ECF
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18−cv−09433−LGS

Pen American Center, Inc. v. Trump Assigned to: Judge Lorna G. Schofield Cause: 28:1331vc Fed. Question: Violation of Constitutional Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/16/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Pen American Center, Inc.

represented by Allison Murphy Protect Democracy 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite #163 WASHINGTON Washington, DC 20006 202−253−7166 Email: allison.murphy@protectdemocracy.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Florence Protect Democracy 15 Main St. Suite 312 Watertown, MA 02472 202−774−4234 Email: justin.florence@protectdemocracy.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Corn−Revere Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP(DC) 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006−3402 (202)−508−6625 Fax: (202)−508−6699 Email: bobcornrevere@dwt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chelsea Kelly Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 212−489−8230 Email: ChelseaKelly@dwt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Schulz Ballard Spahr LLP (NYC) 1675 Broadway, 19th Floor New York, NY 10019 (212) 850−6103 Fax: (212) 223−1942 Email: schulzd@ballardspahr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Francesca Lina Procaccini Yale Law School Media Freedom & Information Access

V. Defendant

Clinic 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 203−436−5828 Email: francesca.procaccini@yale.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Michael Bassin Protect Democracy Project 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 (917)−721−9074 Email: ian.bassin@protectdemocracy.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Langford Protect Democracy 555 W. 5th St. Los Angeles, CA 90013 919−619−9819 Fax: 929−777−8428 Email: john.langford@protectdemocracy.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence Michael Schwartztol American Civil Liberties Union (NYC) 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 519−7849 Fax: (212) 549−2680 Email: larry.schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald Gary London Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP(DC) 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W, Washington, DC 20006−3402 (202)−508−6635 Fax: (202)−508−6699 Email: ronnielondon@dwt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Arthur Hirsch Keker & Van Nest, LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415)−391−5400 Fax: (415)−397−7188 Email: shirsch@keker.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristy Parker Protect Democracy Project, Inc. 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Ste 163 Washington, DC 20006 202−424−9906 Fax: 929−777−8428 Email: kristy.parker@protectdemocracy.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald J. Trump in his official capacity as President of the United States Amicus Amici Curiae Tenured Professors
Amicus Erwin Chemerinsky
Amicus RonNell Andersen Jones
Amicus

represented by Steven John Kochevar United States Attorney's Office SDNY 86 Chambers St. New York, NY 10007 212−637−2715 Fax: 212−637−2717 Email: steven.kochevar@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Franklin Schwed Shearman & Sterling LLP (NY) 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212−848−5445 Fax: 646−848−5445 Email: rschwed@shearman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Timothy Ebersole Shearman & Sterling LLP (NY) 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212)−848−4000 Email: Joshua.Ebersole@Shearman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Jane Eaton Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY) 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 (212) 728−8000 Fax: (212) 728−8111 Email: maosdny@willkie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley Railey Powell Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY) 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 (212)−728−8264 Fax: (212)−728−8111 Email: wpowell@willkie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Jane Eaton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley Railey Powell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heidi Kitrosser
Amicus Genevieve Lakier
Amicus Lyrissa Lidsky
Amicus Greg Magarian
Amicus Helen Norton
Amicus Jonathan Peters

represented by Mary Jane Eaton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley Railey Powell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Jane Eaton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley Railey Powell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Jane Eaton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley Railey Powell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Jane Eaton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley Railey Powell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Jane Eaton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley Railey Powell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Jane Eaton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley Railey Powell (See above for address)

Amicus Sonja West Amicus Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Amicus THE AUTHORS GUILD INC.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Jane Eaton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley Railey Powell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Schoenfeld Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP (NYC) 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 (212) 937−7294 Fax: (212) 230−8888 Email: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emma Simson 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 202−663−6026 Email: emma.simson@wilmerhale.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick J. Carome Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave. Nw Washington, DC 20006 (202)−663−6000 Fax: (202)−663−6363 Email: patrick.carome@wilmerhale.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul R.Q. Wolfson Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P. (DC) 1801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663−6390 Fax: (202) 663−6363 Email: paul.wolfson@wilmerhale.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Schoenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emma Simson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick J. Carome (See above for address)

Amicus Freedom to Read Foundation, Inc.
Amicus NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST CENSORSHIP
Amicus National Press Photographers Association
Amicus ONLINE NEWS ASSOCIATION

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul R.Q. Wolfson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Schoenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emma Simson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick J. Carome (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul R.Q. Wolfson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Schoenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emma Simson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick J. Carome (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul R.Q. Wolfson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Schoenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emma Simson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick J. Carome (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul R.Q. Wolfson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Schoenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS
Amicus SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS

Emma Simson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick J. Carome (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul R.Q. Wolfson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Schoenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emma Simson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick J. Carome (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul R.Q. Wolfson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Schoenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emma Simson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick J. Carome (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul R.Q. Wolfson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/16/2018
10/16/2018 10/16/2018 10/16/2018 10/16/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Donald J. Trump. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC−15752008)Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc..(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Donald J. Trump, re: 1 Complaint. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
4 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc..(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
5 MOTION for Kristy Parker to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−15752269. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of Motion, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Text of

10/16/2018
10/16/2018
10/16/2018 10/16/2018 10/17/2018
10/17/2018
10/17/2018 10/17/2018 10/17/2018
10/17/2018 10/25/2018 10/25/2018 10/25/2018 10/30/2018 10/30/2018

Proposed Order)(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 5 MOTION for Kristy Parker to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−15752269. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 5 MOTION for Kristy Parker to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−15752269. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (ma) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by John Langford on behalf of Pen American Center, Inc.. (Langford, John) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
7 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David A. Schulz on behalf of Pen American Center, Inc.. (Schulz, David) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above−entitled action is assigned to Judge Lorna G. Schofield. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/District. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php. (pne) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: http://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms.php. (pne) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
Case Designated ECF. (pne) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
8 ORDER granting 5 Motion for Kristy Parker to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (jcs) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING CIVIL CASE OPENING STATISTICAL ERROR CORRECTION: Notice to attorney Kristy Parker. The following case opening statistical information was erroneously selected/entered: Jurisdiction code 3 (Federal Question). The following correction has been made to your case entry: the Jurisdiction code has been modified to 2 (U.S. Government Defendant). (pne) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
9 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Donald J. Trump. (pne) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
10 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Steven Arthur Hirsch on behalf of Pen American Center, Inc.. (Hirsch, Steven) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
11 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ian Michael Bassin on behalf of Pen American Center, Inc.. (Bassin, Ian) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
12 ORDER: Initial Conference set for 12/11/2018 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1106, Thurgood Marshal Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/25/2018) (cf) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
13 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint served. Donald J. Trump served on 10/23/2018, answer due 12/24/2018. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 USPS Receipts & Delivery Confirmations)(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 10/30/2018)
14 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Laurence Michael Schwartztol on behalf of Pen American Center, Inc.. (Schwartztol, Laurence) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

11/13/2018 11/20/2018 11/20/2018 11/20/2018 11/21/2018 11/26/2018 11/27/2018
11/30/2018
11/30/2018 12/12/2018 12/19/2018
12/20/2018 12/20/2018 12/20/2018 12/21/2018

15 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Steven John Kochevar on behalf of Donald J. Trump. (Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
16 NOTICE of Service of Order re: 12 Order for Initial Pretrial Conference,. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 USPS Receipts and Delivery Confirmations)(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
17 CONSENT LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference to January 7, 2019 or thereafter addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Kristy Parker dated November 20, 2018. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc..(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
18 MEMO ENDORSEMENT re 17 Motion to Adjourn Conference: Plaintiff shall file a letter by November 27, 2018, stating why the parties seek to adjourn the initial pretrial conference. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/20/2018) (jcs) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 19 Order. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (jcs) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
20 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Kristy Parker dated November 26, 2018 re: Order 19 with respect to 17 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc..(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 11/26/2018)
21 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 20 Letter filed by Pen American Center, Inc. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff's request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference is GRANTED. The initial pretrial conference is adjourned from December 11, 2018, to January 8, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. The parties are reminded to file their joint letter and proposed case management plan at least seven days before the initial pretrial conference. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket Number 17. (Initial Conference set for 1/8/2019 at 10:30 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/27/2018) (jca) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE. Notice Document No. 22 belonging to case 17−cv−6335 that was incorrectly filed on 11/30/18 in case 18−cv−9433 and assigned payment receipt number ANYSDC−15984262. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): the motion was filed in the wrong case. (jc) (Entered: 11/30/2018)
***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 22 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (db) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
22 FRIEND OF THE COURT/AMICUS BRIEF. Document filed byDavid Andrew Christenson, non−party. (sc) (Entered: 12/17/2018)
23 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 22 Brief. ENDORSEMENT: The Court does not consider documents filed by non−parties without leave of the Court. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. David Andrew Christenson. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 12/19/2018) (ne) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. (Entered: 12/19/2018)
Mailed a copy of 22 Brief to David Andrew Christenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, FL 32550. (vba) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
24 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Steven J. Kochevar dated 12/20/2018. Document filed by Donald J. Trump.(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
25 LETTER MOTION for Conference on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Steven J. Kochevar dated 12/20/2018. Document filed by Donald J. Trump.(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
26 ORDER terminating 24 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document; terminating 25 Letter Motion for Conference. It is hereby ORDERED that the initial pretrial conference is adjourned from January 8, 2019, to February 12, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. Defendant's unopposed motion to stay discovery will be discussed at the conference. It

12/21/2018 12/21/2018
12/27/2018 12/27/2018 01/02/2019
01/12/2019
01/14/2019
01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/28/2019 01/30/2019

is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its Amended Complaint, if any, by January 18, 2019. If Defendant intends to move to dismiss the Amended Complaint, then Defendant shall file his pre−motion letter by January 29, 2019, Plaintiff shall file its response by February 5, 2019, and the motion will be discussed at the February 12, 2019, conference. The parties may (but need not) propose a new joint briefing schedule in their pre−motion letters. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 17, 24, and 25. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 12/21/2018) (cf) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: (Motions due by 1/29/2019., Responses due by 2/5/2019), Set/Reset Hearings: (Initial Conference set for 2/12/2019 at 10:30 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield.) (cf) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
27 LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Kristy Parker dated December 21, 2018 re: 25 LETTER MOTION for Conference on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Steven J. Kochevar dated 12/20/2018. . Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
28 STANDING ORDER M10−468 The United States Attorney's Office shall notify the Court immediately upon the restoration of Department of Justice funding. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 12/27/2018) (ks) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
Case Stayed (rro) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
29 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from David Christenson, dated 12/21/18 re: Nonparty David Christenson writes that the following (as indicated) is a perfect example of how the Federal Government continually criminally censors him in violation of the Constitution; that it is what this case is about and gives him standing and cause to join the case as CourtListener will not use his name etc. (sc) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
30 MOTION for Justin Florence to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16181463. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of Motion, # 2 Massachusetts Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 D.C. Certificate of Good Standing, # 4 Proposed Order)(Florence, Justin) (Entered: 01/12/2019)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 30 MOTION for Justin Florence to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16181463. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
31 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Robert Corn−Revere on behalf of Pen American Center, Inc.. (Corn−Revere, Robert) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
32 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ronald Gary London on behalf of Pen American Center, Inc.. (London, Ronald) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
33 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS MOTION TO JOIN. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Motion). Document filed by David Christenson.(sc) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
34 ORDER denying 33 Motion for Leave to File Document. WHEREAS, Mr. Christenson has submitted a motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 33); it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to intervene is denied because a basis for intervention has not been shown. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/28/2019) (cf) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
35 ORDER granting 17 CONSENT LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference to January 7, 2019 or thereafter. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear for an initial pretrial conference on February 26, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. The parties are reminded to file their joint letter and proposed case management plan at least seven days before the conference. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its Amended Complaint, if any, by February 6, 2019. If Defendant intends to move to dismiss the Amended Complaint, then Defendant shall file his pre−motion letter by

01/30/2019 02/01/2019 02/05/2019 02/06/2019 02/06/2019
02/12/2019 02/19/2019 02/21/2019 03/05/2019
03/08/2019
03/08/2019 04/10/2019 04/10/2019

February 13, 2019, Plaintiff shall file its response by February 19, 2019. The motion will be discussed a February 26, 2019, conference. The parties may (but need not) propose a new joint briefing schedule in their pre−motion letters. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket Number 17. (Initial Conference set for 2/26/2019 at 11:00 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/30/2019) (jca) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 2/6/2019. (jca) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
36 ORDER granting 30 Motion for Justin Florence to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (jcs) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
37 CONSENT LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference to March 7 or March 8, 2019 addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Kristy Parker dated February 5, 2019. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc..(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 02/05/2019)
38 AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint against Donald J. Trump.Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. Related document: 1 Complaint.(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 02/06/2019)
39 ORDER granting 37 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The initial pretrial conference is adjourned from February 26, 2019, to March 12, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. SO ORDERED. Initial Conference set for 3/12/2019 at 11:00 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/6/2019) (kv) (Entered: 02/06/2019)
40 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Steven J. Kochevar dated 02/12/2019. Document filed by Donald J. Trump.(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
41 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Robert Corn−Revere dated 2/19/2019 re: opposition to defendant's letter motion for leave to file motion to dismiss. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc..(Corn−Revere, Robert) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
42 NOTICE; re: that an Amended Motion to Join will be filed, correcting the defect and showing the basis to join or intervene. Document filed by David A. Christenson. (sc) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
43 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Steven J. Kochevar dated 03/05/2019 re: Initial Conference and Proposed Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. Document filed by Donald J. Trump. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order − Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order)(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
44 ORDER granting 40 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. It is hereby ORDERED that the March 12, 2019, conference is cancelled. If the parties believe that a conference would nevertheless be useful, they should inform the Court immediately so the conference can be reinstated. It is further ORDERED that the parties' proposed briefing schedule for Defendant's contemplated motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is adopted. Defendant shall file his motion to dismiss on or before April 11, 2019. Plaintiff shall file its opposition on or before May 10, 2019. Defendant shall file his reply on or before May 24, 2019. The parties are reminded to comply with the Court's Individual Rule III.B. It is further ORDERED that discovery is stayed pending the outcome of Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket Number 40. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/8/2019) (jca) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 4/11/2019, Responses due by 5/10/2019, Replies due by 5/24/2019. (jca) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
45 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Document filed by Donald J. Trump.(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
46 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 45 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. . Document filed by Donald J. Trump. (Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 04/10/2019)

05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019
05/13/2019 05/14/2019 05/15/2019
05/15/2019 05/17/2019
05/17/2019

