offered a
justification that was not boilerplate. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 213-214.
129. Nowhere in FISA or in the procedures of the FISC are there any requirements that all
requests for unmasking be filed with and approved by the FISC, which issued the surveillance
order, to ensure the integrity of the algorithms of the U.S. Constitution as a whole and its
Articles, Amendments and the judicial interpretations of these algorithms.
130. The constitutional and possible criminal violations identified by the FISC and Chairman
Nunes mirror an attempt by members of the U.S. Democratic Party and members of the political
parties of Socialists, Communists and Progressives to create their own version of UnAmerican
activities in the 1950s known as McCarthyism, which was spearheaded by Republicans.
131. To create their fake Russian Narrative, members of the U.S. Democratic Party and
members of the political parties of Socialists, Communists and Progressives replaced the
Soviet demon with the Russian demon and then engaged in two distinct types of abuses of
power and constitutional violations involving queries of datausing U.S. person identifiers
and excessive unmaskings with remarkably few individualized justifications for access to this
U.S. person information.

132. In December 1948, the FBI identified a Soviet agent, covernamed SIMA, as Judith
Coplon, a Department of Justice analyst recruited by the Soviets in 1944. Coplon would become
the first person arrested on the basis of the secret project codenamed VENONA. FBI agents
detained Coplon in March 1949 along with a Soviet KGB official named Valentine A.
Gubitchev, who was operating under the cover of the United Nations:

Source: FBI Vault, Judith Coplon Part 01 of 13,

133. The prosecutions of Coplon and Gubitchev were documented in United States v. Coplon,
84 F. Supp. 472 (S.D.N.Y. 1949); United States v. Coplon, 88 F. Supp. 910 (S.D.N.Y. 1949) and
United States v. Coplon and Gubitchev, 88 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1950). Coplon was able to
escape jail time for espionage because of abuses by the FBI similar to the current queries of
datausing U.S. person identifiers and excessive unmasking.
134. In 1949, two other major cases against American communists were commenced
involving the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers Case (1949-1950) and the Smith Act trials of
Communist Party leaders (1949-1958).

135. It was not until July 1995, with the first public release of translated VENONA materials,
did the American people learn about the signals intelligence which provided an insight into the
breadth and depth of Soviet espionage activities within the United States. The VENONA
materials identified more than 300 Americans working in Government positions who were acting
as agents of the Soviets, some of whom were instrumental in causing the U.S. to become a
signatory to the United Nations, an organization which remains controlled by the Russians.
136. The Soviet KGB and Soviet GRU ran parallel legal and illegal intelligence networks
in the United States.12 Some GRU and KGB agents were themselves Communist Party USA
officers whose clandestine activities were known, to a greater or lesser extent, to the CPUSA
leadership controlled by the Communist International (COMINTERN) and headed by Earl
Browder, grandfather of William Felix Browder.
137. Soviet leader Josef Stalin wanted his intelligence officers in America to collect
information in four main areas: (1) obtain American intelligence concerning Hitlers plans for
the war in Russia; (2) seek secret war aims of London and Washington, particularly with regard
to planning for a second front in Europe; (3) provide any indications that the Western allies
might cut a separate peace with Hitler; and (4) acquire American scientific and technological
progress, particularly in developing an atomic weapon.
138. During this period, Republicans in Congress were echoing widespread sentiment when
they criticized the Truman administration for its failure to prevent Communism from conquering
Eastern Europe and China. Suspicions that the Roosevelt and Truman administrations had
neglected internal security fed charges of a Democratic-led coverup of the wartime Amerasia
affair, as well as Eisenhower administration Attorney General Herbert Brownells 1953
accusation that then President Truman had ignored FBI warnings about Harry Dexter White, a
senior U.S. Treasury department official who was ultimately exposed and confirmed by
Elizabeth Bentley on July 31, 1948 as a Communist in her testimony before the HUAC
committee. Nevertheless, a tacit decision was made to keep the VENONA messages secret.
139. The refusal of Defendant Mueller and Mr. Comey to investigate an organized crime
ring fits with a pattern of unconstitutional conduct. In early 2012, lead Plaintiff began notifying
the FBI and the Departments of Justice, Treasury and Labor and the National Labor Relations

Venona: Soviet Espionage and The American Response 1939-1957,

Board, among other Federal Agencies and the local news paper, The Columbian, that employees
of Hilton Vancouver Washington, which is owned and operated by The City of Vancouver, had
received death threats should they vote to decertify the UNITE HERE labor union; that lead
Plaintiff, who had never been a member of the union and was a victim of identity theft
committed by UNITE HERE; and that a preliminary forensic examination of the UNITE HERE
pension plans revealed these plans had been falsely inflated in 2010 by $341,012.00, to wit:

140. The falsified rate per hour appears to be associated primarily with those employers whose
collective bargaining agreement with UNITE HERE was expiring in 2011. In the case of the
Hilton Vancouver Washington, the rate was doubled to $0.66 per compensable hour.
141. In an email dated December 5, 2012, The Citys Hotel Manager, Eric Walters, indicated
that he had engaged in monthly transactions with UNITE HERE regarding the UNITE HERE
pension plans and that he could assure The City beyond a reasonable doubt that the Citys Hotel
did not contribute more than the $0.33 per compensable hour to the merged pension plan, to wit:

142. The Citys Hotel Manager also certified that lead Plaintiff did not accumulate or work
more pension creditable hours in 2013 than in 2012. It is the relevant details regarding these
transactions with which Washingtons identity theft statute is primarily concerned, and which
City of Vancouver has refused to allow the Hotel to disclose to lead Plaintiff, as the victim of
these alleged crimes.
143. On August 17, 2017, Robert Jonathan of reported that Google and
YouTube were targeting supporters of President Trump by demonetizing their videos in
apparent violations of contractual arrangements:
Google-owned YouTube has begun aggressively demonetizing certain political
videos because they are allegedly not advertiser friendly, the latest being 95
percent of those produced by longtime Trump supporters Diamond and Silk.
This appears to be the latest effort by the tech giant to punish speech that doesnt
fit within the far-Left parameters of the Silicon Valley oligarchy.
But the North Carolina social media stars are apparently planning to fight back in
court, with the backing of controversial InfoWars impresario Alex Jones. Jones
claims that his organizations videos have also been similarly demonitized.13
Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 218-222.