47 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 45 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. . Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Corn−Revere, Robert) Modified on 5/10/2019 (ldi). (Entered: 05/10/2019)
48 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 45 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. . Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Corn−Revere, Robert) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
49 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Richard Franklin Schwed on behalf of Amici Curiae Tenured Professors.(Schwed, Richard) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
50 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief . Document filed by Amici Curiae Tenured Professors.(Schwed, Richard) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
51 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 50 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief . . Document filed by Amici Curiae Tenured Professors. (Schwed, Richard) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
52 DECLARATION of Richard Schwed in Support re: 50 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief .. Document filed by Amici Curiae Tenured Professors. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Amicus Brief)(Schwed, Richard) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
53 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Wesley Railey Powell on behalf of Erwin Chemerinsky, RonNell Andersen Jones, Heidi Kitrosser, Genevieve Lakier, Lyrissa Lidsky, Greg Magarian, Helen Norton, Jonathan Peters, Sonja West. (Powell, Wesley) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
54 LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Wesley R. Powell dated May 10, 2019. Document filed by RonNell Andersen Jones, Erwin Chemerinsky, Heidi Kitrosser, Genevieve Lakier, Lyrissa Lidsky, Greg Magarian, Helen Norton, Jonathan Peters, Sonja West. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae)(Powell, Wesley) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
55 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Joshua Timothy Ebersole on behalf of Amici Curiae Tenured Professors. (Ebersole, Joshua) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
56 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Mary Jane Eaton on behalf of RonNell Andersen Jones, Erwin Chemerinsky, Heidi Kitrosser, Genevieve Lakier, Lyrissa Lidsky, Greg Magarian, Helen Norton, Jonathan Peters, Sonja West. (Eaton, Mary) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
57 ORDER granting 50 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document; granting 54 Letter Motion for Conference. It is hereby ORDERED that both motions are GRANTED. The amici briefs at Dkt. Nos. 52−1 and 54−1 are deemed filed as of May 10, 2019. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 50 and 54. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 5/15/2019) (cf) (Entered: 05/15/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Brief due by 5/10/2019. (cf) (Entered: 05/15/2019)
58 LETTER MOTION for Conference (Letter Motion Seeking Pre−Motion Conference for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiff) addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Alan E. Schoenfeld dated May 17, 2019. Document filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, THE AUTHORS GUILD INC., Freedom to Read Foundation, Inc., NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST CENSORSHIP, National Press Photographers Association, ONLINE NEWS ASSOCIATION, REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS, SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amicus Brief)(Schoenfeld, Alan) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
59 MOTION for Paul RQ Wolfson to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16909817. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Freedom to Read Foundation, Inc., NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST CENSORSHIP, National Press Photographers Association, ONLINE NEWS ASSOCIATION, REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS, THE AUTHORS GUILD INC.. (Attachments: # 1

05/17/2019
05/20/2019
05/20/2019
05/20/2019 05/20/2019 05/23/2019 05/23/2019 05/23/2019 05/23/2019 05/23/2019 07/11/2019

Declaration in Support, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing − DC, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Wolfson, Paul) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
60 MOTION for Patrick J. Carome to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16909981. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Freedom to Read Foundation, Inc., NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST CENSORSHIP, National Press Photographers Association, ONLINE NEWS ASSOCIATION, REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS, THE AUTHORS GUILD INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support, # 2 Good Standing Certificate −MA, # 3 Good Standing Certificate −DC, # 4 Proposed Order)(Carome, Patrick) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 60 MOTION for Patrick J. Carome to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16909981. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 59 MOTION for Paul RQ Wolfson to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16909817. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 05/20/2019)
61 MOTION for Emma P. Simson to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16916791. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Freedom to Read Foundation, Inc., NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST CENSORSHIP, National Press Photographers Association, ONLINE NEWS ASSOCIATION, REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS, THE AUTHORS GUILD INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support, # 2 DC − Good Standing Certificate, # 3 Maryland − Good Standing Certificate, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Simson, Emma) (Entered: 05/20/2019)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 61 MOTION for Emma P. Simson to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−16916791. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 05/20/2019)
62 ORDER granting 58 Letter Motion for Conference. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The amici brief at Dkt. No. 58−1 is deemed filed as of May 17, 2019. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 58. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 5/20/2019) (cf) (Entered: 05/20/2019)
63 ORDER granting 59 Motion for Paul RQ Wolfson to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Lewis, Barton) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
64 ORDER granting 60 Motion for Patrick J. Carome to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Lewis, Barton) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
65 ORDER granting 61 Motion for Emma P. Simson to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Lewis, Barton) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
66 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 45 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. . Document filed by Donald J. Trump. (Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
67 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Kristy Parker dated May 23, 2019. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc..(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
68 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re: 48 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion, 45 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Corn−Revere, Robert) (Entered: 07/11/2019)

07/12/2019 07/15/2019 08/13/2019 08/13/2019 09/04/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 09/13/2019 03/24/2020
03/26/2020 04/01/2020 04/02/2020
04/09/2020

69 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Steven J. Kochevar dated June 12, 2019 re: Supplemental Authority re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Donald J. Trump.(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
70 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re: 48 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Corn−Revere, Robert) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
71 MOTION for Francesca Lina Procaccini to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−17419883. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc..(Procaccini, Francesca) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 71 MOTION for Francesca Lina Procaccini to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC−17419883. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
72 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re: 48 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Corn−Revere, Robert) (Entered: 09/04/2019)
73 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Steven J. Kochevar dated September 6, 2019 re: Supplemental Authority re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Donald J. Trump.(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
74 ORDER granting 71 Motion for Francesca Lina Procaccini to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (jcs) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
75 NOTICE of of Supplemental Authority re: 48 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc.. (Corn−Revere, Robert) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
76 OPINION & ORDER re: 67 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Kristy Parker dated May 23, 2019 filed by Pen American Center, Inc., 45 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by Donald J. Trump. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion to dismiss for failure to state of claim is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for oral argument is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. Nos. 45 and 67. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/24/2020) (mro) (Entered: 03/24/2020)
77 ORDER: Initial Conference set for 4/16/2020 at 10:50 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield by telephone. At the appointed conference time, the parties shall dial into the conference line: (888) 363−4749, Access Code: 5456, as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/26/2020) (jwh) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
78 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from AUSA Steven J. Kochevar dated April 1, 2020. Document filed by Donald J. Trump..(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
79 ORDER granting 78 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer All Defendants. Application is GRANTED. Defendant must answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint by May 19, 2020. The parties are reminded to file the joint letter and proposed case management plan and scheduling order, pursuant to the Order at Dkt. No. 77, by April 9, 2020. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt No. 78. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/2/2020) Donald J. Trump answer due by 5/19/2020. (ks) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
80 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from AUSA Steven J. Kochevar dated April 9, 2020 re: Initial Pretrial Conference and Proposed Case Management Plans. Document filed by Donald J. Trump. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiff's Proposed Case Management Plan, # 2 Exhibit B − Government's Proposed Case Management Plan).(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 04/09/2020)

04/13/2020
04/14/2020 04/16/2020 04/16/2020 04/16/2020 04/16/2020
04/22/2020
04/22/2020
04/27/2020
04/27/2020

81 ORDER: ORDERED that the conference previously scheduled for April 16, 2020, at 10:50 a.m., will be held on April 16, 2020, at 11:15 a.m. If the parties are not able to arrange a conference call, they shall contact Courtroom Deputy, Mr. James Street, at 212−805−4553, as soon as possible and no later than April 14, 2020, at noon, to make other arrangements. The parties shall disregard the previously provided call−in number. (As further set forth in this Order.) Initial Conference set for 4/16/2020 at 11:15 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/13/2020) (cf) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
82 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from AUSA Steven J. Kochevar dated April 14, 2020 re: Telephone Call−In for Conference Call. Document filed by Donald J. Trump..(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
NOTICE REGARDING APRIL 16, 2020 CONFERENCE: The conference number and access code for this conference have changed. Please dial into the following:Conference Call In Number: (888) 363−4749; Access Code: 558−3333 (jcs) Modified on 4/16/2020 (jcs). (Entered: 04/16/2020)
83 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Chelsea Kelly on behalf of Pen American Center, Inc...(Kelly, Chelsea) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lorna G. Schofield: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 4/16/2020. (Court Reporter Present) (jcs) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
84 ORDER: WHEREAS, an initial pre−trial conference was held on April 16, 2020. For the reasons stated at the conference, it is hereby ORDERED that discovery is stayed at least until May 19, 2020. It is further ORDERED that a telephonic status conference is scheduled for May 21, 2020, at 10:50 a.m. The time of the conference is approximate, but the parties shall be ready to proceed at that time. The parties shall dial into the following conference line: (888) 363−4749, Access Code: 558−3333. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Telephone Conference set for 5/21/2020 at 10:50 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/16/2020) (cf) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
85 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 4/16/2020 before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Rebecca Forman, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/13/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/26/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/21/2020..(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
86 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 4/16/2020 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days....(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
87 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 4/16/2020 before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Rebecca Forman, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/18/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/28/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/27/2020..(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
88 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 4/16/2020 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days....(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

05/18/2020 05/19/2020
05/19/2020 05/19/2020 05/26/2020 05/26/2020 05/27/2020
05/29/2020 06/01/2020 06/01/2020

89 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) the Court's March 24, 2020, Opinion and Order and to Stay Discovery addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from AUSA Steven J. Kochevar dated May 18, 2020. Document filed by Donald J. Trump..(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
90 MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on re: 89 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) the Court's March 24, 2020, Opinion and Order and to Stay Discovery addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from AUSA Steven J. Koc filed by Donald J. Trump. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff shall file a response to this letter by May 26, 2020. The conference scheduled for May 21, 2020, is adjourned to May 28, 2020, at 10:50 a.m. The conference will be telephonic and will occur on the following conference call line: Dial−in: 888−363−4749 Access code: 558−3333. The time of the conference is approximate, but the parties shall be ready to proceed by that time., ( Responses due by 5/26/2020, Telephone Conference set for 5/28/2020 at 10:50 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 5/19/2020) (ama) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
91 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from AUSA Steven J. Kochevar dated May 19, 2020 re: Joint Letter Filed Pursuant to the Court's April 16, 2020, Order (Dkt. No. 84). Document filed by Donald J. Trump..(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
92 ANSWER to 38 Amended Complaint. Document filed by Donald J. Trump..(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
93 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the conference scheduled for May 28, 2020, at 10:50 a.m. will be held at 10:30 a.m. The conference will be telephonic and will occur on the following conference call line: Dial−in: 888−363−4749 Access code: 558−3333. The time of the conference is approximate, but the parties shall be ready to proceed by that time. (Telephone Conference set for 5/28/2020 at 10:30 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield). (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 5/26/2020) (rjm) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
94 LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Kristy Parker dated May 26, 2020 re: 89 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) the Court's March 24, 2020, Opinion and Order and to Stay Discovery addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from AUSA Steven J. Koc . Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc...(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
95 ORDER terminating 89 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. It is further ORDERED that a telephonic oral argument is scheduled for July 9, 2020, at 10:50 a.m. The conference will occur on the following conference call line: Dial−in 888−363−4749, Access code 558−3333. The time of the conference is approximate, but the parties shall be ready to proceed by that time. It is further ORDERED that the parties are encouraged to continue negotiations on whether the claims may be resolved on cross−motions for summary judgment on stipulated facts, or through a negotiated settlement based on stipulated facts. It is further ORDERED that the conference scheduled for May 28, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. is canceled. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Docket No. 89. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 5/27/2020) (cf) Modified on 5/28/2020 (cf). (Entered: 05/27/2020)
96 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Kristy Parker dated May 29, 2020 re: regarding service of discovery requests. Document filed by Pen American Center, Inc...(Parker, Kristy) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
97 RESPONSE re: 96 Letter . Document filed by Donald J. Trump..(Kochevar, Steven) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
98 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 96 Letter filed by Pen American Center, Inc. ENDORSEMENT: By June 4, 2020, Defendant shall file a letter, not to exceed one page, responding to this application. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/1/2020) (ks) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020

99 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, upon review of the parties' letters, good cause exists to continue a stay of discovery pending resolution of Defendants motion. The Court finds that an additional month−long delay does not unfairly prejudice Plaintiff. The Court is, however, mindful that discovery has been stayed from the outset, pending the recently decided motion to dismiss and then while the parties discussed the possibility of stipulated facts. The parties shall file a revised proposed case management plan and scheduling order by July 6, 2020, so that it may be entered expeditiously should Defendant's motion be denied. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/2/2020) (ks) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

 
 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 1 of 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

. ' c. c;. ') u·

-:_, I

-' • C...

MOVANT DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON

Case No. 1:18-cv-09433-LGS

PEN AMERICAN CENTER, INC.

JUDGE LORNA G. SCHOFIELD

Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity

AND INJUNJ~JIVEJl,E_l!EE_ ___________

0D". U .;,n···'v ;') 'L k.)l_,l •I l

I'
I
I

DOCtJT\ftt:\H

I

as President of the United States Defendant.

ELECT!.-)~0-I~,i:_Ci\Lt:Y ·j~l L;=:

Friend of the Court/Amicus Brief

DOC#: _______________ . I
DATE i !LEL {'>=---:{~~!(__11

I am filing this Amicus/Friend of the Court Brief on behalf of all Americans in accordan-ce withthe Constitution/First Amendment/last Sentence of the First Amendment: "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". This information is critical if the Republic is to survive.

This Amicus Brief is being filed by a terrorist. Our country was founded by terrorists. It was terrorists that drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Would I have been classified as a terrorist if I was wrong? They invoked the Patriot Act because of my research and writings.

~ Democratic National Committee Chairman/Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez and Special Counsel/FBI Director Robert Mueller classified me as a terrorist in 2010. Reference: Christenson v. Democratic National Committee (1:18-cv-05769) District Court, S.D. New York, (18-2145) Court of Appeals Second Circuit

~ Attorney General Matthew Whitaker was my attorney in 2011. Reference: Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation (1:18-cv-03501) District Court, S.D. New York One Hundred Seventeenth (117th) Emergency Motion for Reconsideration (Attached) Judge John G. Koeltl docketed more than 50 of my pleadings and that included several pleadings about Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski (The Unabomber). Judge Koeltl docketed the "Manifesto".

~ The Senate approved BP Attorney (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) Jeffrey Bossert Clark for assistant attorney general for the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division on Thursday, October 11th, 2018. ***I am the reason it took 17 months to confirm Jeffrey Bossert Clark*** Reference: Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation (1:18-cv-03501) District Court, S.D. New York- One Hundred Fifth (105th) Emergency Motion for Reconsideration (Attached)

The following factual, documented and verifiable information was used by President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General Thomas Perez, FBI Director Robert Mueller, etc. to classify me as a terrorist in 2010. My attorney in 2011 was Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and his reward for irreparably harming me and the American People was to become Attorney General. I am a graduate of the United State Air Force Academy who served his country with distinction.