InfoWars teams with Diamond and Silk in lawsuit against Google for discrimination and censorship,
discrimination-and-censorship.html. See also: African-American Trump supporters Diamond and Silk just got
95% demonetized by YouTube as Googles assault against speech accelerates, August 15, 2017 by: JD Heyes,

144. On August 18, 2017, Zero Hedge and reported that activist tech firms were
engaging in dangerous censorship of right-wing websites:
As social media and internet companies scramble to ban or otherwise cut ties
with extremist and far right-wing websites like the neo-nazi Daily Stormer, which
were unceremoniously dropped by the likes of GoDaddy, Google and security
firm Cloudflare earlier this week after helping to organize last weekends deadly
Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, a prominent nonprofit has come forward
to defend them.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, best known for its activism
surrounding net neutrality has a simple message: even though you dont agree
with their message, banning people from the internet is a slippery slope. Which is
why it called on domain-name companies like Google and GoDaddy to draw a
hard line and not remove or suspend websites based solely on their content.14

145. On August 10, 2017, The Nation reported that based on an investigation it conducted, the
results indicates the DNC wasnt hacked by the Russians as widely reported by the main media:
A bombshell report published Wednesday by avowedly liberal news magazine
The Nation may have put the last nail in the coffin of the Russian hack narrative
that has dominated the mainstream medias coverage for the last year.
Author Patrick Lawrence assembles the findings of months of investigation by
forensic computer experts and former NSA officials to conclude, quite
categorically, what Breitbart News and other independent media outlets have
suggested for nearly a year: there was no hack of the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) by the Russian government or anyone else last summer. An
internal leaker is a much more likely source of the confidential internal DNC
emails that upended the presidential campaign season when they became public
last June.15

146. The Russian hack narrative was debunked over a year ago by Julian Assange of
WikiLeaks, Alex Jones of, Kim Dotcom, Lee Stranahan and many others. As of
the date of this Complaint, the U.S. Government has refused to allow Kim Dotcom to testify to
the fact that the DNC leaker was Seth Rich, a Democratic supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders,
demonetized-by-youtube-as-googles-assault-against-speech-accelerates.html. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 215-217.
Source: Digital Activists Slam Tech Firms For Banning Neo-Nazi Websites; Electronic Frontier Foundation
warns against dangerous censorship,
Left-Wing Magazine The Nation Report Puts Russian Hack DNC Narrative in Freefall,

whose sudden death is being mysteriously handled by the FBI and the D.C. police, according
to social media.
147. On August 17, 2017, the Washington Post and many other media reporting outlets
reported that Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher met with WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange Wednesday at the Ecuadorian embassy in London where it was learned that Julian
Assange told the Congressman he could prove the leaked Democratic Party documents and
emails published during last years election did not come from Russia.
148. On August 18, 2017, the DOJ affirmed the FBIs refusal to disclose a copy of the
Memorandum Comey said he intentionally leaked to The New York Times as part of a scheme to
cause the DOJ to appoint a special counsel to investigate his claims about President Trump and
Russias election interference, to wit:

Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 223-224.

149. In an attempt to avoid disclosure, Defendants FBI and DOJ are necessarily implicating
former FBI Director Comey and Defendants FBI and DOJ of interference with their own
criminal law enforcement proceedings. This creates another species of conflict of interest and
abuse of process for Defendant Mueller and Defendants FBI and DOJ and which renders the
special counsel letters and Part 600 of Title 28 C.F.R. unconstitutional because the

implementation of the regulation requires the DOJ and the FBI to be engaged in corruption so
extensively that no current officer could conduct FBI investigations or criminal prosecutions.
150. According to Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts, the named Defendants would be
engaged in broad, unlawful schemes to abuse process and cause monetary and other harms to
Plaintiffs and generally to all Americans. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 225-229.

151. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 150, above, as if set forth fully
152. The named Defendants are improperly engaged in the exercise of Executive Power in
violation of key provisions of the U.S. Constitution implemented in Title 28 U.S. Code.
153. The appointment of Defendant Mueller by Defendant Rosenstein and the recusal of
Defendant Sessions are unconstitutional Executive actions.
154. The Vesting Clause, Article II, Section 1, Clause 1, provides that: The executive
Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. This Clause grants the
President that Power traditionally given to executives. The Articles of Confederation lacked a
single chief executive and the new Constitution expressly sought to avoid the problems plaguing
the Confederation spoken of by James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 70.
The Founders only limited Executive Power in the following manner: The President (1) cannot
declare war; (2) grant letters of marque and reprisal (3) regulate commerce; (4) make treaties or
appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate; and (5) cannot extend his Pardon
Power beyond offenses against the United States.
155. The unconstitutionality is apparent when Executive Branch officials personally interpret
the Constitution to permit (1) recusal without consultation with the Chief Executive and (2) an
employee of the Executive Branch to engage in a witch hunt and then prosecute the President of
the United States for any crimes discovered when such an employee is subject to termination by
the President and the witch hunt is based entirely on fake intelligence and accusations.

156. The unconstitutionality is further apparent from the fact that had Congress felt the
President had power to constitutionally engage in a witch hunt of herself or himself, and then
prosecute herself or himself, Congress would not have enacted the Independent Counsel Statute,
which was held constitutional by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988).
157. The Vesting Clause, with some notable exceptions, such as Justice Robert H. Jacksons
concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), has
apparently been accepted by the Supreme Court that this Clause grants powers beyond those
enumerated in the remainder of Article II. In Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), the
Court cited the Executive Vesting Clause as the source of removal and supervisory powers over
executive officers. The Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) cited the Clause as a
source of three powers (law enforcement, foreign affairs, and a supervisory power over the
executive branch).
158. Morrison v. Olson (1988), which upheld the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel
Act, acknowledged that the Vesting Clause granted the President control over prosecutions and
that while the Vesting Clause grants substantive powers to the President, Congress may create
officers who can exercise such powers independent of the President.
159. The alleged fake Russian Narrative, which includes an impeachment angle, accuses
Russia as being an enemy of the U.S. who is engaged in collusion with President Trump and his
associates and waging a cyber war against the U.S. and its citizens. On August 29, 2017, Pravda,
the news organ of the Communist Party of Russia, reported that President Trump refuses to call
Russia an enemy:
Russia is not listed among potential threats to the West, US President Donald
Trump said. When asked if he saw Russia as a threat to the Western world, Trump
did not give a precise answer to the question. I hope that we do have good
relations with Russia, Trump said. I say it loud and clear, I have been saying it
for years. I think its a good thing if we have great relationships, or at least good
relationships, with Russia. I believe someday that will happen, he said. Its a
big country, its a nuclear country. I think thats very good for world peace and
other things, Trump said. On-line:

160. On August 24, 2017, in furtherance of the alleged fake Russian Narrative impeachment
conspiracy, Cable News Network (CNN), which is owned by Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.,
while citing no medical evidence, published a report declaring it to be OK to question Trumps

mental health as part of a broader strategy to create another fake, false and fraudulent reason to
impeach President Trump:
Questioning a presidents sanity is by no means in league with giving license to
murder him. If this were the case, then James Clapper, a veteran spy and patriot
who has served in several US administrations, would be guilty of high treason for
asserting on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon in the early hours of Wednesday
morning, after Trumps fugal speech in Phoenix, I really question his ability to
his fitness to be in this office ... [T]his behavior and this divisiveness and the
complete intellectual, moral and ethical void that the President of the United
States exhibits ... how much longer does the country have to, to borrow a phrase,
endure this nightmare?
Clapper then added that having such a person in charge of Americas atomic
arsenal caused him some concern. Put into appropriate context, the former
director of national intelligence was comparing the President of the United States
to an irrational dictator of a nuclear rogue state, about whom a former director of
national intelligence might nervously be briefing the president of the United
States under normal circumstances. Source: Yes, its OK to question Trumps
mental health, by Michael Weiss, National Security Analyst for CNN, August
24, 2017.