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 2 of 51
Mankind will cease to exist bv October 12'". 2050. This is not a prophecy or prediction but a mathematical certainty. Suicides will outnumber births in the next few years. Suicide and Murder(s)Suicide(s) have become a life choice. Life expectancies are decreasing and the decrease would be more pronounced if legal and illegal immigrants from the last thirty years were excluded. Birth rates are negative and when the birth rate reaches a negative three (-3%) percent there will be no way to recover and Mankind will cease to exist. We have lost the ability and desire to procreate.
We are 20 Trillion Dollars in debt and increasing that debt every year by more than 1 Trillion Dollars. In the next few years the interest expense will exceed what we spend on National Defense, Medicaid and child health care. How do we pay for our medical care? We are at epidemic rates/levels for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Autism, Allergies, Asthma, Suicide(s), Murder(s)-Suicide(s), Diabetes, Muscular Dystrophy, Fibromyalgia, Influenza and Pneumonia deaths, etc. All are connected to a degraded Immune System(s). We must have an uncensored dialogue about vaccinations and the long-term harm they do to our immune system(s). Our Government has turned us into "Bubble People", a vaccination for everything.
Our Gross National Product (GNP) is roughly 19 trillion dollars. Our economy is growing at a rate that averages 3%. Simplistically- our economy is 20 trillion dollars and it grows at 3%. That is 600 billion dollars. Our government deficit spends that and more. There is no way for our government to repay
the debt. This non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed this fact.
We must have an uncensored dialogue if Mankind is to survive. I am not even touching climate change.
Reference the Wits of Mandamus and Prohibition that I filed with the Supreme Court. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx?Search=&type-Docket
Incorporated into this pleading is a representative Amicus Brief that is currently being filed in multiple district courts and appellate courts in multiple cases, both civil and criminal. State of Maryland v. United States of America (1:18-cv-02849) District Court, D. Maryland.
Miramar Beach, Florida 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com; dchristenson6@hotmail.com;

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 3 of 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NE)III YORK

Movant David Andrew Christenson

'civil ~c~i~~ ~[}. 1:18-cv-03501

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Plaintiff,

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)

v.

Judge John G. Koeltl

RUSSIAN FEDERATION, et al; Defendants.
One Hundred Seventeenth (117'") Emergency Motion for Reconsideration
Yesterday morning I walked away from my quest to save Mankind. I quit. I told God I was through and that if he wanted me to continue, he needed to give me a real sign. Guess what? God gave me a sign via a baseball bat to the head.

Matthew Whitaker is the acting Attorney General

This factual story is unbelievable and there is no way to tell it in a coherent manner.

US Attorney Matthew Whitaker from Iowa is my father's attorney and the person that had US Attorney Billy Gibbens represent me in my arrest for cyber stalking an FBI Agent in New Orleans. Yes,
a US Attorney represented me and gave away all of my rights-

1 am directly connected to Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division Jeffery Bossert Clark and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller. Each of these individuals irreparable harmed me and thus irreparable harmed all Americans. They are responsible for the Genocide of Mankind. (Clark represented BP Oil in my appeal with the 5'"
s'" Circuit. You must review the extensive docket. Circuit Case: 16-30918 IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON
LAKE EUGENIE LAND & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED; ET AL, Plaintiffs v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Defendants-
Appellees.)

I am from Iowa. My father is from Iowa, he is a Republican and he donates to the Republican Party. Matthew Whitaker is from Iowa and he is a Republican. My father retained him as an attorney and donated money to his campaign. Matthew Whitaker was the US Attorney for the Southern District of
Iowa.

I have been estranged from my father for most of my adult life but when I was falsely arrested on a Louisiana Warrant (misdemeanor) for Cyber Stalking an FBI Agent my wife called him. I was never charged with a crime. My father left New Orleans and left me in jail because of Matthew Whitaker. My

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 4 of 51
father is a real sunarcissist. The DOJ put (my own father) me in isolation for 11 days and medicated me against my will. They did the same thing to Coast Guard Commander William Goetzee four months later and he died. The DOJ murdered him. When he was in Federal Court, they had him strapped to a wheelchair and they would tase him when he tried to speak. Read the family's complaint. Reference: Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation (1:18-cv-03501) District Court, S.D. New York John George Koeltl Christenson v. Democratic National Committee (1:18-cv-05769) District Court, S.D. New York Judge Colleen McMahon
The information I am sharing with you has been filed in 30 plus cases in four Appeals Courts and three District Courts. It also has been filed with the Supreme Court in the four Writs that I filed. Search Pacer and the Supreme Court for: David Andrew Christenson.
Docket for 1:18-cv-03501 SONY 113 pages- Motion for Leave to File: Motion to Intervene and Motion to Join filed by David Andrew Christenson on April 24'h, 2018. Judge Koeltl docketed over fifty of my pleadings. Docket 25 Pages 24-27 Non-Domestic Stay Away Order FBI Director Robert Mueller is on it. 74 people are listed and I did not know 66 ofthem. A third ofthem are court clerks. Two US Senators, a Bishop and a building. They even listed my friends and attorneys. Page 56- A press release about my arrest that was a gross mistake on the part of the DOJ. Pages 57 & 58 - Bond Order and Conditions of Bail. They original asked for $500,000.00 bail for a misdemeanor. Order 3 is no internet so 1could not do research. Order 9 waives my rights for a year and is not a requirement for bond. They put an electronic monitoring device on my ankle. Page 59 Memorandum about US Attorney Billy Gibbens representing me in my arrest and waiving all of my rights. Look at his bill. His job was to keep me in jail or confined to a psychiatric prison.
I was ordered to leave Louisiana and go to Florida to receive treatment for an unspecified mental illness. They wanted me out of New Orleans while the Danziger Trial was taking place.
During Hurricane Katrina the US Militarv murdered Americans and the Katrina Virus was released because of negligence.
Read the 50 plus pleadings for the rest of the story.
Godspeed
Sincerely, David Andrew Christenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Florida 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com; dchristenson6@hotmail.com;

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 5 of 51

·UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Movant David Andrew Christenson

Civil Action No. 1:18'cv-oa501

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITIEE, Plaintiff,

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)

v.

Judge John G. Koeltl

RUSSIAN FEDERATION, et al; Defendants.

One Hundred Fifth (105'h) Emergency Motion for Reconsideration

The Senate approved BP Attorney (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) Jeffrey Bossert Clark for assistant attorney general for the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division on Thursday, October ll'h, 2018. THE RIVER OF DEATH Is The Gulf Stream.

This is the position, number three man at the Department of Justice, that is supposed to protect the American People, not be the Nazi Doctor Josef Mengele of our time.

This truly signals the end of Mankind for two reasons. First, Clark does not believe in climate change or climate warming. Second, he has covered up the truth about the BP Oil Spill and the Katrina Virus.

***I am the reason it took 17 months to confirm Jeffrev Bossert Clark** •

See the attached motion which has been filed/docketed in multiple courts including this one and the Supreme Court

Motion to Reopen the (BP) Settlement and to increase the Settlement to 20 Trillion Dollars Motion to Create a 20 Trillion Dollar Medical Settlement Motion for Punitive (Treble) Damages (120 Trillion Dollars)
Motion to add the United States of America and the United Kingdom (Britain) as Defendants The American People deserve to know the truth so please do not Seal this pleading. August 18'h, 2016

***You children and grandchildren will need this money for medical and mental health care***

(SDNY Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 25 Filed 04/24/18 Page 70 of 113) (DCDC Case 1:18-cv-00011-ABJ Document 15 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 89)
(5'h Circuit Case: 16-30918 Document: 00514216429 Page: 6 of 19 Date Filed: 10/30/2017) (Supreme Court Writs: 16-6345, 16-6278, 16-5869 and 14-10077)

CENSORSHIP IN ITS TRUEST FORM BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES- THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT PUBLICLY DOCKET WRITS

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 6 of 51

Clark was first nominated by the President on June 7'h, 2017 but the nomination was returned by the Senate on January 3'•, 2018. https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/584

Clark was re-nominated by the President on January 8'h, 2018 and ultimately confirmed on October 11'". 2018. https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/1407

How and why is Jeffery Bossert Clark is connected to David Andrew Christenson?

Clark entered his appearance with the Supreme Court in two different Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition that David Andrew Christenson filed. Only one of the Writs had anything to do with BP. Clark was also the attorney of record for David Andrew Christenson's appeal ofthe absurdity of the BP Settlement and the requirement that his financials be accrual based and not cash. See attachments.

No. 16-6278 Title: In Re David Andrew Christenson, Petitioner

v.

Docketed:

October 4, 2016

Linked with 16A896

Sep 7 2016 Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 3, 2016)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-6278.htm

No. 16-5869 Title: David Andrew Christenson, Petitioner

v.

United States

Docketed:

September 8, 2016 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Case Nos.: {16-30529) Decision Date: May 17, 2016 Rehearing Denied: June 28, 2016

Jul 7 2016

Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.

(Response due October 11, 2016)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-5869.htm

MEMORANDUM CONCERNING THE NON-RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INCORPORATED,
BP AMERICAN PRODUCTION COMPANY INCORPORATED AND BP P.L.C.
WAIVER FILED IN WRIT OF CERTIORARI16-5869 (WAIVER FILED BY JEFFERY BOSSERT CLARK OF THE KIRKLAND & ELLIS LAW FIRM)
(ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT)

Case: 16-30918 Document: 00514622966 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2018 On August 30'h, 2018 the 5th Circuit denied my Petition for Rehearing En Bane. The stated reason was a lack of jurisdiction. They said the Appeal was not timely filed. My response is attached.

Errata Correction Motion based on incorrect information in the Court's Order Dismissing this Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction.- Motion for Reconsideration- Motion for Leave to file
5th Circuit Case: 16-30918 Document: 00514587429 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2018

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 7 of 51
Second Errata Correction Motion based on incorrect information in the Court's Order Dismissing this Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction.- Motion for Reconsideration- Motion for Leave to file 5th Circuit Case: 16-30918 Document: 00514592096 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2018
Trump and the Executive Branch knew that the Supreme Court would not accept my Writ so they proceeded with the conformation. The River of Death, via the Red Tide and Corexit from the BP Oil Spill, has reached the Eastern Seaboard. Google Red Tide in Florida. The Red Tide will make it to the North Atlantic Fishing Grounds very soon. Our government will tell you that the Red Tide/Algae Bloom is natural occurring but in fact it is not in a moving body of water. Google dying reefs in the Gulf of Mexico and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The United States is not only murdering its own people but Europe and the rest of the world with The River of Death.
***You are denying climate change/climate warming by not allowing me a voice***
THIS IS ELECTION TAMPERING IN ITS TRUEST FORM.
YOU HAVE INTENTIONALLY, EGREGIOUSLY AND MALICIOUSLY DENIED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOWLEDGE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE AN INFORMED VOTE.
IN ESSENCE YOU ARE THE JUDGES OF DEATH.
Godspeed.
Sincerely,
David Andrew Christenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Florida 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com: dchristenson6@hotmail.com:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 22"', 2018 I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court and
served the pleading on all counsel of record by e-mail and first-class mail.
David Andrew Christenson

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 8 of 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Movant David Andrew Christenson
Senator Richard Blumenthal, eta\., Plaintiff
v.

Civ. No. 1:18-cv-02664-RDM
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunction Relief
Judge Randolph D. Moss

Matthew Whitaker, eta\., Defendants

Amicus

The irony is that this case is about The Affordable Care Act and severe election tampering via censorship. Our government, social media and media report in a one-dimension world. We live in a multi-dimension world that requires free speech if we are to survive. I admit that there is no way to report this information in a coherent manner. Review the letter and four-page docketed pleading to Judge John G. Koeltl US District Court SO New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 Attachment 1

A Christmas Carol in Prose; Being a Ghost Story of Christmas by Charles Dickens Jacob Marley "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water
in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"

IS MANKIND YOUR BUSINESS OR NOT?

Similar Questions of the Rule of Law- Reference: In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation (1:18-cv-03501) District Court, S.D. New York Christenson v. Democratic National Committee (1:18-cv-05769) District Court, S.D. New York Christenson v. Democratic National Committee (18-2145) Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit State of Maryland v. United States of America (1:18-cv-02849) District Court, D. Maryland Supreme Court Writ No. 18-496 Barry Michael v. Jefferson B. Sessions Ill Attorney General of the United
States- Motion to Substitute
Attachment 2: Writ/Amicus Brief (In the most simplistic terms) In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Attachment 3: Motion for Leave to File One Time Informative Pleading (Please file as Amicus Brief if needed) In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Attachment 4: Supplemental Motion for Leave to File One Time Informative Pleading (Please file as Amicus Brief if needed) In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Attachment 5: Errata to Complete the Record- File as Amicus Brief In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 9 of 51
Attachment 6: The United States Supreme Court and The Katrina Virus by David Andrew Christenson "My books have been removed/censored/sanitized from the Library of Congress. All references to me and my books have been removed/censored/sanitized from the Library of Congress. My books have Library of Congress Control Numbers {LCCN). This book was placed into the Library of Congress in 2012." Attachment7: Amicus- State of Maryland v. United States of America (1:18-cv-02849) District Court, D. Maryland
Godspeed
Sincerely, David Andrew Christenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Florida 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com; dchristenson6@hotmail.com;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 2"', 2018 I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court and
served the pleading on all counsel of record by e-mail and first-class mail.
David Andrew Christenson

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 10 of 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Movant David Andrew Christenson
State of Maryland Plaintiff
v.