161. The alleged fake Russian Narrative impeachment conspiracy, when coupled with
CNNs efforts to further the conspiracy for impeachment, treads upon the war algorithm of the
Constitution, which can be used to define ordinary citizens as enemy combatants, as was
experienced during the U.S. Civil War and the War on Terror, conducted under Article I,
Section 8, Clause 10 (Define and Punish Clause); Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 (Declare War);
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 (Marque and Reprisal); Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 (Captures
Clause); Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 (Declare War); Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 (Vesting
Clause); Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 (Commander in Chief); and Article III, Section 3, Clause
1 (Levying War).
162. The constitutional algorithm established by Article I, Section 2, Clause 5; Article I,
Section 3, Clause 6; Article I, Section 3, Clause 7; Article I, Section 8, Clause 10; Article I,
Section 8, Clause 11; Article I, Section 10, Clause 3; Article II, Section 1, Clause 1; Article II,
Section 2, Clause 1 Article II, Section 2, Clause 2; Article II, Section 4; Article III, Section 3;
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926); Humphreys Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602
(1935); United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936); Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952); United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974); Nixon v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982); Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988); Clinton v. Jones, 520
U.S. 681 (1997); American Insurance Assn v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003); Prize Cases, 67
U.S. 635 (1862); Gitlow v. People, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Whitney v. California 274 U.S. 357
(1927); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946);
American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950); Dennis v. United States, 341
U.S. 494 (1951); Adler v. Board of Education of City of New York, 342 U.S. 485 (1952);
Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956); Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956);
Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City, 350 U.S. 551 (1956); Watkins v.
United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958); Barenblatt v. United
States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960); Communist Party of the
United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd. No. 12, 367 U.S. 1 (1961); Scales v. United
States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964); Zemel v. Rusk,
381 U.S. 1 (1965); United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965); Albertson v. Subversive
Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70 (1965); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589
(1967); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971); United States v. United
States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000);
Doe v. Bush, 322 F.3d 109 (1st Cir. 2003); OConnor v. United States, 72 Fed. Appx. 768 (10th
Cir. 2003) and Chapters 31, 33, 35 and 40, Part II, of Title 28 U.S.C., will not permit the exercise
of Power by any member of the Executive Branch to appoint a special attorney/counsel to
engage in a witch hunt investigation and prosecution of any President of the United States.
163. Further, the aforementioned algorithms will not permit the Attorney General of the
United States to recuse herself or himself from performing her or his appointed Executive duties
without the prior authority or approval of the President of the United States and or the Senate.
164. In their letters regarding appointing special counsel, both Defendant Rosenstein and
Congressman Goodlatte rely on 28 C.F.R. Part 600, which purports to implement Title 5 U.S.C.
301, 509, 510, and 515-519. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 2 and 39, respectively.
165. Both letters fail to state any facts tending to establish the grounds for appointing a
Special Counsel pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 600.1, which when making use of the conjunction
and to join its subdivisions, runs afoul of the Constitution and Title 28, by providing that:
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the
Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she
determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States
Attorneys Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would
present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary
circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an
outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

166. Under 28 C.F.R. 600.1, the Department of Justice would be corrupt beyond repair in
order to invoke its provisions. Further, special attorneys, appointed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 515,
are not authorized to conduct independent civil or criminal FBI investigations. They may only
conduct legal proceedings under the Supervision of the Attorney General. Defendant Mueller
was appointed to conduct both FBI investigations and criminal prosecutions and be independent.
167. When enacting 28 U.S.C. 515, Congress expressly limited special attorneys to the
performance of duties associated with a legal proceeding which United States attorneys are
authorized by law to conduct:
(a) The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or
any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when
specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal
proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings
before committing magistrates [magistrate judges], which United States attorneys
are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in
which the proceeding is brought.

(b) Each attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice
shall be commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special
attorney, and shall take the oath required by law. Foreign counsel employed in
special cases are not required to take the oath. The Attorney General shall fix the
annual salary of a special assistant or special attorney. (2015 Edition.)

168. When enacting 28 U.S.C. 547, Congress specifically limited the duties of U.S.
Attorneys to the following mandatory tasks:
Except as otherwise provided by law, each United States attorney, within his
district, shall--
(1) prosecute for all offenses against the United States;
(2) prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings
in which the United States is concerned;
(3) appear in behalf of the defendants in all civil actions, suits or proceedings
pending in his district against collectors, or other officers of the revenue or
customs for any act done by them or for the recovery of any money exacted by or
paid to these officers, and by them paid into the Treasury;

(4) institute and prosecute proceedings for the collection of fines, penalties, and
forfeitures incurred for violation of any revenue law, unless satisfied on
investigation that justice does not require the proceedings; and
(5) make such reports as the Attorney General may direct.

169. Congress also, when enacting 28 U.S.C. 543, granted permission to the Attorney
General to appoint special attorneys to assist United States Attorneys:
(a) The Attorney General may appoint attorneys to assist United States attorneys
when the public interest so requires, including the appointment of qualified tribal
prosecutors and other qualified attorneys to assist in prosecuting Federal offenses
committed in Indian country.
(b) Each attorney appointed under this section is subject to removal by the
Attorney General.

170. Nowhere in Title 28 did Congress grant the Attorney General authority to appoint a
special attorney to independently conduct FBI investigations and prosecute her or his
independent FBI investigations. Congress did, however, vest such authority in an attorney in the
Independent Counsel statutes, 28 U.S.C. 591-599. In 28 U.S.C. 594, Congress provided the
authority and duties of an independent counsel as follows:
(a) AUTHORITIES.Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an
independent counsel appointed under this chapter shall have, with respect to all
matters in such independent counsels prosecutorial jurisdiction established under
this chapter, full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and
prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice, the Attorney
General, and any other officer or employee of the Department of Justice, except
that the Attorney General shall exercise direction or control as to those matters
that specifically require the Attorney Generals personal action under section
2516 of title 18.
Such investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers shall include
(1) conducting proceedings before grand juries and other investigations;
(2) participating in court proceedings and engaging in any litigation, including
civil and criminal matters, that such independent counsel considers necessary;
(3) appealing any decision of a court in any case or proceeding in which such
independent counsel participates in an official capacity;
(4) reviewing all documentary evidence available from any source;
(5) determining whether to contest the assertion of any testimonial privilege;
(6) receiving appropriate national security clearances and, if necessary, contesting
in court (including, where appropriate, participating in in camera proceedings)
any claim of privilege or attempt to withhold evidence on grounds of national
(7) making applications to any Federal court for a grant of immunity to any
witness, consistent with applicable statutory requirements, or for warrants,
subpoenas, or other court orders, and, for purposes of sections 6003, 6004, and

6005 of title 18, exercising the authority vested in a United States attorney or the
Attorney General;
(8) inspecting, obtaining, or using the original or a copy of any tax return, in
accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations, and, for purposes of
section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the regulations issued
thereunder, exercising the powers vested in a United States attorney or the
Attorney General;
(9) initiating and conducting prosecutions in any court of competent jurisdiction,
framing and signing indictments, filing informations, and handling all aspects of
any case, in the name of the United States; and (10) consulting with the United
States attorney for the district in which any violation of law with respect to which
the independent counsel is appointed was alleged to have occurred.