Civ. No. 1:18-CV-02849-ELH
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunction Relief
Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander

United States of America, et al., Defendants

Amicus
The irony is that this case is about The Affordable Care Act and severe election tampering via censorship. Our government, social media and media report in a one-dimension world. We live in a multi-dimension world that requires free speech if we are to survive. I admit that there is no way to report this information in a coherent manner. Review the letter and four-page docketed pleading to Judge John G. Koeltl US District Court SD New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 Attachment 1
A Christmas Carol in Prose; Being a Ghost Story of Christmas by Charles Dickens Jacob Marley "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water
in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
IS MANKIND YOUR BUSINESS OR NOT?
Similar Questions of the Rule of Law- Reference: In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation (1:18-cv-03501) District Court, S.D. New York Christenson v. Democratic National Committee (1:18-cv-05769) District Court, S.D. New York Christenson v. Democratic National Committee (18-2145) Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit State of Maryland v. United States of America (1:18-cv-02849) District Court, D. Maryland Supreme Court Writ No. 18-496 Barry Michael v. Jefferson B. Sessions Ill Attorney General ofthe United States- Motion to Substitute
Attachment 2: Writ/Amicus Brief (In the most simplistic terms) In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Attachment 3: Motion for Leave to File One Time Informative Pleading (Please file as Amicus Brief if needed) In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Attachment 4: Supplemental Motion for Leave to File One Time Informative Pleading (Please file as Amicus Brief if needed) In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Attachment 5: Errata to Complete the Record- File as Amicus Brief In re: Grand Jury Investigation

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 11 of 51

(18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Attachment 6: The United States Supreme Court and The Katrina Virus by David Andrew Christenson "My books have been removed/censored/sanitized from the Library of Congress. All references to me and my books have been removed/censored/sanitized from the Library of Congress. My books have Library of Congress Control Numbers (LCCN). This book was placed into the Library of Congress in 2012."
Attachment7: Amicus- BLUMENTHAL v. WHITAKER (1:18-cv-02664) District Court, District of Columbia

Godspeed
Sincerely, .
DavidA~
Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Florida 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com; dchristenson6@hotmail.com;
I hereby certify that on Decemb served the plead-ng o all

going with the Clerk of Court and by e-mail and first-class maiL

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 12 of 51
Attachment 1

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 13 of 51
Judge John G. l(oeltl US District Court SD New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312
You murdered- Vice Admiral Scott Stearney commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the U.S. Fifth Fleet and Major General John Rossi commander of Army Space and Missile Defense Command as well as other Flag Officers, active and retired. You have murdered Mankind. Five million combat veterans will be coming for you and your family and I will not protect you. Time and math will ensure that the truth comes out. Trump, the Democratic House, the epidemic abundance of sunarcissists (suicide before honor) that occupy leadership positions, etc. will also ensure that the truth comes out. Evil destroys Evil while destroying Mankind. You have betrayed your God, Country, Family and Friends. The Preamble of the Constitution has the word "Posterity" in it. That means you betrayed your children, grandchildren and Mankind. It will be written that Mankind voluntarily committed suicide. Medicine and therapy do not work. 900 U.S. Army anti-suicide programs is proof of that. Suicide is now a life choice.
If the narrative is not changed, Mankind will cease to exist by October 12'h, 2050. This is not a prediction or prophecy but a mathematically certainty. Suicides will outnumber births in the next few years. Life expectancies are decreasing and birth rates are negative. The CDC published three bombshell reports on November 28'", 2018 and no one noticed. THE CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE "WHY" ARE WRONG. THE NARRATIVE HAS TO CHANGE IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE.
!llliJS:1/www.cdc. govI nchs/
Suicide Mortality in the United States, 1999-2017- Data Brief No. 330 (11/28/2018)
https ://www. cdc .govIn chs/p rod ucts/data brie Is/db330. htm
https: I I www .cdc. govInch s/dataldata briefs/db 330- h. pdf Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999-2017- Data Brief No. 329 (11/28/2018) https: //www. cdc .govInchs/p rod ucts/data briels/ db3 29. htm https :1/www.cdc .govInchs/dataldata briels/ db3 29-h. pdf Mortality in the United States, 2017- Data Brief No. 328 (11/28/2018) iliiRS: //www.cdc .govInch s/p rod ucts/data brlefs/db 328. htm httP s://www.cd c.govInc hs/data I data briels/db3 28-h. pdf
We are 20 Trillion Dollars in debt and increasing that debt every year by 1 Trillion Dollars. In the next few years the interest expense will exceed what we spend on National Defense. How do we pay for our medical care? We are at epidemic rates/levels for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Autism, Allergies, Asthma, Suicide(s), Murder(s)-Suicide(s), Diabetes, Muscular Dystrophy, Fibromyalgia, Influenza and Pneumonia deaths, etc. All are connected to a degraded Immune System(s).
Godspeed Sincerely, David Andrew Christenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Florida 32550 504-715-3086, davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com; dchristenson6@hotmail.com;

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 14 of 51
Case 18-2145, Document 25. 0810612018, 2363991, Pagel of 5

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

David Andrew Christenson, All Americans
Plaintiff,

Case: 18-2145
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-05769
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)

Democratic National Committee,

Class Action Complaint

Republican National Committee Donald J. Trump for President Inc.

Judge Colleen McMahon

Democratic Party Republican Party

Jury Demand

President Donald Trump

President Barack Obama

John Does 1-999

~~

L("_,

~ Memorandum- A microcosm of genocide in our own country by the Admirals and Gene~~ tha} ~.

"DON'T" lead our troops and thus don't lead our country.

-'

These .O.dmirals and Generals have done more harm to this country than Putin and all the other Despots In the world. They are in fact traitors.

As you know I believe the greatest ''Rule of Law" and "Constitutional" transgression in my lifetime was when President Ford pardoned Nixon. What a mistake. You are witnessing the ramifications of that mistake.

Will President Pence pardon Trump?This is a very legitimate question.

22 Veterans and 75 plus military family members will commit suicide today. 80% of the veterans that commit suicide were never in combat and SO% were never in theater. The Army has 900 plus suicide programs and even an anti-suicide nasal spray. This microcosm is a precursor to what is going to happen to the rest of America. The military leadership has failed. This same military leadership has failed to protect us from what is taking place. The enemy is us.
When President George W. Bush took us into Iraq he committed two frauds against the America People. He lied about AI Qaeda being in Iraq and he lied about there being Weapons of Mass Destruction. AI Qaeda was not in Iraq and there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. NOT ONE ADMIRAL OR GENERAL STOOD UP TO BUSH. THEY ALL KNEW HE WAS COMMITIING FRAUD AND THEY KNEW THE RAMIFICATIONS, BUT NOT ONE ADMIRAL OR GENERAL RESIGNED. THE ADMIRALS AND GENERALS KNEW THE COST IN DOLlARS AND LIVES. THEY TOOK AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND THEY VOLUNTARILY ABROGATED THEIR OATH/RESPONSIBILITIES.
Admiral Jeremy Michael Boorda was the Chief of Naval Operations when he committed suicide. In my opinion this was the beginning of the fall of our rnilita'ry and our society. Suicide had its birth as a life

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 15 of 51
Case 18-2145, Documem 26, 08/0612018, 2363991, Page2 of 5

c!Jolce. Boorda made it mainstream. His suicide was a wakeup call and the military did nothing. We did nothing.

MsAtmwMwdohroaaauaistilsjseernriotelndgaadlrarerttsGyblhirh,uvri(emeitisascnwni)tsiigne-dsrourucaeasia\dcututlabhiaitsad(yc.yosLeivTsipdvfiessheieebrtei(heuyoeessyitfr)sceshoydlunaiierngiwiare.dchenaTiihtttddsrhhheGeapdeisytiswoyeetonainbasoluotelseanafrictbtnadshtoaelepoeuhcosaesaetetuseeihulsmsddeestu.ciheeameTtne.)ndthoyehAdJerioenmtcfchArhorraaeoinrmoelmucwsnRamagsydauorhtasftsohatonoscnfeiipudtcocmsgmimooidhweifemnietsagdAne.trmhiotnr{HatmiaiLnkenthny.teegeehdoIeS,ldnanpptpidahtssattruuwoahcbdiitieeccassHwiiesaaddsnavnaseeeyespdfcJteioryotugsMehnltphyfhtetteir.aiseo3nTwsnsrm1igsihleate",eoyum,tiDuhaft2ieattsed0eimn.woif1AtdMeina6alniysrlsnasaiowFnefctlotylole.nCRarrTsesccaoesuseehrdmisdiefesAcifmtietonUocddharoanSe.endwyseHdeAeam.eanrrmIyds),y

but...

Medications and theraoy will not solve the same fixes to an epidemic that has

our suicide and increased every

murder(s)-suicide(s! epidemic. year for the last thirty years.

We

can

't

apply

The and

root of the problem promotes defective

hstuamrtasnwbitehintghsewmitihlitnaorylaecaaddeersmhiiepsq. uTahleitimesiliotarraybpilritoimeso. tYioounaclasny'sttaermguies

corrupt with this

because you are witnessing the results.

60 of the 210 admirals in the United States Navy were under investigation in the "Fat Leonard" probe.

Naval Academy drug ring under investigation: LSD, cocaine allegedly bought on dark web

By
i}_

Lucas Tomlinson, Jennifer Griffin Fox News lli' /·.;;\vH.~oxnews .·:a rn/po!itics(2.018/02/2. 3

/n

a

y a

l-3

ca_9er-.

w-diug-rl

ng-under-

invesliga

tion-

!sd-

cocain• -a!l~ged ly-bc ught-on-dark-web. html

I am going to highlight portions of the following article that Ifeel are pertinent.

1ST'eortnmcio:V;r/am/~nti,dlni.et,navwr.yBurosoofoftikoc,diaUal·sS,:.AscaoTnmOcDt/isAotYnoerPdt/ufnboelriwsmhse!odproe4lit:th1Jca4snp/2.5m001.0.7EcT/a1Os0e/cs2t..o42f/4gs,ee2rni0eo1rua7s\sm-siesxc:omnidsucoctnd uct-pentagon-a n-;;y-
~a\~:::1.101\s-hagel-giiiibrand/794770001/.

:>-

Sapimenrcosenong2a0il1ts3og,r ementiheliritcaaalrsly, laaindpvmseeissr,taialgsaUatoSnArds TshOeanDviAeoYrd ociincvuvilemiasnetisng,taeatdilomanothsltaesahsaftolf5uo0nfd0t.hcaossees ionfstsaenricoeussinmvioslcvoinngduct

r

In 2014, then-Defense among senior leaders. problem, a task Hagel

secretary Chuck It was shuttered

Htwagoeyl ecarresatleadtearnwoitfhfiocuettodeitnevrmesitniginatgetehtehidceapl tphroobfltehmes

gave it when he opened the office.

)>

"saaTwnnhddeieswmpisoienmamgnebomnetahrwjeoohrfroetehxstheearimcAvaperllmaepderodmofbStiroleaeprbmvl(iyscPefeursnonCtmdaoegmrcotonmhm)eiotmmtfef,aie"cn,iSdatoeelsnlrds.reKuUfnuSirdsAsietneTrgnOthtDGoeAildYr\iueb.gmratanondtd,haaecNdceeowturniYmtaoebrkniltDitoyefmatnhodecrmaten

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 16 of 51
Case 18-2145, Document 26, 08/06/2018, 2363991, Page3 of 5

l'>

WffrCarooomyhmnaaiglltitrebyepso,sr,ssoa,cscmeafcosrpoerwtrmesdriitetsnhhrgaeetnstoadoepgmearoerffe-pfotniuocrtmai-aapttlelsiterohaatnenossdepp? isoSmntfaeniffvlaiifcectsearlrearasyln.ofdpTfarcthsohtoeosemreriesrceiupspmtrloooairfyfl.tieteasansrryioaollnese,etanaodcsetcearoskorwefdeihrnneogct ivkttoilleeewsmms eterhminsektbmstehswraesitltovhcfeatsnhaessitre m

l'>

aaDathdpvoeveanorrlatCcagwawhcer.iyitATshgthmeiretnoesysuroeifpcewnaePnnl(rnlocroikutiteerliecezrstleoanOaytsinauo,"dlrnty)sDl,iatveiftdslfoe.erCanmandhceercoirrosfsuttf,oeincnpbteaserpeblirndielo,eivstdweyeis.hcctoau"htTtearohedtrettifythroo'ererdettshhameesenociaArooeicruronnoFlotfoorfbynriicce.lee"iltr.yac"ntlThadhsaespnyrhetsahstsieadybreteantcrotoeomfjfeueetshltaeacbloavsse

>- "The everyday troop is court-martia!ed for what a general officer is given a slap on the hand
for," Christensen said.

My comments:

UWneifsotrPmoiCnot dgeraodfuMatielitGareyndJeeurfasetlcictDievae(vUihdCuMPmeJat)rnoaenbudesinycgertismhtmeindahiladlysnvhoiiost lgsaoetcetudortjihatyiel.cClWeoahnrsaattnitciuset.imona,stFaemdearzailnLgaiws

and that

the this

wPegesrrttearaaddre.treuaBdsfotedethpadiytwbooyemnrCeeizhewarstieslWdtcliealvaefneesssrcstsitaPfeiivndeoeddiinnJmti.entiwhfPloisetera.tmUrrPayaCeetlMtuieroosJandewaeutnrahssdslaw1ttgihapsives.hieniWrngu(eliAehllasfiegsrgghemaoalavlinysein)trsrontepatisuinnosbgnlh(islcawielevyciiutunhdtgreisiantcsyaleCoxncsoltewendCasi.rttoihatluonantcieefoelsnl.SloaeTwlnhedicsWtl)tarewahsiistngihPtnhlogyaintt

orMdEIenvarteaUe.rrnltCAvliiaAtMmghlfeeiJegnndrhbgciaaceyaa.nnhbndPamoveHguaititnervnaremgorneseayus~pasmc,xi'osdnAawugirrrsniremhtaitwhoernyydnaaARoramdmrfangaanidwhsrbgtaralreteihnesr~ssedtb,sdoidoswawciybrenh.oeerdaccImefrtodigaooomiensurn.cedrliTetnoAChrhsmIehaieAsditeshoDrI(itoirtgichdfirhsafreeilnectcryaastewokctHieirlnananwesgsAershgdoficeief}govirsheeemndainonhenittwesniestthrdotceavioollnleiewninngtatnPeeienndnertudtfcotreeehadrod.eieensuytcewoslwohPhwsoeoeianuntvsrlgedothvecsbieueloaeyxslsaCwmswtiioifniittilugniehtrdeatthshrisyseed

TjNahiale.tioIUcnnaainlteRsdaifySlettahAtiessssobNceicaavataiuolsneA(1cNawRdaeAsm).cyoNnponrroethdcutiescdeadwtrLiutlihyeuhdtiemenfeaacnnttidvCweohhlouanmtehlaeOnwlbivaeesinrdgNo. ioTnrhgthe.

who man

is now should

in charge of the have gone to

The Catha lie Cl1urch

ThhuemPaonprea,cCe atrodivnoallusn, tBarisilhyocpos manmditPsruieicstisdea.rTe htheye adreevidlo'sinegmaisfsaanriteassthicerjoebown ietahrathc.oTmhpeilrejtoiobnisdtaotegoeft the
October 12"', 2050. TMphlacecCeCaraortvihceokrlirdceesCcigahnduaertcsih.o'nsH.epHewdeaowspaghsrilaaenlltroeawdpietsdht'estoe"PnrervisivirgiolnengmiensesntoetfacPdoonowtfienbreu"ienbsgyaftsihrieesdPe.voHipdiese.cnrtimbyinCaalrtdriannaslgTrehsesoidonosretoEo. k

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 17 of 51
~---------
Case 18-2145, Document 26, 08/06/2018, 2363991, Page4 of 5
Conclusion Everyone believes that someone else is taking care of the problem. The fact of the matter is no one is tal<ing care ofthe problem. We are allowing extremists, money, power, religion, apathy, outdated social norms, etc. to dictate the course of human history. We need to do what is bestfor Mankind. I want to scare the hell out of you but I don't know how. Weapons of Mass destruction can destroy the world and mankind with it. They may not seem like it but we have four Weapons of Mass Destruction that are to become realities. Fusion, Artificial Intelligence, Brain Monitoring and the Quantum Computer. My last two questions. Who should be in charge of the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Who should have oversight of those that are in charge of the Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Godspeed.