171. Unlike the roles of State and local prosecutors observed in Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S.
118 (1997), Congress intended that federal prosecutors, like judges, be entitled to absolute
immunity from federal tort liability, whether common law or constitutional, because of concern
that harassment by unfounded litigation would cause a deflection of the prosecutors energies
from her or his public duties, and the possibility that she or he would shade her or his decisions
instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by her or his public trust.
172. Stated differently, Congress did not authorize the Attorney General to upset the delicate
balance courts have established for absolute immunity from federal suit and tort liability by
appointing U.S. Attorney or special attorney to act in the stead of the Director of the FBI or as an
FBI investigator or agent when doing so would nullify the rule of absolute immunity available
to federal prosecutors approved by Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017), Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985), Burns v. Reed,
500 U.S. 478 (1991), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509
U.S. 259 (1993), Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997), among other cases.
173. Under Title 28, an FBI law enforcement investigation is neither an initiation nor a
pursuit of a criminal prosecution. Defendant Rosenstein directed Mueller to pick up where the
FBI Director left off. By the face of the appointment letter, Mueller became a specially appointed
attorney to act as FBI Director and an FBI agent to pick up the investigation where former FBI
Director Comey left off, in addition to acting as a special prosecutor if he discovered President
Trump or others associated with him, including vocal supporters and voters, committed any
crimes, regardless of the time period involved.

174. Plaintiff Emanuel McCray and others similarly situated, have a constitutional right to
seek and demand judicial relief from the alleged unconstitutional scheme to engage in a witch
hunt of President Trump and his supporters, voters and appointees.
175. The United States algorithm for national intelligence includes military science. Fleet
Marine Force Manual (FMFM) 2-1 (Intelligence) sets forth information and guidance concerning
the planning and execution of intelligence activities within the Marine Corps in support of
Marine Corps commanders and the President of the United States.
176. Section 102 of FMFM 2-1 describes intelligence as the foundation on which the
operational effort is built. Section 103 lists two objectives of intelligence: (1) keep the
commander informed; and (2) assist the commander in planning and implementing
counterintelligence (CI) measures. Section 104 defines intelligence as the product resulting
from the collection, evaluation, analysis, integration, and interpretation of all available
information concerning one or more aspects of foreign countries, to wit:

177. On May 19, 2017, Jim Geraghty, writing for National Review, reported that senior
members of Congress publicly confirmed that they had not seen any evidence of President
Trump colluding with Russia:

Sam Stein, Huffington Post: But just to be clear, there has been no actual
evidence yet. REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): No, it has not been. Then
theres a Republican senatorLindsey Graham of South Carolina: There is no
evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians as of this
date. I do not believe the president himself is a target or subject of any criminal
investigation as of right now. So thats what I know right now, and where this
goes, I dont know. Follow the facts where they lead. Perhaps the most
significant comes from Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California: WOLF BLITZER,
CNN: The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen
evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russiansyou said,
not at this time. Has anything changed since we spoke last? SENATOR
DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): Well, notno, it hasnt. BLITZER: But I
just want to be precise, Senatorso far youve not seen any evidence of
collusion, is that right? SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, evidence that would establish
that theres collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around. There are newspaper
stories, but thats not necessarily evidence. Democrats are increasingly
convinced that the seemingly endless storm of allegations around Trump will
inevitably lead to his impeachment, and an impeachment that will come soon, not
late in Trumps first term. Theyre convinced that evidence of Trump violating
the law exists, and theyre convinced that the FBI or the investigating committees
in Congress will find it.With this desperate, all-or-nothing mindset, they will
always insist that the evidence to take down Trump is waiting to be found, just
around the next corner Source: When Does All That Evidence of Collusion

178. The Constitution guarantees all Americans the freedom to associate with each other and
with foreigners visiting the U.S. The alleged witch hunt engaged in by the Defendants tramples
upon fundamental rights of all Americans,16 beginning with the Constitutions Preamble and
including the oaths of office set forth in Article II, Section 1 and Article VI. See also: Madisons
notes, July 23, 1787, Records, 2:87-88.
179. In a letter dated August 10, 2017, Defendant FBI notified Dr. Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ
that contrary to its October 21, 2016 letter, that No records responsive to your request were
located, Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 75, the FBI now believes records responsive to the request may
exist and the request is being reopened:

In its July 24, 2017 print issue at page 13, the National Enquirer reported that boxing legend Mike Tyson is a
huge star in Russia and a group of wealthy businessmen offered him $500,000 to visit there and possibly get in the
ring with Putin. Tyson is taking part in a big convention in New York organized by the Russians. Tyson won
many boxing victories at events sponsored by President Trumps businesses.

180. Jordan Sekulow believed the reopening of the ACLJs FOIA request by FBI indicated the
FBI lied when claiming no records existed responsive to its request:
The FBIs letter dated one week after we publicly excoriated the FBI for lying
to us when the Comey-led FBI told us last October that it had no records
responsive to our request now states that records potentially responsive to your
request may exist. It is unbelievable that the FBI bureaucracy still only admits
that some documents may exist.
We know they exist. As we explained more than a week ago, here are several FBI
documents we already know the then Comey-led FBI was hiding from the public:
The documents we received . . . from the Department of Justice include several
emails from the FBI to DOJ officials concerning the meeting. One with the
subject line FLAG was correspondence between FBI officials (Richard Quinn,
FBI Media/Investigative Publicity, and Michael Kortan) and DOJ officials
concerning flag[ing] a story . . . about a casual, unscheduled meeting between
former president Bill Clinton and the AG. The DOJ official instructs the FBI to
let me know if you get any questions about this and provides [o]ur talkers
[DOJ talking points] on this. The talking points, however are redacted.
Another email to the FBI contains the subject line security details coordinate
between Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton?

On July 1, 2016 just days before our FOIA request a DOJ email chain under
the subject line, FBI just called, indicates that the FBI . . . is looking for
guidance in responding to media inquiries about news reports that the FBI had
prevented the press from taking pictures of the Clinton Lynch meeting. The
discussion then went off email to several phone calls (of which we are not able to
obtain records). An hour later, Carolyn Pokomy of the Office of the Attorney
General stated, I will let Rybicki know. Jim Rybicki was the Chief of Staff and
Senior Counselor to FBI Director Jim Comey. The information that was to be
provided to Rybicki is redacted. Also of note several of the documents contain
redactions that are requested per FBI. What else was the FBI hiding? While we
appreciate that the FBI has reopened the case file and is now searching for
documents responsive to our duly submitted FOIA request from more than a year
ago, it stretches the bounds of credulity to suggest that the FBI bureaucracy just
discovered that potentially responsive records may exist on its own accord.
We have already turned over all documents that we have received on this matter
to the Senate Judiciary Committee which is conducting its own investigation. We
have also posted a timeline and the full documents that we have received, which
show evidence of: (1) Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynchs secret email
alias; (2) Numerous redactions, including main talking points, in circumvention
of FOIA; (3) Comey-led FBI lies on the existence of requested documents; (4)
DOJ-Media collusion; (5) A White House connection; and (6) Revelations that
Obama-loyalists are now investigating themselves.

181. On October 4, 2016, the ACLJ documented in a report made public how the Obama-
Administration used the Constitutions algorithms and Congress failure to reauthorize the
Independent Counsel statute, Chapter 40, Part II, of Title 28 U.S.C., to avoid prosecuting
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
Todays jaw-dropping news indicates the active complicity of Justice
Department officials in thwarting the investigation into how senior Obama State
Department officials set up and used an unsecured server to transmit classified
national security information. Information contained in a letter sent today from
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to Attorney General Lynch
verifies that Obama Administration officials entered into a pair of side
agreements with two of Hillary Clintons top former aidesCheryl Mills and
Heather Samuelsonthat allowed FBI agents to destroy their laptops after
searching their hard drives for evidence. Even more unbelievably, reports allege
that the FBI agreed to limit the search of the laptops to no later than January 31,
2015 making it impossible to review documents after news of the email server
became public. These are astonishing developments that struggle to pass the smell
test. Indeed, 18 U.S.C. Section 1519 makes it a felony to knowingly destroy
evidence with the intent to impede an investigation of any matter within the
jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States. Nevertheless, the
Obama Administrations Department of Justice decided to allow agents to destroy
the laptops of two individuals who were material witnesses and who were later

allowed to serve as Hillary Clintons personal attorneys during the FBIs email
investigation. The Department of Justice effectively prevented any subsequent
review of the evidence despite the fact that such evidence could be pertinent to
any follow-up criminal investigation. If this matter were not so serious, it would
constitute a world-class comedy of errors. Mrs. Clinton has for months claimed
that she did not send or receive classified information on her private email
account in violation of U.S. law. Every American knows this is untrue. Even the
FBI director admitted that her conduct was extremely careless. After Congress
issued a subpoena to Mrs. Clinton to produce documents in 2015, her people
sprang into action. Cheryl Mills and individuals connected to the Platte River
Networksthe firm that maintained Mrs. Clintons serverensured that the
emails under subpoena were deleted. Consistent with this pattern, aides tried to
destroy mobile devices with hammers, while other mobile devices, thumb drives,
or laptops just so happened to become lost. Responding to this pattern of conduct,
the Obama Administrations Justice Department commenced a shambolic
investigation and granted immunity to five of Mrs. Clintons top aides including
Cheryl Mills and Heather Sameulson. Taken together, this record confirms the
intuition of National Review writer, Andrew McCarthy. More than eight months
ago, he suggested that President Obama knew Mrs. Clinton was conducting
government business over her private email account and that the email exchanges
between the President and his Secretary of State over her unsecured system
involved sensitive issues of policy. Recent news reports confirm that President
Obama used a pseudonym in his email exchanges with his Secretary of State. This
record signifies that it is highly likely that former Secretary Clinton could not be
proven guilty without proving President Obama implicitly guilty as well.
This meant that the FBI investigation was never going anywhere. How else can
you explain former President Clinton meeting with Attorney General Lynch on
the tarmac in Phoenix just before the FBI director issued his report in July?
Evidently, even had there been any evidence found, the Obama Administration
never intended to do anything with it except strike up side deals to either
destroy it or ignore it. The FBIs active participation in the destruction of laptops
owned by Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson and the Justice Departments
decision to prevent the FBI from examining evidence on the laptops after January
2015 compromised the integrity of the law enforcement investigations. This
record confirms that the rule of law remains inapplicable to rich and influential
individuals as unaccountable bureaucrats in the Obama Administration are
prepared to issue favors to well-connected individuals. Given the Justice
Departments active complicity in the destruction of evidence, its credibility lies
in tatters and the reputation of the FBI lies in shambles. Source: How The
Obama Administration was Complicit in the FBIs Faux Investigation, by Harry
G. Hutchison.

182. Chairman Bob Goodlattes accusations of complicity by the Justice Department in

obstructing justice underscores the fact that Plaintiffs are being irreparably harmed by reason of

the unconstitutional actions and conduct of government officials engaged in a witch hunt of
President Trump and his associates, voters and supporters. Others have joined in this conspiracy
by demonetizing the You Tube channels of two black female Conservative Republicans who
have voice their support for President Trump.
183. The unconstitutional investigation by Defendant Mueller is also causing Plaintiffs to
suffer harm to the U.S. Treasury which is funding, without protest, Defendant Muellers team of
lawyers who have previously supported Democratic Party members.
184. Plaintiffs will continue to be irreparably harmed unless the named Defendants are
compelled to conform their conduct to the Constitution and Laws of the United States.

185. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 184, above, as if set forth fully
186. The FOIA request at issue involves:
FOIPA Request No.: 1377820-000
Subject: Notes of Former FBI Director James Comey Shared With The New York
Times Reporter

187. On June 30, 2017, the FBI determined, in relevant part that:

The records responsive to your request are law enforcement records. There is a
pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive
records, and release of the information in these responsive records could
reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. This is a
standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as
an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at

188. The FBIs denial is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the FOIA. On June 8, 2017,
Mr. Comey testified before Congress that he intentionally leaked the requested materials to The
New York Times as part of an agreement with others to cover his backside in the event something
happened involving his boss, President Trump, which was reported by The New York Times on
May 16, 2017:
Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and
close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which
is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comeys associates read parts of it to a Times
reporter. It is unclear whether Mr. Comey told the Justice Department about the

conversation or his memos. Mr. Comey was known among his closest advisers
to document conversations that he believed would later be called into question,
according to two former confidants, who said Mr. Comey was uncomfortable at
times with his relationship with Mr. Trump. Mr. Comeys recollection has been
bolstered in the past by F.B.I. notes. In 2007, he told Congress about a now-
famous showdown with senior White House officials over the Bush
administrations warrantless wiretapping program. The White House disputed Mr.
Comeys account, but the F.B.I. director at the time, Robert S. Mueller III, kept
notes that backed up Mr. Comeys story. See: Comey Memo Says Trump Asked
Him to End Flynn Investigation, By Michael S. Schmidt, May 16, 2017

189. On June 2, 2017, Arnie Seipel of National Public Radio (NPR) published additional
details regarding Mr. Comeys conduct when he reported that:
Fired FBI Director James Comey may tell the Senate Intelligence Committee
next week that President Trump suggested he ease off at least part of the FBIs
Russia investigation. But a month ago, he said this to the Senate Judiciary
Committee: Im talking about a situation where we were told to stop something
for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. Its not happened in my
experience. But theres more context. Here is the full exchange from the
Judiciary Committee hearing, when Comey was being questioned by Sen. Mazie
Hirono, D-Hawaii.