Miramar Beach, Florida 32550 504-715-3086 ,]_:avidandrE: wch r!ste liSOn @gma l\.co nJ.; dch rister.son 5@ hotm ail.com;

e foregoing with the Clerk of Court and
~~~~~~~ll:fl:lalLar>d-tlrst~class mai\.

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 18 of 51
Attachment 2

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 19 of 51

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

David Andrew Christenson, Movant (Amicus Curiae) In Re: Grand Jury Investigation Andrew Miller- Appellant
v.

Case 18-3052
Justice Judith W. Rogers Justice Karen L. Henderson Justice Sri Srinivasan

United States of America- Appellee
Writ/ Amicus Brief (In the most simplistic terms)

The court has inadvertently opened Pandora's Box via their own Order dated November 9'h, 2018. In simplistic terms they are asking for answers to a Constitutional Question(s). Is the Whitaker appointment Constitutional? (Second Question)
The first question deals with the Special Prosecutor. Is the Special Prosecutor's appointment Constitutional? (As I said, very simplistic terms.)
This court needs to consolidate (some are listed after the signature) all of the cases that are currently at issue within the Federal Judiciary that are dealing with one of both of these questions. The Supreme Court has received a Motion to Substitute- Writ 18-496 that is asking about the Constitutionality of the Whitaker appointment. The Motion was political motivated and, in my opinion, inappropriate. (Grossly inappropriate. The Motion is very disrespectful. The attorney that filed the Motion is trying to force the Supreme Court into the political arena with a cheap parlor trick. Shame on him. This kind of sensationalism by a veteran Supreme Court litigator is heinous.)

GODSPEED. Sincerely filed, In Proper Person,

David Andrew Christenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Fl. 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com dchristenson6@hotmail.com

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 20 of 51
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 301h, 2018 I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court and
served the pleading on all counsel of record by e-mail.
David Andrew Christenson Supreme Court Writ No. 18-496 Barry Michael v. Jefferson B. Sessions Ill Attorney General of the United States- Motion to Substitute Maryland v. U.S. (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland)- Motion for Preliminary Injunction and to Substitute Defendant by State of Maryland (11/13/2018) Blumenthal v. Whitaker (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) -Complaint against All Defendants (11/19/2018) O.A. v. Trump (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) -Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (11/20/2018) Alsomairi v. Dawson (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit)- Petitioner-Appellant's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, and to Substitute Appellee (11/14/2018) U.S. v. Valencia (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas)- Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Authority to Prosecute (11/12/2018) U.S. v. Hanig (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri)- Motion to Dismiss Indictment, or in the Alternative to Disqualify Prosecution Team (11/13/2018)

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 21 of 51
Attachment 3

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 22 of 51

USCA Case #18-3052 Document #1760340

Filed: 11/14/2018 Page 1 of 11

Case 18-3052

Andrew Miller- Appellant
v.

Justice Judith W. Rogers Justice Karen L. Henderson Justice Sri Srinivasan

United States of America- Appellee
Motion for Leave to File One Time Informative Pleading (Please file as Amicus Brief is needed)

This pleading provides important information about the credibility of the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel. It is imperative for the Justices to have this information if they are to protect the American People and the Constitution.
I am directly and personally connected to Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division Jeffery Bossert Clark and Special Prosecutor/FBI Director Robert Mueller.
The framers of the Constitution had very strong convictions about personal rights. The Bill of Rights (First Ten Amendments) was created to protect our personal liberties.
J;. The last sentence of the First Amendment: and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I am petitioning this court for a "redress of grievances" and I am doing so on behalf of all Americans and you and your family.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Every morning you wake up to same unbelievable world that I wake up to. We must change the narrative if Mankind is to survive. I hope the attachments motivate you to change the narrative.
Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation (1:18-cv-03501) District Court, S.D. New York
Attachments 1, 2 & 3: One Hundred Seventeenth (117th) Emergency Motion for Reconsideration

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 23 of 51

USCA Case #18-3052 Document #1760340

Filed: 1111412018 Page 2 of 11

One Hundred Fifteenth (115th) Emergency Motion for Reconsideration One Hundred Eighteenth (118th) Emergency Motion for Reconsideration Attachment 4: The United States Supreme Court and The Katrina Virus Attachment 5: The Reluctant Patriot

GODSPEED.

David Andrew hristenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Fl. 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com dchristenson6@hotmait.com
I hereby certify that on November
served t pi din1g,6 ~~~~~~~~6~;;:;;;;,;,;;:.;:;,:=::::.::.:.:....___
David Andrew Christenson

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 24 of 51

Document #1760340

Filed: 11/14/2018 Page 3 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Movant David Andrew Christenson DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-03501
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)

Plaintiff,
v.

Judge John G. Koeltl

RUSSIAN FEDERATION, et al; Defendants.

One Hundred Seventeenth (117'') Emergency Motion for Reconsideration

Yesterday morning I walked away that if he wanted me to continue,

from my quest to save he needed to give me

Mankind. I quit. I a real sign. puess

told God I was through and what? God gave me a sign via

a baseball bat to the head.

Matthew Whitaker is the acting Attorney General

This factual story is unbelievable and there is no way to tell it in a coherent manner.

US At Attorney

tBoirlnl yeGy iMbbaeatnt hsUeSrewApWtrteohsreintnaetkymerreefprironemmseIynoatwerdar eimsstemf oayrnfcdaytghbaeevrre'ssataawltktaoiynrgnaelal ynoafFnBmdI vAt hrgiegehnpttesir.nsoNnetwh aOtrhleaadnsU.SYes,

IEMTCLPaAhniRurmKevcOeEyuilrdDlioaeEtiU.rnrrUeeYC.mGcoETretEueIalOnyNscmtNhpIcEao,ouonnnILsNfdsAnttCiheNrbNOeeclDaevRtsteieuf&PedorOwiarnDtRlotdtEhhARiVvAeeTeiEtdEsGteLuoDoOxeaur;tnPnerlBscoeMnePciysEsriiArdvGNeDeMeTpeiE,vonadiRIerfosNarMiIcoCaCbknlalAOeeMnJtRP.kheaPR5iafntOtfOrhtedrhRnDrC.eyAeU(iwTCrdBCcElouWamTDsirItOs;kehCeEiNratraTeatnsCpkACdereOL:letar,hM1s,rPu6keAPl-nsaasA3tnsiieN0nridrd9sYteit1Sf;aBpf8spBnPaePtIvrNOca,A. ibPaiBtRltll.PEeoiLnP:.rEChrnDmXo.ae,EsPyryDEmeLaPGcOeepuWfRedpetnoAAenaerTTaldrlIElRaOaAwRloNnmfbitoHtees&hrOrr-itttRchhaIeeZnOsS.N'' Appellees.) IMdaoamntatfhtreeodwmmWIoohnwietaay.kMteoryhisfiasftrchoaemmr piIsoafwirgoanm.aMnIdoawthtaeh,eishweaWisRheapitRuaebkpleicurabwnlia.casMntyhaefnadUthSheeAr tdrteootnranaienteyesdfothoritmthheeasSRaoenuptuahbtetloircnrannDeiyPsatarrnitcydt.of Iowa. ILchhoaauvrisgeieabdneaweWnitheasrartracanrnitmg(eemd.isMfdroyemmfaetmhayenorfarl)ethffoteNrr CfeowyrbOmerrolSesattanolksfinmagnydaanledFuftBltmI lAiefegienbnjuat tmilwbyhewecnaifueIswceaaolsleffdMalhsaeitmtlyh.eaIwrwreaWssthenidteavokenerra. My

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 25 of 51

Document #1760340

Filed: 11/14/2018 Page 4 of 11

fwaaRagnhetdahefeienehrrsleectinshdmcaaieeyi:rrdewDa.anTielldlhm.seTtuohhnDceeaOryayrJctwdiimscoisdNuuisrtlathdd.teeiTtoarhnseseaademlDhhCeOiimomJthm.piwWnmuhgtihet(ttenmeoneyhChevooe.watTrwsinhetaeGdfsaRutitnohauersFsdrspe)iaCedmnaeokremFa. eilmRndCeaeioasnrduoadrltteatih,orteitnWohnfe(ai1lyflm:io1ahri8mlay-1dc'1sGvh-dcoi0moae3ymt5zsspe0tare1laan)ifpdnoDptum.eisrdetmrditciooctnaaCttheosdurlmta, teer

S.D. New York Christenson v.

John George Koeltl Democratic National

Committee

(1:18-cv-05769)

District

Court,

S.D.

New

York

Judge

Colleen McMahon

The information I am District Courts. It also

sharing with you has been filed in 30 plus has been filed with the Supreme Court in

cases in four Appeals Courts and three the four Writs that I filed. Search Pacer

and the Supreme Court for: David Andrew Christenson.

JDooinckfeilet fdobr y1:D1a8v-cidv-A0n3d5r0e1wSOCNhrYis1te1n3spoangoens-AMproilt2io4n'",fo2r0L1e8a. vJeudtogeFKileo:eMltlodtioocnketoteIdntoevrever fnieftyanodf

Motion my

to

pleadings.

DaPnaodgcekIsed2tid245n-2o7t kNnoown-D66omofetshteicmS.taAytAhiwrdayoOf trhdeemr FaBrIeDciroeucrttocrleRroksb.eTrtwMouUeSlleSreinsaotonrsit,.

74 people are
a Bishop and a

listed

bPPmiPmsuaaaiyniggsgldeeoderiisetgn55ma5hg697t.ers-MeTa.&AqhneLue5poomiyrro8reo.eke-sOrmvsaaBerentordnendnhelidetulrsisafm3Oobtseriiersaldldb.banemoHoobrnuiyosaditnunfj.roUtdtTieebSmhCrnneAwydoyetasnattsopdrasrruitonetnoitdose1atnkycantesohteBteuoaopilllfertdlynmBwcenGtaearyoiosilsbi.tnn.abTdijcehoganermirolsyeoossrosnreeripcmiatgoorrieicnnsrhsiftanaie.nlgknOeaetddsirnedkotgevenoidrcmta9ehfeoepworsinnpa$yiacvm5mreh0tyysi0aoaa,tm0frnrit0rckyhe0leepsr.i0.trgDi0ashOnotbsJdna..fiwol fraoiavriyanegaar lal nodf

Iillwnaessso.rTdheereydwtaonlteeadvemLeoouuistiaonfaNaenwdOgroletaonFslworhidilaettohereDceainvzeigtreeraTtrmiael wntafsotraakninugnpslpaeccei.fied mental

During Hurricane Katrina the US Military murdered Americans and the Katrina Virus was released because of negligence.

Read the SO plus pleadings for the rest of the story.

Godspeed

Sincerely, David Andrew Christenson
Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Florida 32SSO 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com; dchristenson6@hotmail.com:

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 26 of 51

Document #1760340

Filed: 11114/2018 Page 5 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Movant David Andrew Christenson DEMOCRATIC NATIONALCOMMITIEE,

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-03501
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)

Plaintiff,
v.

Judge John G. Koeltl

RUSSIAN FEDERATION, et al; Defendants.
One Hundred Fifteenth (115'h) Emergency Motion for Reconsideration

"Democracy has been described as three wolves and a sheep voting on what is for lunch."

The United States of America is a Republic. The Constitution created three branches. Those three branches were to provide checks and balances so that we would not end up were we are. It was so important to the framers that when the Constitution was ratified only the House of Representatives was elected by popular vote and Senators were elected by the states. The framers ofthe Constitution gave life time appointments to Judges to prevent exactly what is happening today. The Federal Judiciary was
the last line of defense. The last line of defense, Federal Judiciary, has failed.

To me, life is simple: follow the Constitution. In many cases, such as this one, Judges rule on the practicality of the "rule of law" which may do good in the short run but causes irreparable long-term damage. Upholding the Constitution is a bitch. If our Republic is to survive the Federal Judiciary must uphold the Constitution in all matters.
Did you know the word "Democracy" never appears in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
Is the following true today? Are we doing this? Posterity is an important word- "all future generations".

U.S. Constitution- Preamble- We the People ofthe United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posteritv, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Bill of Rights- Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.
Laws are just pieces of paper. We are a nation of "sunarcissists". Suicide over honor.

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 27 of 51

Document #1760340

Filed: 11114/2018 Page 6 of 11

Questions
Can the Federal Judiciary rule, sue sponte, that the debt and deficit spending is unconstitutional because it violates the Preamble of the Constitution? Can the Federal Judiciary order, sue sponte, that vaccinations are unconstitutional and then stay that orderfor two years and allow the parties to present evidence to the Supreme Court. This country needs a dialogue. Did the framers of the Constitution expect the Federal Judiciary to be a reactive branch only or did they expect them to be proactive when the Constitution and the country were in such danger?
The system is broken not the Constitution. How do we fix it? How does the Federal Judiciary justify the 50 trillion-dollar debt that we will have in 50 years?
Where does the Federal Judiciary get is news?
There is no forum left for free speech.

Godspeed
Sincerely,
David Andrew Christenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Florida 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com; dchristenson6@hotmail.com;

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 28 of 51

Document #1760340

Filed: 11/14/2018 Page 7 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Movant David Andrew Christenson DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITIEE,