HIRONO: So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of

Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory, yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to
stop doing something that without an appropriate purpose. I mean where
oftentimes they give us opinions that we dont see a case there and so you ought
to stop investing resources in it. But Im talking about a situation where we were
told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. Its not
happened in my experience. Source: Did James Comey Lie About Interference In
The Russia Investigation?, June 2, 2017, By Arnie Seipel,

190. Mr. Comey knew, at the time he testified that he had no experience of anyone halting an
investigation, that he was a member of a conspiracy having as its object a goal to terminate the
investigation of Mrs. Clinton so as to avoid any judicial situation that would require President
Obama to pardon Mrs. Clinton pursuant to Article II, 2, Clause 1. Nine (9) significant events
shed profound light on this conspiracy:

(1) First. On June 25, 1948, Congress enacted the Misprision of Felony statute, 18
U.S.C. 4, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684, as amended, which provides that: Whoever, having
knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States,
conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in
civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than three years, or both.

(2) Second. Set forth in paragraphs 18-24, supra, at page 6, Mrs. Clinton began using
a private server using the domain and an email address of which became associated with her official duties as Secretary of State
and as the administrator of Civil Society 2.0.

(3) Third. Set forth in paragraphs 26-29, supra, at page 7, in September 2012,
President Obama and other members of his Administration, while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of
State, untruthfully blamed the violence in Benghazi, Libya, which led to the death of U.S.
Ambassador Stevens and other Americans, on a hateful video as part of a scheme to exonerate
Mrs. Clinton for these American deaths. Defendant Mueller served as FBI Director from
September 4, 2001 to September 4, 2013. See paragraph 13, supra, at 4. Before giving testimony
before Congress, Mr. Comey met with Defendant Mueller. Paragraph 71-72, supra, at 22.

(4) Fourth. Set forth in paragraph 51, supra, at 13, on January 27, 2016, an informant
personally provided Defendant FBI with criminal evidence of Hillary Clintons misuse of
classified documents after being unable to verify whether Mr. Comey received the informants
evidence previously addressed to him. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 118-120.

(5) Fifth. Set forth in paragraphs 53-57, supra, at pages 14-16, in early March 2016,
the Daily Beast, Washington Post, The New York Times, and other major news organizations
knew, according to Hillary Clinton, that she would not be indicted and the emails were a
security inquiry and that the FBIs probe into Clintons email practices could conclude by
early May, a date consistent with the alleged conspiracy and the third event.

(6) Sixth. Set forth in paragraphs 40, 77, 80, and 181, supra, at 10, 23 and 58-59,
respectively, on June 27, 2016, a highly publicized political and professional scandal erupted
from the meeting on the tarmac in Arizona between then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and
former President Bill Clinton.

(7) Seventh. On August 30, 2017, the Investigative Bureau of reported
that it had learned from unidentified FBI veterans feared the criminal case involving Imran
Awan was cleverly rigged to protect Obama, Lynch, Holder, Wasserman [and] Congressional

The fix was in to protect Justice Department officials as high up as the US

Attorney General even before the Awan investigation started, FBI veterans with
knowledge of the case now fear. And so far President Barack Obama, who
appointed the US Attorney in the District of Columbia who is slow walking the
case, has proven insulated too from an investigation now on the fringes of

exposing espionage and blackmail of Democratic members of Congress. The US
Attorney in DC is Channing Phillips, who worked for Loretta Lynch and Eric
Holder in key roles during their tenures as US Attorney General. Phillips was
appointed by Obama shortly before the Awan grand jury convened. The
confirmation of Phillips replacement nominated by President Donald Trump has
been stalled by Sen. Chuck Schumer for eight months. He (Phillips) could be
protecting Holder, Lynch and Obama depending how deep this mess is, a FBI
insider said. He may have been appointed for the sole purpose of quashing this
case. FBI agents feel they have amassed crucial evidence to expand the Awan
case into a wider investigation of possible espionage and blackmail but the
Bureau is getting push back from the US Attorneys Office in D.C., federal
sources confirmed. Awan and Alvi, husband and wife, were indicted on bank
fraud and financial crimes on August 17, but federal agents believe this case is
much larger than mortgage-related crimes. There is growing evidence, for
instance the Awans could have sold classified information to foreign governments
outside the United States. Then there is growing talk that the Awans may have
blackmailed Congress with damaging emails and photos. FBI sources also
believe someone in Congress tipped the Awans off months before their grand jury
indictment. On Sunday, former Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who retired just
weeks ago, predicted the Awan and Alvi bank fraud indictment could explode and
expand into something much larger. He said the case could prove the proverbial
tip of the iceberg, involving accomplices. Phillips father was once nominated
on the Democratic presidential ticket. Source: FBI Fear Awan Case Was
Cleverly Rigged To Protect Obama, Lynch, Holder, Wasserman, Congressional

(8) Eighth. On August 31, 2017, Senator Grassley issued a press release alleging Mr.
Comey had drafted and disseminated a copy of his July 5, 2016 press release recommending no
charges be brought against Mrs. Clinton as early May 2016, before 17 key witnesses were

Transcripts reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee reveal that former FBI
Director James Comey began drafting an exoneration statement in the Clinton
email investigation before the FBI had interviewed key witnesses. Last fall,
following allegations from Democrats in Congress, the Office of Special Counsel
(OSC) began investigating whether Comeys actions in the Clinton email
investigation violated the Hatch Act. In the course of that investigation, OSC
interviewed two FBI officials close to Comey: James Rybicki, Comeys Chief of
Staff, and Trisha Anderson, the Principal Deputy General Counsel of National
Security and Cyberlaw. OSC provided transcripts of those interviews at
Grassleys request after it closed the investigation due to Comeys termination.
Both transcripts are heavily redacted without explanation. However, they indicate
that Comey began drafting a statement to announce the conclusion of the Clinton
email investigation in April or May of 2016, before the FBI interviewed up to 17
key witnesses including former Secretary Clinton and several of her closest aides.

The draft statement also came before the Department entered into immunity
agreements with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson where the Department
agreed to a very limited review of Secretary Clintons emails and to destroy their
laptops after review. In an extraordinary July announcement, Comey exonerated
Clinton despite noting there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes
regarding the handling of classified information. Source: Comey Drafted
Conclusion in Clinton Probe Prior to Interviewing Key Witnesses,

In his letter to Defendant Wray dated August 30, 2017, Senator Grassley named
17 individuals who had yet to be interviewed:

Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 234-239. Senator Grassley further noted that:

[T]he Justice Department entered into highly unusual immunity agreements with
Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson in June 2016-after Mr. Corney began
drafting his exoneration statement-to review Clinton email archives on their
laptops. The immunity agreements limited the FBI s ability to review Clinton
email archives from Platte River Networks that were created after June 1, 2014,
and before February 1, 2015, and which had been sent or received from Secretary
Clintons four email addresses during her tenure as Secretary of State. These

limitations prevented the FBI from reviewing records surrounding a March 2015
conference call that Paul Combetta, an employee of Platte River Networks, had
with David Kendall and Ms. Mills, the attorneys for Secretary Clinton. After
having been initially untruthful and then receiving his own immunity agreement,
Mr. Combetta admitted in his third FBI interview, in May 2016, that after a
March 2015 conference call with Secretary Clintons attorneys, he used BleachBit
to destroy any remaining copies of Clintons emails.

(9) Ninth. On August 31, 2017, Joshua Caplan reported that in a civil lawsuit
pending in this Federal District, Case name: Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of
State, Case No.1:15-cv-00687, U.S. District Judge James Emanuel Jeb
Boasberg, who also serves as a Judge on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC), rejected Defendant DOJs argument that Hillary
Clintons case isnt interesting enough to the public to justify releasing the FBIs
files on her and ordered the release of the emails. Source: NOT SO FAST:
Judge Orders Feds to Release Details of Hillary Clinton Email Investigation After
FBI Refused,

191. According to the NPRs report, the investigation of General Flynn is part of the FBIs
larger Russia probe, which would tend to indicate that Mr. Comey lied to President Trump
when he confirmed to President Trump on three occasions that he was not under investigation.
Mr. Comey further lied to the public during his testimony before Congress when he confirmed
that President Trump was not under investigation.
192. On June 27, 2017, Sara A. Carter of, reported that one unauthorized leak by
Defendant FBI in particular, appears to have been designed to take Flynn out:
The FBI launched a criminal probe against former Trump National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn two years after the retired Army general roiled the
bureaus leadership by intervening on behalf of a decorated counterterrorism
agent who accused now-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other top
officials of sexual discrimination, according to documents and interviews.
Flynns intervention on behalf of Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz was
highly unusual, and included a letter in 2014 on his official Pentagon stationary, a
public interview in 2015 supporting Gritzs case and an offer to testify on her
behalf. His offer put him as a hostile witness in a case against McCabe, who was
soaring through the bureaus leadership ranks.
The FBI sought to block Flynns support for the agent, asking a federal
administrative law judge in May 2014 to keep Flynn and others from becoming a
witness in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case, memos
obtained by Circa show. Two years later, the FBI opened its inquiry of Flynn.
The EEOC case, which is still pending, was serious enough to require McCabe to
submit to a sworn statement to investigators, the documents show. The deputy
directors testimony provided some of the strongest evidence in the case of

possible retaliation, because he admitted the FBI opened an internal investigation
into Gritzs personal conduct after learning the agent had filed or intended to
file a sex discrimination complaint against her supervisors.
McCabe eventually became the bureaus No. 2 executive and emerged as a central
player in the FBIs Russia election tampering investigation, putting him in a
position to impact the criminal inquiry against Flynn. Three FBI employees
told Circa they personally witnessed McCabe make disparaging remarks about
Flynn before and during the time the retired Army general emerged as a figure in
the Russia case. FBI agents concerns became more pronounced when a highly-
classified piece of evidence -- an intercepted conversation between Flynn and
Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak -- suddenly leaked to the news media and
prompted Flynns resignation as Trumps top security adviser. The Flynn leaks
were nothing short of political, one FBI employee said, noting the specific
contents of the conversation were known by only a handful of government
officials when they leaked. The leaks appeared to be targeted to take Flynn out.
Did the FBI retaliate against Michael Flynn by launching a Russia probe?,
michael-flynn-by-launching-russia-probe. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 230-233.

193. Pursuant to Congressional intent, whatever exemptions the subject Memo may have
enjoyed under the FOIA was destroyed by Mr. Comeys intentional leaking and publication of
the material to the entire world and the fact that Mr. Comey has directly testified before
Congress that the Memo exists and that he disclosed the same to individuals inside and outside of
the Federal Government. The NPR reported that it learned from Comey associates that Comey
wrote a memo shortly after a private meeting with Trump in February.
194. In essence, Mr. Comey intentionally reduced his Memo to a news product. In Associated
Press v. International News Service, 245 F. 244, 248, 2 A.L.R. 317 (2nd Cir., 1917), affirmed 248
U.S. 215 (1919), the Court found that news is that which attracts public attention:
With the existence of a truth, with physical facts per se, neither plaintiff nor
defendant is concerned; for them facts in that absolute sense are but as ore in a
mountain or fish in the seavalueless unless and until by labor mined or caught
for use. Nor are facts, even after ascertainment, news, unless they have that
indefinable quality of interest, which attracts public attention. Neither is news
always synonymous with facts, in the sense of verity; indeed, much news
ultimately proves fictitious, yet it is excellent news notwithstanding. The word
means no more (laying aside hoaxing and intentional falsehood) than apparently
authentic reports of current events of interest.

195. The court in Jenkins v. News Syndicate Co., 128 Misc. 284, 285, 219 N. Y.S. 196, 198,
says a report of recent occurrencesis generally understood by the term news.

196. What is news of public interest will vary with the circumstances involved. This was
recognized by the authors of the article which has served as the fountain-head of the doctrine of
the right of privacy. They say: To determine in advance of experience the exact line at which
the dignity and convenience of the individual must yield to the demands of the public welfare or
of private justice would be a difficult task. Warren & Brandeis, The Right of Privacy (1890) 4
Harv.L. Rev. 193, 214.
197. Mr. Comeys Memo is also a publication that has been reduced to a communication to
the general public. See Marx v. United States, 96 F.2d 204, 206 (9th Cir.1938), quoting
Associated Press v. International News Service, 245 F. 244, 250-51 (2d Cir.1917); Tiffany
Productions v. Dewing, 50 F.2d 911, 914 (D.Md. 1931); Estill County v. Noland, 295 Ky. 753,
763, 175 S.W.2d 341, 346 (1943); Hancock-Nelson Mercantile Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation,
298 Minn. 341, 345, 215 N.W.2d 620, 622 (1974); Business Statistics Organization, Inc. v.
Joseph, 299 N.Y. 443, 451, 87 N.E.2d 505, 508 (1949); Black's Law Dictionary at 1396 (rev. 4th
ed. 1968); Websters Third New International Dictionary at 1836 (1968).
198. By publishing his Memo to the world and giving it the quality of news as that term is
defined, Mr. Comey usurped all FOIA exemptions that would ordinarily exempt his Memo.
199. Openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people
remain in control of their government. According to James Madison:
A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring
it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will
forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors,
must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. Source: Letter
from James Madison to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), in 9 Writings of James
Madison 103 (Gaillard Hunt, ed.1910).

200. In enacting FOIA, Congress recognized that the public cannot make intelligent decisions
without adequate information, and that governmental institutions become unresponsive to public
needs if knowledge of their activities is denied to the people and their representatives. The very
reason that presidential communications deserve special protection, namely the Presidents
unique powers and profound responsibilities, is simultaneously the very reason why securing as
much public knowledge of presidential actions as is consistent with the needs of governing is of
paramount importance.