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-03501
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)

Plaintiff,
v.

Judge John G. Koeltl

RUSSIAN FEDERATION, et al; Defendants.
One Hundred Eighteenth (118'"1 Emergency Motion for Reconsideration

You wouldn't listen vou arrogant bastards or should I say gutless bastards

Change the narrative

Marbury v. Madison showed the Supreme Court to be gutless and established a precedent that exists today. Presidents have "Signing Statement'' which completely undermine Judicial Review. The Supreme Court has abrogated its responsibility as defined by the Constitution and it was done voluntarily.

The Federal Judiciary will be blamed and held accountable. Trump and Executive Branch Law Enforcement will not protect you nor should they. US Marshal will not protect you. Trump will use his resources to put the spotlight on every judge and their families. There will be nowhere to hide.

courts-inferior.htm17nl-top-stories&nlid=65460936ries&ref-cta WASHINGTON- The acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, once espoused the view that the courts "are supposed to be the inferior branch" and criticized the Supreme Court's power to review legislative and executive acts and declare them unconstitutional, the lifeblood of its existence as a
coequal branch of government.
Godspeed Sincerely, David Andrew Christenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Florida 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com: dchristenson6@hotmail.com;

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 29 of 51

Document #1760340

Filed: 11/14/2018 Page 8 ot 11

My books have been removed/censored/sanitized my books have been removed/censored/sanitized Congress Control Numbers (LCCN). This book was

from the Library of Congress. All references to me and from the Library of Congress. My books have Library of placed into the Library of Congress in 2012.

The United States Supreme Court and The Katrina Virus A Prelude/Reference Book/Appendix- Book 7 By David Andrew Christenson ISBN 978-0-9846893-8-5 Hardback SCKV ISBN 978-0-9846893-9-2 EBook SCKV LCCN 201293307 4
Copyright 1-724163643
Persimmon Publishing
Box 9063
Miramar Beach, Florida 32550

tAJCarheunaceadnrEliiccamqpirdaiuiceimlaeCanaisnnsnotadidnomlsnLdcateoiiyidtsgvu:bientsweirlooa-huinttnhiapavfit?enel )dgcCMit.ordeiisDfsdtiosihpdw.ueriItrishtSaiFheomuenTpSdhtreiuaeserplmakarKileencaGmgrCtiromeaionvbCeueao/rroftVnueudmitlrroouttehnshwn.eyati.Ov.tphIeOinodtlknhisttnehiiemcoehawkpuUlnllneedonddewitrtgeseeleetrddrm?duSgacsYenttEaiidtoStoenm!ffsiITefotSghayfauenavfpsileKlvrteteathhhmtamrreeietnmielyaClioobVtouhrnuiarehurnAtaskcmpdnhaaeeoknrrswntdiicocl(eatEwihpdnxleagseetedccae.ugonTitevdnivheoeer-,f up? TiCeaTIAFnbsnhmnBhoocumedIesuorptrentihrhehmIoUrteaaeihwcsnpdssratialietnaiittvezinsechnnseeastedetidlnF.cnmmSmoe1Fettehadt5evyysarnea0deitmameerne0trarvsersIbprlAaierwdelMGlc.emeseahGWoitnnwesleivfocrthmaoacieeavcyarhr,reiracrntayctrdenaoymnrycsosglobmotepcewueaenudnredraredametnsrwsorutitfneaeseaniccttclnnratkihrileeatetninlandtaameLcthgsdirooocoiitasisFuunrpnntsiBditmesgo,siaInytrireameioSasgsttn.?trh.pciiaanyAo.eWeA.acconW!LrlteioaeofaeforumawllnseuslrAmglihporwsytgahitmaiiasleeeanaetsnerrncttheiamicokt(ooaonnnrSSnpfeesnoottepleftowhetifaaenveafaelrmneeccsmvFenbdhteiisnydeogodRaaddelocianafteniofreetdtyroihtmeasdNohSmaslnmebebeWtoweooiDutKznihdannfOuOaeirMgiFretDcrerresamlaaikendWanetrraaaiencetopntardhceaVntasrosrsalirC1riavaauolL5IwiefAvnsaln't"reei?wteie.tscrhwdil2(wnaapHR,a0tnsrohsv1uaeesduee1nrsimufrl.gkiaesdieSecielIneldyuatlmetdtezaepnmxfdebatrdebpideeuvcyemrKiseincalttitahtetnhs.aibted)eterneaisnt.eas. Syphilis Studies in Alabama and Guatemala.) TnmaSahorbueeitspo. brruTieseethsmatippnheaoPkesnrCsaesKeobliaubduotdlrreuuitentpmf/aRoiota.rneVyWtfiethrhhurheaeseov,nmSebccuueoubrputedBrlteeedoonmrot,bhtkegore/eiACnpnSpgoorupuocipetrvitdrtniedoaedme,titxtthemr.heeTiCesahaoswtetiuotmieerntthnenhadt.tainhTovodehnefecptotrhuSrifmoeruAntepesmesrtceodetamrirotgyiocenaa?hiCnnanCsseoaoteunnnhdrdogtuetrmmCdeb,saaaestnyenoaanihtdnnyawido.avrnTtetihthoptaeeneeclnyooEtu.npxuaJlleyenlulcy.cdouopgptivvmrteoieoertneBnthcrtfaetomenrtdcurthuhstteh

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 30 of 51

Document #1760340

Filed: 11/14/2018 Page 9 of 11

MmCoyynbbgooreooskksssChhoaavnveetrobbleeNeennumrreebmmeroosvvee(LddC//CcceeNnn).ssToohrreeisddb//ssoaaonnkiittwiizzaeesddtfprrlaoammcedtthhienetLLoiibbthrraaerryLyioobrffaCCrooynnoggfrreeCssossn.. gAMrelylsrsbeofineork2es0n1che2as.vetoLmiberaarynodf

Updated 10/31/2011 DAC 05:32 An Unedited Synopsis. Please Google all names.
THE RELUCTANT PATRIOT By Captain David Andrew Christenson
(Book Nine in a nine part series.) Library of Congress LCCN 2011940256
ISBN 978-D-9846893-0-9 Hardback ISBN 978-{)-9846893-1-6 £Book

Factual, documented and verifiable account of Christenson, United States Air Force, on March

what 1S'h,

happened 2011.

to

(The

Author)

Captain

David

Andrew

OacaoCaAWbceRihrSCWnnuCenCiyoarghCmmanateetmhthnpeeahtOhyraaifDlsarhegmrstonteakraroinaeitciiseicemsrestrrslirnrii.Ctatliimnetdrtinsoaeohwimbe(te,CnzacagyuEnrbiasDnzenatmDrtapostsseqteaosesosroeaptiroe.rruovanorasvonarftoznwaTeaii1nnttniMFinfvatednn4hiatwadaBantahwahodu'gpihDyshAItslalinaweeosekn,CretaaDanodsreenhunalre2rohvstldfeiuldsteaseenpri0isrflrHMdmneoefeirneoeat1afssiHhidaccootftvauiAltw0fnoinoerotissriaartelramdolnentiant(crtncCratTlboradmDCesr1ehsoadebFhhytnr$RorUao0aeele,Bierl5nabsdeptnIoSienHdJwdIehs0eitxebo'moisLinhatheiosenV0aefestCrosai,mwtfia,gnamneiccereaeud0Ooh2it.hpsahllinirv0sCiidrsl0WMoThnneiobaeiife.0lins1ohanhaernnara\.CutcDwg1nrr.ye.0eteNgtt)dicaeieaason0ooWnFtaCdieoereldhtpmwBnlsurierSrbemrwncfthyeeoI.ilnnawpmoro.tcdiaysnnaA.saiAOiFnysoTmnniseogtitbgMdBgfbdlrehreghissnomClesliItee.eos,ediia.snrnwTsbhn.rTaaruuKnetFdOeiAaarrtAnehssnntceaitoBslqsgnR,tseryigfnhlrrkaducIleuto.ceiyiaeeiomflOanNasgdihrTkFnyornnnnmBctthiieeorohoteeildnst-aollnlrstrdeuverv.,aRoogyRnctgdaneadirTwntsswaedobtaeeFinomieowhh3yoaynlyBrnsesaeenetowre0nssgbiIeeenlsntsur.PaabehaFAmiddawvaFtszcAwscaeBrn,neeBtgeuaoaForhilgdInl.aIrroenirOsBnensmeFseceoOrDwngPIhDxttpelennhawuSmatrw-Dai)Vdcr,at-lrCecniWeaSoudmeeeaDeniFR2ntdrasrlvtoiandcrBAr0eieCvaeleniamriomtIcdnTs1veycdaorswalMefAeeetsitdo0nerpntweotetsdPncdtegthsthtaRadArarC.aaaaoeattaeRelntnRigoTriromaMonrcnCitdrtaedbshcaon,rtaay,tithaohnueeCoestbnSwnhnresawrutserrrneghsoDtet.iFrtaeoraenRs.srairntBMitAiidttuiv.nepigsTsahsoh-gsIelgMrsvdyCtunthtCetaueadre.n,seeeeriemiauvsnsatTinuschisnnsdlPelsRedposllehgttottwteae.atiltaoAenCfngloRwasagsarlmeynkmStoai,tttiasaase,Fnirntr?,itittatybpo,slxBeosahiotdevuyCDtuArImAhdermcaossnelespkraeuhgtCgtoiihneeeenosrwivstcrmeetnlaeeodyyilasheniosnnaFtCdpvwepiotadattpoutstLCeetihehsaercoanAnendRdcnaansrswntui.oDiadnFeneea,epss5oLsnieAuBrerdydaotltt0roeasaesaheIgrvrn0u,lceinseritendnlithttswsiewnooeooeidtaarnnsaa

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 31 of 51

Document #1760340

Filed: 11/14/2018 Page 10 of 11

ra1wCArhptcueeh1i$sohastcmpteey1rsmodoricd0sraerDmimdhntn,yste0aisoeeueabnp0ndynntiosrs0zrniitiointcis.Bcecge0tnadoadieha0lhtnltwrlyeeoiob.boeBdafsGyTOonvr$pshwnisiUird3bidelptdSeig0abaetl.aahec0nelnA,cnod,noc(t0memsAeutsu0eodn,ruePtt0vrtolrndihaaei.ndrd0iieregrsrceie0msieycaasrnhk.sopsltoecne.C,frrPldiedoeadlBeaerwstctoiipcisascleoallto,fnoy.eannrtn"ndjfdithGaTrnfogCoiwcdehirneCbkmmiaeisDbethtpochshKerVrtCrriaoentaeDsrahceiu'ttdnspproeicostiistnnnteCm.abfeyassiihvCFedicneoserBVih.annnsidCsITiipitgarotA.shhtueatanhcAegrrsniiih$onesc"tswLatu7tnoofaCeaorl5ltndgnronsuh,n,Red0siorhtsewdai0oorsiapyayn0htvwoeende..Gies0fncaiinUstte0hdsbhahcSnnioesbrnehtiaeenestaoegerhndactnawedGdouirdltriaiulmseeSd.EtCs)iselnn.treeaeaaitogCCca.potrcoescratACHiiasehbdfmpfaoidedetntSapielanedpunowtCriaatnedpneedehilrnrrCnarrhdsemdietyeshCimeiisraotirftshzeeeiehnonsturnconretiwCrseste(ledneHetonnoeeatdnOwnsulnnryCoeArDasaattndsacsosnr)fopernisdwwawlagtet,irasaaetnhnestiotishlnietanzlan.ewnrehakneoteendadDtUeclshdViepSneDfooaorr f

The Department of Justice classified Captain terrorist. This was done to bypass Federal Law and the
Christenson that if he did not stop his research and quest

David Andrew Christenson as a
Federal Judiciary. It was relayed to Captain for justice that he would be assassinated as

a

terrorist.

TilsuhoceklayFt.BioHInaetinwteatmhsepmtOeurdrldeteaornemsduPirandrietshrh/eaPsOrsirsaleosansn.insCaoPteaasrCitsaGhpuPtaaririnsdoDCnaoovmnidmAAaunngdudrseetrw7W'hCi,lhl2irai0sm1te1Wn. sTeohsnelewFyBhGIilfoeaeihltezeedwewawsitahbseCninaogptthsaoeinld in Christenson but succeeded with Commander Goetzee.

What was so important that the United States Christenson as a terrorist and then attempt to

Government had to classify murder/assassinate him?

Captain

David

Andrew

CrfcCTaeohhecsneeniultmitalHtrtiamiecawlsariiinv.llnlaaTwtbernhadeltelrsisUfGgaeteEnhrnfieNavacOetcienrwiClsgiAIteiDritgeeryEeedsMnifrewcoeenyelrdetratsiaehc,nsaed'ce'lTodrSiHenncfEsctrhrilodouoKmeldoAlneelTgtdhdRsoaIdpovsNiuefrAbebrNenclVieemctIlRnwyienUtaOnasSntstr"dilkr,eteeuaiwsndtnieedoswarin.reries(ct"rhchTset/ulhslleyacteauhbbsdKoyaeyarsdtiathnrltodgieoncuraaDayrnil,VendhmpigroatuarsHrsanptu"cmuirtkrafreeiainlcsnpcagtrtaneutonehsrfdieenDKngmlaetosatefnrendiagnndilaslctee.asotlTrfoamshtrnhcaedhegeoethnodles. health/medical issues and ''The Katrina Virus". TGAppwthruieaosceboiksodlreUpiegccdsnoend.inutoiBGecsptuedaeesorg.nhSnnreSeetctaredehaotcemlenarsRecbedteuMoanirssrutnisaylbteiingttloeahgrHtferewytDeohemlkneeieaiofleenlburenneistdltsieh.t.aeieSenoeDsdexfP.ceottrhrPcnheeeuasreteatilmdedtsrredyioiRdlniRoaetutapnnumardstmnysBd.amsfeurfCterlushdiahlvrdedpehhteaSdaaarldeirdefneicvdatarCeoevdAhtedyaomrriarrskyeydytn.srepeeiWcnurawasbSfhontlaeeiansccbrtdrddoHiesuoiustureastairtsrnwrgryiagcnrhRenaoHaegunttuemmertrehreisKsciefcnaeatathmtlldlrnwaitniehtlitiatotetKha.hrsarGeePeytrenrepiehndnrvasaeeeidisnrdraasednbtlhnnodeHteneinoaevgnfetaoeranrre.d

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 32 of 51

Document #1760340

Filed: 11/14/2018 Page 11 of 11

cHsocKGksotlecefaeaonaaptawrvrfpntniiaenaretmnurhasgundreopeabVoawddartpitrhane.KruteeomrFsaase"EtmsmarhefMwneooleaetsAocretcwsacuhneDubiwlatddpBoihrtiitueltdieahhoncitdnesott7rhpcowuweo2earttiartiMtwhshr.sheeoaaiBoc..tuvshohnTriWniestalnhhygeetahrerlhtefyehDnetBsestetOcrhaipruooDpenoaewnrdnefaacnmissvnCalilswiebdtysoalasaaetdmsishsroatfotearnoymouGnsrCdpna,iuwpheIdntAauehl.hia,rpl.edIaayiutTnttsAwlwehatcudhadehtopemserenbeednbiymnrrwdaraetpiisohelllclilametriwMtaaienoeenarsFnsyltrelaae.ytwddnnvheiLddeidetrarhatapawnhllrtdfeaGhotrreyeceyocraetovlUhshdoenoeeusnvrntrnieaFtespemnresrfrdtdooeiirvoSemnerenrtqttdaoahaucltteaneiieGordnsnednodteNmstevhln,araea.etovyrdhynL.tsee,omb"eiTcuiecrneoihufsnntoueioraetlirdnnexaga.t

The BP oil spill. To be Written.

The Danziger Bridge. To be written.
BTphsPatt"FaCNAtahehcoGrhuTPahrnoephhreoadaseenchrreerdrcaobkdagmoscoedeseSsrsoeaniitlesDnanedofideJelKndrsisS.d.OeNnluiaccMdcenNaJoenrJdgtlrAnuA,KgdetsiaevucmgtroeeJtleifvtKrsweeBwneHnatyeinaSademanaauriouflMcPmFtimesyrfisadrilhurAeVeas,hrotrkrnopvmrhossiiinDsrhsdycrlorisaseigeecuoto,eaiStninrsmreMrEanansnatouaHed.t.tLi"csaacelmnnlgTticutIa.tnaKhAtnhaghdtihiranKongAoeosarioteimfdritisandsnrsyoincwwtrPeFtsr,hoabaarrvifwiaisueOoeianslraenfnintlsedanrauhntctecDtcawssioAtesu,acdemte,sa.teoeodtouitaeoUtgTrhIhpDaOblhusnrcpolhSvaeFaateetalefnuenaoeeeAitoritrnreftrsnTryltnPrAmeaiwayuz1amctehotdSneityn5netgefIeeuheiictnnd'adeidohwehdrteiPnstwWemrips,nraesiacrautsibdt2aoBglmwrsuiehoorolyf0aluaoitmrcmlietffnayhli1atAnnlsoldSeDdrIasorobn0eoc.gnmef)tewwveedtelfHaen(AeaoinebfriiTsninsneeos(,cnwtiMaarhAucsrhfcenue2etsopeoueitFucsos.s0tmstilresfoeuoearrohWuai0ma,dmdNrincrMfpge5lddFecfeeiehsmemapr.ptioi.eiarrdnadoawiTtoaorsTyniraoArpmltnhr.ryunDhlysnrOitscdtedseo("tooacoLoamiiT/LrnhncdtetnctUanuldsohhehesisiwaanrSetsemuaUeaacuadldsnonmdaindenSrstM.utirKinaanfodssoiAytrMtEe(tnaiohd.nethLrAleAbutnictosaettsIeeotrlnoucseefialkidyeaflgnranePcataonrt)eonicaenwvhnoynrddrorrMdmosedetaeuefoieVwtahdmnetshnaMiru.priedne?aticsrtrednpdlruairbnaitthSdnovceIaeohysonattPiyaegetprnnhesb"teovnoesrcsFtyreeleeScfdwih'ar.uetnsoei.srorenpnrPHMd)ewiubluiill.rNndldatasrervonrtNeytiSe.eeyhu.netihswcwrcsiewTnbea)dPwaneecehiitwacyhrTidtangor,nycrFr(OeesehsgLnGDeA,hogOoesneartftWei2oFieihdHliunawrtrnedrl0lAmCneseremruhdaFaeo0pySe.raacnmrrinonau6lLertCi)roanltdersae.latihlodacccswdofuTlWiBuoesgemathHHn,beeeiiuladinnsiiasfOworyacUstsvieiebepnnaruhntseanDCtiMmesuhendsndrKtesaa,crhasebaaeeaacanf'BMsuaclfasldyhoSitdufdisrtnregmoaaocawsitsdbflnaAhhlserydyrueayiaotetstoeRierjohmddorafyr
source of information.
SMoctrtofiaalutltthieltodhenFahshaiaoroLvmmeaf wdeIanooFs$lwluia5rnrmr,a0se.n0ric'0fTsei,ot0paw0obn0leaid.cs0wyt0shrihsiemtotsemweundnub.icsrtdPathaellaenrlatitaois"aebTfliphllriaeretoyrvgKmipeearirwtonrtviehyninasoaitnuoVLrntoihrh.sueTosAmhp"nerewgoloeoaplwsseesnsrrteteayolret'lttsoaohsspresenodieplni.cyrsoyuJv.ariTasmhnioeecnsem.RcAeood$bmi1icep0aao0l nl,fi0iateh0bs0eiwl.i0Rtoy0oupbhldrioeombveiesion

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 33 of 51
Attachment 4

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 34 of 51

USCA Case #18-3052 Document #1761272

Filed: 11/19/2018 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICf OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

David Andrew Christenson, Movant (Amicus Curiae) In Re: Grand Jury Investigation Andrew Miller- Appellant
v.

Case 18-3052
Justice Judith W. Rogers Justice Karen L. Henderson Justice Sri Srinivasan