201. Further, Mr. Comeys memorandum leaked to The New York Times was not created in
support of an FBI investigation and does not fall within any of the FOIAs exemptions. On May
9, 2017, President Trump memorialized the fact that on three separate occasions Comey
informed President Trump that he was not under investigation. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 at 4.
202. Mr. Comey also confirmed to Senator Mazie Hirono, paragraph 189 at page 61, that he
did not believe President Trump obstructed justice so as to call for an investigation.
203. In EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973) and Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067 (D.C.Cir.1971),
the FOIA requests involved reports that were prepared pursuant to a presidential request and
reviewed by the President. In both cases the courts viewed the privilege claim at issue as being
simply an assertion of the general deliberative process privilege, embodied in exemption five of
FOIA, rather than a distinct privilege for presidential communications. See also Robert Kramer
& Herman Marcuse, Executive Privilege--A Study of the Period 1953-1960: Part I, 29 Geo.
Wash. L. Rev. 623, 682-87, 692-93 (1961) (describing President Eisenhowers refusal to allow
any executive branch officers to reveal to Congress internal deliberations on official matters).
204. On July 6, 2017, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, released a report titled State Secrets: How An
Avalanche of Media Leaks Is Harming National Security, wherein the Committee found that
during President Trumps first 126 days in office, January 20, 2017 to May 25, 2017, his
administration faced 125 leaked stories to the media:
The Trump administration faced 125 leaked storiesone leak a day
containing information that is potentially damaging to national security under the
standards laid out in a 2009 Executive Order signed by President Barack Obama.
Leaks with the capacity to damage national security flowed about seven times
faster under President Trump than during President Obamas and President
George W. Bushs first 126 days.
The majority of leaks during the Trump administration, 78, concerned the
Russia probes, with many revealing closely-held information such as intelligence
community intercepts, FBI interviews and intelligence, grand jury subpoenas, and
even the workings of a secret surveillance court.
Other leaks disclosed potentially sensitive intelligence on U.S. adversaries or
possible military plans against them. One leak, about the investigation of a
terrorist attack, caused a diplomatic incident between the United States and a
close ally.
Leaked stories appeared in 18 news outlets, sourced to virtually every possible
permutation of anonymous current and former U.S. officials, some clearly from
the intelligence community. One story cited more than two dozen anonymous

Almost all of the stories leaked during President Trumps first 126 days were
about the President or his administration. In contrast, only half of the stories
leaked during the comparable period of the Obama administration were about
President Obama or his administration; the other half concerned President Bush
and his anti-terrorism tactics. Internet Link:

205. Senator Johnson further documented the fact that:

More than 70 leaked stories were attributed to officials in virtually every form
the word can be used, including U.S. officials; former U.S. officials; current
and former U.S. officials; senior U.S. officials; former government officials;
administration officials; intelligence officials; national security officials;
Justice Department officials; law enforcement officials; and defense
officials. Other stories cited people familiar with or briefed on closely-held
information such as classified intelligence; contents of wiretapped
communications; national security forms, and internal administration
deliberations. The sheer volume and scope of the sources indicates that they are
coming from across the government, with some clearly from within the
intelligence community, given the large number of stories reporting on secret
intelligence and how publications cite their sources. Many of the most
publicized leaks in recent weeks stemmed from President Trumps removal of
FBI Director James Comey and the documents Director Comey allegedly wrote
detailing his communications with the President. In testimony before the Senate,
Director Comey said he deliberately wrote the memos in unclassified form and
that he helped leak them to the media in hopes of getting a special counsel
appointed.For these reasons, this report includes articles relating to leaks
surrounding Director Comeys conversations with the President.

206. Plaintiffs have constitutional rights, as the Governors of their Government,

implemented in 5 U.S.C. 552, to have their FOIA request processed and fulfilled. The
avalanche of leaks demonstrates that there are no unusual circumstances that would justify
the Defendants refusal to disclose the requested memorandum pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552.
207. The FOIA, in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), provides Plaintiffs a cause of action against a
federal agency that is alleged to be engaged in unlawfully withholding information in violation
of their constitutional rights to have knowledge about their Federal Government.
208. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C), Plaintiffs are deemed to have exhausted any and all
administrative remedies with request to Plaintiffs FOIA request and FOIA appeal. Plaintiffs
Exhibit 1 at 116-117 and 223-224.

209. Plaintiffs are being irreparably harmed by reason of Defendants unlawful withholding of
the requested record, and Plaintiffs will continue to be irreparably harmed unless the Defendants
are compelled to conform their conduct to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution as
implemented in 5 U.S.C. 552.
210. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against
Defendants United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jefferson
Beauregard Sessions III, Rod Jay Rosenstein, Christopher Asher Wray, and Robert Swan
Mueller III, and provide Plaintiff with the following relief:
(a) A declaratory judgment that Defendant Sessions recusal without the prior advice
and consent of the President violates the Constitution and Title 28;
(b) A declaratory judgment that the appointment of Defendant Mueller to investigate
President Trump and his associates, supporters and voters violates the Constitution and Title 28;
(c) A declaratory judgment that Chairman Goodlattes letter requesting the DOJ to
appoint a special counsel to investigate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others
violates the Constitution and Title 28 because the Constitution provides all the power and
authority this Branch of Government needs to investigate, impeach, convict and remove
government officials;
(d) A declaratory judgment that 600.1 through 600.10 of Title 28 Code of Federal
Regulations violates the Constitution and Title 28 because the use of the conjunction and in
600.1 strips the President of the Executive Power algorithm embodied in Article II, 1, Clause
1; Article II, 2, Clause 2; and 28 U.S.C. 503, 509, 531, 533, 541, 543 and 546;17
(e) A declaratory judgment that the FISA is unconstitutional and violates
Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all applications for
unmasking to be submitted to and approved by the FISC;
(f) A declaratory judgment that the FISA is unconstitutional and violates
Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all queries of
datausing U.S. person identifiers to be submitted to and approved by the FISC;

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 503 and 541, the President is vested with sole Power to appoint an Attorney General and
a U.S. Attorney, and through her or him, control all functions of the Department of Justice, 509, including the
recusals of the Attorney General and U.S. Attorneys; the appointment of special attorneys under 28 U.S.C. 515
and 543 and the filling of any vacancies under 28 U.S.C. 546, as was similarly done by President Obama.

(g) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments
First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all news media seeking to publish the
unmasked names of U.S. persons and the information obtained from queries of datausing
U.S. person identifiers be submitted to and approved by the FISC before publication;
(h) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments
First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require the FISC to convene a Grand Jury for
purposes of identifying and recommending the prosecution of all individuals and members of the
press responsible for causing the disclosure and or publication of unmasked names of U.S.
persons and the information obtained from queries of datausing U.S. person identifiers
without the prior approval of the FISC;
(i) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments
First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require the FISC to provide to a masked U.S.
person notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the name of a masked U.S. person is
(j) A declaratory judgment that the withholding of the Comey Memo leaked to The
New York Times violates Plaintiffs constitutional rights implemented under 5 U.S.C. 552;
(k) An Order that the Defendants produce, by a date certain, a copy of the Comey
Memo leaked to The New York Times;
(l) An Order enjoining the Defendants and the other members of the U.S.
Intelligence Community from making applications for warrants under the FISA unless or until
Congress enacts law consistent with paragraphs 210(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i), supra;
(m) An Order awarding to Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and other
litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action pursuant to statutes; and
(n) An Order granting to Plaintiffs all further relief to which Plaintiffs may be
September 3, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Emanuel McCray
(858) 876-4833 |