United States of America- Appellee
Supplemental Motion for Leave to File One Time Informative Pleading (Please file as Amicus Brief if needed)
Lf c£.__. Attached is a letter sent to the panel.

GODSPEED.

Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Fl. 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com dchristenson6@hotmail.com

David Andrew Christenson

I· ,• ;..

."i·:~ .~.-c;:.;.J,

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 35 of 51

USCA Case #18-3052 Document #1761272

Filed: 11/19/2018 Page 2 of 10

Judge Merrick Garland DC Appeal Court 333 Constitution Ave. NW washington D.C. 20001

Justice Karen L. Henderson DC Appeal Court 333 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001

Clerk Mark Langer DC Appeal Court 333 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001

Justice Judith W. Rogers DC Appeal Court 333 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001

Justice Sri Srinivasan DC Appeal Court 333 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001

Reference: No. 18-3052- USCA Case #18-3052 Document #1760340 Filed: 11/14/2018 Page 1 of 11 Amicus Brieffiled by David Andrew Christenson.

Sorry for the new email address. Microsoft closed all of my email accounts and in order to appeal you must have a Microsoft email address, which I created. The DOJ pressured Microsoft into closing my email accounts and they complied. This has repeatedly happened in the past.

Here is a recommendation about my Amicus Brief: Order the Department of Justice to respond.

Order the Special Counsel to Respond.
Order Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to respond, personally.
Order Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division Jeffery Bossert Clark to respond personally Order Special Prosecutor/FBI Director Robert Mueller to respond, personally
These individuals criminally violated my Constitutional Rights which in turn criminally violated the Constitutional Rights of all Americans.
We are no better than the Saudis. The Centra/Intelligence Agency has concluded that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, ordered the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to American officials.
Attachment 1: EDlA Case 2:12-cv-01910-SSV-JCW Document 1 Filed 07/23112 Page 18 of 66- Start with page 18, paragraph 31. They tased Federal Whistleblower Coast Guard Commander William Goetzee in Federal Court while he was strapped to a wheelchair. Go back and read the entire complaint and you will think you are in Nazi Germany.

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 36 of 51

tJSCA Case #18-3052 Document #1751272

Filed: 11/19/2018 Page 3 of 10

Attachment 2: 14-10077 August 19th, 2015 Supreme Court Writ- Supplemental Eight Coast Guard Commander William Goetzee was Murdered by the Department of Justice Extraordinary Writ with Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Mandamus Filed May 22nd, 2015
Attachment 4 The Murder of Coast Guard Commander William Goetzee- My background- David Andrew Christenson

GODSPEED. Sincerely filed, In Proper Person, David Andrew Christenson
Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Fl. 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com; dchristenson6@hotmail.com;

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 37 of 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARGARET GOETZEE NAGLE and JOHN ERIC GOETZEE
VERSUS

• • •

12-1910 - CIVIL ACTION
NUMBER: SECTION:

SHERIFF MARLIN GUSMAN, DR. SAMUEL GORE,

• JUDGE: SECT. RMAG.2

DR. CHARLES "MIKE" HIGGINS, DR. JOSE HAM,

• MAGISTRATE:

MARY ANNE BENITEZ,

DARRYL JACKSON,

LPN WALLACE,

S. PEMBO, S. BATISTE, DAVID SCHAIBLE, E. BARGKY,

•

CIVIL RIGHTS

C. JOHNSON, FNP,

WARDEN CARLOS LOUQUE,

HOD WATCH COMMANDERS JOHN DOES I and II, SGT. NICOLE HARRIS,

•

SGT EVERETT MARSHALL,

DEPUTY WILLIAM THOMPSON, DEPUTY MICHAEL WILLIAMS and

•

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

D·-E*P*U*T*Y*S*H~E·L·IA··C•R•A*D*E*R****************************************

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This case involves the tragic death on August 7, 2011 of U.S. Coast

Guard Commander William ("Bill") Goetzee, a 48-year-old federal career civilian

__,cFee~
..:LProce&
..lL Okid--_.::.,.__;:_
- C1RmDap._ __ _ Doc. No. _ __

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 38 of 51

A, ttaC n US~ CmaesJea~#1-f~l-:03~12910-DSoScVum-JeCnWt #1D7o6c1u2m72ent 1

Filed: 11/19/2018 Filed 07/23/12 Page

18

Page
of 6o

5

of

10

properly screen, evaluate or refer Mr. Goetzee for psychiatric evaluation, diagnosis or treatment. Defendant LPN Wallace failed to properly or adequately address Mr. Goetzee's report of recent suicidal thoughts, his need for medication, or his obvious physical injury. Defendant LPN Wallace was aware, must have been aware, or should have been aware, that Mr. Goetzee was psychologically fragile, required psychiatric evaluation, intervention and review of his medication status, yet failed to take
appropriate steps to insure that would occur. 30. Despite Mr. Goetzee's condition, defendant LPN Wallace referred Mr.
Goetzee for housing in "general population". Defendant LPN Wallace knew, must have known or should have known, at Mr. Goetzee was at high risk of serious hann due to his disabmty and his medical condition and that the jail lacked adequate and appropriately trained staff and facilities to properly tend to Mr. Goetzee's medical needs or to provide reasonable accommodations for his disabilities. Yet she failed to take necessary and appropriate steps to insure that he was either referred to a hospital for treatment or for medical clearance as to the appropriatenS$s of housing him at the jail, or, if to be admitted to the jail, that he was adequately and reasonably examined, housed and treated and afforded reasonable accommodation for his disability and his
condition.
31. Mr. Goetzee was booked into OPP and taken to Templeman V, the
"federal tier". The following morning he appeared in federal court for a first appearance
hearing. His medical and psychiatric condition had deteriorated overnight and he was
18

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 39 of 51

Attacn .

lJS~ Cmaesnet#-c18l--30\1l-59210-SDSoVcu-mJCenWt #1D76oc1u2m72ent 1

FileFdile0d7:/2131/1/129/2P0a1g8e

19

Pa_Qe of 615

6

of

10

V delusional, combative, disoriented and non-responsive. He had to be physically
l1\, restrained in a wheelchair. At some point he was tased. He had spent the night in the
jail with no medical treatment, no medication and no appropriate intervention or accommodation for his condition, thereby aggravating and worsening his condition. c On information and belief, various deputies and other employees of the defendant Sheriff, acting in the course and scope of their employment, knew, must have known or should have known that Mr. Goetzee was in serious need of medical attention, yet failed

to report or seek appropriate care for him during this time.

32.

Mr. Goetzee was removed from federal court and returned to the jail,

where he received a "Psychiatric Nursing/MA Assessmenr for the first time while in custody, due to "suicidal ideation", and referred to UniVersity Hospital by defendant Dr.

Higgins, through a verbal order to defendant E. Bargky, LPN, to "Rule Out Delirium".

By that lime, he had blood pressure of 181/122, a pulse rate of 128, respiration rate of 20 and a temperature of 100_1. His allergy to prednisone was noted at this time, as was

the fact that he was without any medication. His skin was warm and moist to touch. He

was described as oriented OX1, oriented as to name only, a marked deterioration of the

AAOX3 orientation described at Intake by defendant LPN Wallace. The Nurse Notes

completed by defendant Bargky identified his name as "William Wesley", despite the

booking information which gave his name as "Goetzee, William W." This error

regarding his name persisted through his hospitalization at University and when he

returned to the jail, causing confusion and inconsistencies in his medical treatment. He

19

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 40 of 51

acnment ·AttUSCf-_Case #18-3~2 Document #1761272
L

Filed: 11/19/2018 Page 7 of 10

14-10077 August 191", 2015 Supplemental Eight Coast Guard Commander William Goetzee was Murdered by the Department of Justice Extraordinary Writ with Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Mandamus Filed May 22"•, 2015

Coast Guard Commander William Goetzee was Murdered by the Department of Justice. The same process was used on me four months prior. When you read the complaint you will think you are in Nazi Germany.
Notice that the Goetzee family did not sue the Federal Government. Why? He was arrested on a Federal Warrant and held in Federal custody. The complaint was filed in Federal Court.

Everything the Department of Justice put in the public domain was a lie.
I was never charged with a crime. I was arrested on a Louisiana Warrant and not Federal. Why? 11 days in isolation being medicated against my will. Having a 9mm put to my forehead by an FBI Agent who threatened to kill me if I did not stop. He bragged about how he would get away with it and I knew that he was right. Stupid me for believing in the oath that I took.
Attachments

A1 Page 18 and 19, item 31, of the Goetzee family complaint. The Coast Guard Commander was strapped to a wheelchair in Federal Court and tased. The entire complaint is AS.
A2 Letter drafted (2011) by me about "The Murder of Coast Guard Commander William Goetzee" and the background between us. The entire package is A4.
A3 Letter drafted by me on 08/09/2011 to Chief Justice John Roberts. This letter is part of A4.

A4 16 pages. "The Murder of Coast Guard Commander William Goetzee"

AS 66 pages. The Goetzee family Federal Complaint.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has granted authority to the Department of Justice to execute and assassinate Americans who are exercising their Constitutional Rights, especially Federal Whistleblowers such as me.
All Americans deserve the protection of the Supreme Court.

Is this really the world that the Supreme Court wants?

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 41 of 51

usc;- case #18-3~2 Document #1761272
Attacnment L

Filed: 11119/2018 Page 8 of 10

Sincerely filed, In Proper Person and ProSe,

David Andrew Christenson Box9063 Miramar Beach, Fl. 32550 504-715-3086, davidandrewchristenson@hotmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 19"', 2015 I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court and
served the pleading on all counsel of record by e-mail including: Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
Counsel of Record United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov, (202) 514-2217

David Andrew Christenson

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 42 of 51

Document #1761272

Filed: 11/19/2018 Page 9 of 10

The Murder of Coast Guard Commander William Goetzee

My background

fwmpsttfcharortseionoeeoigyllsulmlpdegpclwpitheeadc.yeidnhraaTodkditatlhhIeiurelelitwepidrcemamsrIasleaftyew.sylihgconvIasiohsahogiwessuoiernnliola.stfoldos.dhnirSnsetreTdts,ouirmohresniddecieidsyletr.itedoihcpwdnaHatoreekybielpelnaioolpanslcdfOuuasrpegoiinrti'tesn.honidkhooTrintnf.nniinhl,kmngeWoseeneu.eorotahaasoIscrfwrneln.elaoyaydnllTroenyfdehdIuytddetheewohghpnaefueeio"elornsol.enHcdatgurThadroaniheIhicteubneoceiissrodlgdtoerewneewcn.eo.rohsTwaslansufauhsIzaenmhiDety.tctoichmieeTmwldhiradtghetyhes"puheeewncpwrctrnalsteeeaefiasosn.laaytlwenceTnrowhaehd(hduaisnanesoyttgtoaohtneoFnohteuryeohs2e.iodntuis4wTmhuOe,tihceehinry.nreianaodlgoeglcuraudabGhilrarn)nlsuaaowskIrgicaveewtasPkedvsbawatrklauhsnaruhiyidetsmrnep.haytbilTnyenaeJbhgpncytaleeieeithvoeinldew.eunvvcTaeoayihc"nshisbos.soitluuiseThmestiohh.coicfesrepiaNladoatrinotheonetmuigbgeaowitosocnt.teahhtdInusateyaocanthldlI"y

fhraavued,daonTfahebetrhiFceeadstieaomrna.el GTtohoevCeForemndmmereaannl tdGdeoirdvGeeorvneemtrzyeetnhe.tinwIgbapenoltieesvsdeibtoltehietsooslptaoatreiynatanmbdoesuialtesGncocreeaztCzyeoaemnadmntdaonhddiseisracGrrreoedesitttzwmeaees..

They a He

was murdered. I was lucky.

Attachment 1: Coast Guard Commander William Wesley Goetzee's Obituary. htheealFthedineCsroaumlraCmnocauenrtdahseoruhGeseow,eaUtzsSeaeAnthteoamrdnpqelouyyi,teeUeSaoMbfaathcrkseghFraoel'udsneodrfa.filHcGee,owevatecsr.nnTmohetenirnet.dwHigaeeswneto.xrItkrweeomdueilndlythahseesasuvamymeseehbecuuhirlaidtdyinagt as the building that day because of the Danziger Bridge Trial.

Attachment 2: Article. SmDiDmneeeecerplfdvuewiaicdcnrheaidtn,emteCginporeol?inanttmhscHtw.eemseas"yuTsawiFachnahepieddesdpeeJeoabru-riepaGnpsirltetnoieecsrgevsdeuteofizocDUnneirSdteecioaopeA"flnadrtmpetrpotrtpeomirrsaaonotencraentntskeiye.ctedrTecB?srsheiil.itelpn"yIicicsDWaiGzooejeiuhdabpdlyeibdalsetwtrhnhntoameosafstettsmCoiwunneoitvarcnemoesidtpnafmcarJltoleuathinshsdneeditdesianec.ealetmtTrthmiwGhonceeneaoa.d.neF.r.ett"eizen.depdTee2rhort0aoaev0lpi9cdmGpoeboaondyinvntrebttnoheyrelnedtehmhJdaimeueeFsnditejntiu,cdhsseUeettiSrltpaluik.MltiePWoauntrhhsb,eahlicytaldid

Attachment 3: Article.
Could you invent this? "Investigators say Goetzee had been swallowing toilet tissue throughout the day". Are you kidding me?

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 43 of 51

Document#1761272

Filed: 11/19/2018 Page 10 of 10

Attachment 4: Article.
See the last page, 3. "Margaret Nagel, his sister, said that after his arrest, she was unable to get any information about his condition or even where he was being held." It is important to note that the Coast Guard provided official notification of Commander Goetzee's death. This notification was improper unless he died during active duty. This was very odd and suspicious. By law The US Marshal Service should have provided notification since he was in their custody. Note that he was working on the BP oil spill.
Attachment 5.
Court document: detention hearing. Why was Commander Goetzee not at his detention hearing? Why did he not have private counsel. He had been charged and had not entered a plea. The Federal Government wanted him isolated. The man needed help and had the resources. Commander Goetzee was entitled to bond and should have been released within 72 hours. His family and fiancee could have helped him. Why did his peers in the Coast Guard not help him? They worked with him for 10 years. (Truth about the BP oil spill?)
Attachment 6. Again could you invent the truth? Review the second page. He did not want to cause harm to
anyone but himself. Goetzee exclaimed "I want to kill myself, give me your gun." Was he crying out for help or was this an attempt to discredit him? Do you know how hard it is to take a gun from a man sitting down in a car?
Attachment 7. An email from me to multiple Federal Courts in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Attachment B. Letter/Fax to the United States Supreme Court. I have only included one of the many letters that
I wrote to the Supreme Court.
Sincerely, David Christenson "The Reluctant Patriot"

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 44 of 51
Attachment 5

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 45 of 51

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

David Andrew Christenson, Movant (Amicus Curiae) In Re: Grand Jury Investigation Andrew Miller- Appellant v.

Case 18-3052
Justice Judith W. Rogers Justice Karen L. Henderson Justice Sri Srinivasan

United States of America- Appellee Errata to Complete the Record- File as Amicus Brief

The following attachments were sent to the (Special) Grand Jury being used by Special Counsel Robert Mueller- United States District Court for the District of Columbia & United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia
Attachment 1: January 161h, 2018- 91 pages Attachment 2: January 251h, 2018- 14 pages Attachment 3: January 281h, 2018-71 pages Attachment 4: January 30'h, 2018- 4 pages Attachment 5: January 291h, 2018- 2 pages

GODSPEED.
Sincerely filed, In Proper Person,
David Andrew Christenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Fl. 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com dchristenson6@hotmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on. November 271h, 2018 I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court and
served the pleading on all counsel of record by e-mail.

David Andrew Christenson

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 46 of 51
Attachment 6

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 47 of 51

My books my books Congress

hove been removed/censored/sanitized have been removed/censored/sanitized Control Numbers {LCCN). This book was

from the Library of Congress. All references to me and from the Library of Congress. My books have Library of placed into the Library of Congress in 2012.

The United States Supreme Court and The Katrina Virus A Prelude/Reference Book/Appendix- Book 7 By David Andrew Christenson ISBN 978-0-9846893-8-5 Hardback SCKV ISBN 978-0-9846893-9-2 EBook SCKV LCCN 2012933074
Copyright 1-724163643
Persimmon Publishing
Box 9063
Miramar Beach, Florida 32550

JAtCarhuenacedanrEilicacmpqidraiiuceimlaeaCnaisnnsnotdaidnomlsnLdcateioiyidtsguv:ibetsnwierlooa-hntuitnhiaapvfietnl?e)dgCcMit.ordeisDifdstiosihpdw.ueriItrishtSaihFeomuenTpSdthrieuaseerplmakarKileencaGmgrCtiromeiaonvbueCaeor/rofVtnueudimtlrroouttehnshwne.yati.D.tvphIeOiondtlnkhisttenhiiemcoehawkpulUnllneedonddewtirtgeseleeterdrdm?duSgacsYenttEaiidotStoenm!ffsiIfTeotgSahyfauenavfpsilelvKrteteahthmhtamrreeietnmielyalCiobotVouhrnuiaerhruAntaskcmpdnhaaeoeknrrwsntidicloc(eatEiwhdpnxlegaseeetdccae.ugonTitedvnivheoeer,-f up?
TiCeaTFInAbsnhmnBhocoumedIesuoprtretnirhhehmIoUtreeaahiswcnpdsrsatiaeinlativttiezinscneshneeasetdteidln.FcnmmoSmeF1ettahedte5vyysanerade0itammneerert0arvesrpbsIrlaAiredwelMG.lecmseeaGhWtoinwneslefiovcrhtoamcaieeavcyarhr,erriarctanyctrednaoyrynmssogclobmtoepcewueeadnurendrraeademsntwrsrotuitfeaneseanicctltcnnrktaihreeliatteinlnandtaameLchgtsdioorcoioitasisFuunrnpnsitBidtmgseos,iaInytirreaemoiSsgasttn.r?.tcphiyaianA.eoWe.AacconWILrtieloaaefofeouramlwnlseuslrAgmliphroywstaghimatiilaeseaenaetnsercnrttheiaimcktoo(oaonnnSrnSpfeoneostetpleowfthteaifaevnfeaaelrmneecmcsvFendhbetiisnyegdoodRaadeldcoianafnetiortfeedtyrhoimteadsNohSamslmnebebetWoweoiuotDzKnhiadnnufOOaeiriMrFgecDtrerremsaalakiendWanteraraiaenceotpntarhdecanVtasrsorsrli1aCiravaaou5LlwIiefAnvnl1asthriee?tweiet,schrwd2liw(panaHR,a0tsrnohs1vueaesduee1rsnmiufrlg.ekaidisSeeceinIlelyudatmltetdezapenmxfdbetrdaebpieeudvcyemrsiKeinaclttitaehttnhsab.itee)dterneaisnt.ae.s Syphilis Studies in Alabama and Guatemala.)
TnmaSahorubeeitspo. brruTieseethsmatipphneaPokesnrCsaeKseolbiuabduodtlrreuueitntp/mfaRooita.ernVyfWtiethrhhurehaeesovn,mSecbcuueoubrpuetdBrleteedoonmrot,bhtekgore/eiACnpnSpgoroupoucipetrvitdrntiedoeadme,titxtthemr.heeTiCesahaoswtetuiotmiernetthnenhadt.tianhoTovdehnefecpottrhuSrifmeoruAntepsemesrtcdeoetamrirtoygiocenaa?hiCannnCsseoaoteunnnhdrodgtuetrmmdCeb,saaaestnyenoaanihtdnnyawido.avrnTettihhotptaeeneeclnyoEtou.npxuaJlleneylulcyc.duoogptpivmvrteoieoertnenBthctrfaetomenrtducrthushtteh

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 48 of 51
Attachment 7

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 49 of 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Movant David Andrew Christenson
Senator Richard Blumenthal, eta\., Plaintiff
v.

Civ. No. 1:18-cv-02664-RDM
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunction Relief
Judge Randolph D. Moss

Matthew Whitaker, eta\., Defendants

Amicus

The irony is that this case is about The Affordable Care Act and severe election tampering via censorship. Our government, social media and media report in a one-dimension world. We live in a multi-dimension world that requires free speech if we are to survive. I admit that there is no way to report this information in a coherent manner. Review the letter and four-page docketed pleading to Judge John G. Koeltl US District Court SD New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 Attachment 1

A Christmas Carol in Prose; Being a Ghost Story of Christmas by Charles Dickens Jacob Marley "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water
in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"

IS MANKIND YOUR BUSINESS OR NOT?

Similar Questions of the Rule of Law- Reference: In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation (1:18-cv-03501) District Court, S.D. New York Christenson v. Democratic National Committee (1:18-cv-05769) District Court, S.D. New York Christenson v. Democratic National Committee (18-2145) Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit State of Maryland v. United States of America (1:18-cv-02849) District Court, D. Maryland Supreme Court Writ No. 18-496 Barry Michael v. Jefferson B. Sessions Ill Attorney General of the United States- Motion to Substitute
Attachment 2: Writ/Amicus Brief (In the most simplistic terms) In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Attachment 3: Motion for Leave to File One Time Informative Pleading (Please file as Amicus Brief if needed) In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Attachment 4: Supplemental Motion for Leave to File One Time Informative Pleading (Please file as Amicus Brief if needed) In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Attachment 5: Errata to Complete the Record- File as Amicus Brief In re: Grand Jury Investigation (18-3052) Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 50 of 51
Attachment 6: The United States Supreme Court and The Katrina Virus by David Andrew Christenson "My books hove been removed/censored/sanitized from the Library of Congress. All references to me and my books have been removed/censored/sanitized from the Library of Congress. My books have Library of Congress Control Numbers (LCCN). This book was placed into the Library of Congress in 2012." Attachment7: Amicus- State of Maryland v. United States of America (1:18-cv-02849) District Court, D. Maryland
Godspeed
Sincerely, David Andrew Christenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, Florida 32550 504-715-3086 davidandrewchristenson@gmail.com; dchristenson6@hotmail.com;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 2"', 2018 I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court and
served the pleading on all counsel of record by e-mail and first-class mail.
David Andrew Christenson

(

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 22 Filed 12/12/18 Page 51 of 51

EXPECTED DELIVERY DAY: 12/10/18
. . . . . . ."I II I I USPS TRACKING NUMBER

PRESS FIRMLY TO SEAL'

~
~u:~::~E<I 1006

10007-1316

U.S. POSTAGE PAID PM 2-Cay MIMMAR BEACH, FL 32550
R~%8~18
$6.70
A2305K135379-13

9505 5134 4387 8341 3567 85
r"R.I'-#R.I I I

~OM: iziJLJt.~}

-

*MAlL*

1:::1 DATE OF DELIVERY SPECIFIED*
m. .USPS TRACKINGTM INCLUDED*

$ . INSURANCE INCLUDED*

¢;1 PICKUP AVAILABLE

* Domestic only

r·' --nJ •
'.',' i;'

,~

~

'-'ill.EN USED. INTERNATIONALLY, .A.CUSTOMS DECLARATION CLABEL MAY BE REQUIRED.
I.;,., I
''
{

h) l•1/t''~.lf{:__ f)ft¥l\) f:t."

7
,;

.~1

-):s-o

U .!1: P3 1.·~~l.~>,_~~)i~~_,~i,t-i;.·u.\....4~r1~!·L \"{-:.;;:t.,t;oi:<0'iL''-~ ~.;a> SDl~i

m' D~'w ~~~o· -'!j}l r~' tl 1\firc
I

I .. ,m'· :c , 1 201a . ,I''u-;:,

, L .. ···- _j

', :
!:UEf"lK S 0 · 1

._ ""t·--,-~--'' _- - -- . _r,:___~,...r._r. 1CE'.

o. ·. v... ~
~'

!'\J•. ,. _ _ ,, ___

\ •
TO.

(._.---.-.

&.~_,_\1-(.·

-

c lA ) (Y1_;;(t( (._~-:- ou. •t-1

~;uJ P~6/·' ~~·
rJ ~ et.J ;y)( ) )J/

l 1)/)o'J-~. UJL-

·'

·, • j"

111111111111111111111111111

EP14FJuly2013
--- ·--- -----.

V-I-S-I-T--U-S--A-T· _ ·U-~· SP·--S- .C.. Q,....M.....®.. -

a$1 ~~;::'?:!~7!!.. .·' -- ----'

 
 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

__________________________________________

)

PEN AMERICAN CENTER, INC.

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity

)

as President of the United States,

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

Civil Action No. _1_8_-9_4_3_3_

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION
1. This complaint arises out of official acts by the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, intended to stifle exercise of the constitutional protections of free speech and a free press. Through retaliatory directives to officials in his Administration and credible public threats to use his government powers against news organizations and journalists who have reported on his statements, actions, and policies in ways he does not welcome, the President has violated the First Amendment and his oath to uphold the Constitution. President Trump has First Amendment rights and is free to criticize the press vehemently, but he is not free to use the power and authority of the United States government to punish and stifle it.
2. President Trump has directed his threats and retaliatory actions at specific outlets whose content and viewpoints he views as hostile. As a result, journalists who report on the President or his Administration reasonably believe they face a credible threat of government retaliation for carrying out the duties of their profession. President Trump has thus intentionally hung a sword of Damocles over the heads of countless writers, journalists, and media entities,

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 2 of 26
including members of Plaintiff PEN American Center, Inc. (hereinafter, “PEN America”). His actions seek to accomplish indirectly what the President cannot do directly: impede professional and investigative journalism, and silence criticism.
3. Plaintiff seeks a specific and narrow—but important—remedy for the President’s unconstitutional actions aimed at suppressing speech. It seeks the entry of an Order (a) declaring that Defendant Trump’s retaliatory acts violate the First Amendment, and (b) enjoining Defendant Trump from directing any officer, employee, agency, or other agent or instrumentality of the United States government to take any action against any person or entity in retaliation for speech that the President or his Administration do not like.
4. Defendant Trump has made eminently clear his disdain for the press and the legal protections the First Amendment affords it. He has frequently referred to journalists covering his rallies as “disgusting” and has stated, more generally, that it is “frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write” and that “people should look into that.” Defendant Trump has decried reporting critical of him or his Administration as “fake news” and has repeatedly labeled journalists “the enemy of the American people,” an epithet used by Joseph Stalin and other authoritarian and repressive rulers to denigrate and endanger their critics.
5. These ongoing verbal attacks on the press and others exercising their own First Amendment rights, while troubling and anti-democratic, are not the basis upon which Plaintiff PEN America seeks relief. As disturbing as it is for President Trump to disparage publicly the freedoms provided by the First Amendment, and as indefensible as it may be for the President to denounce in the way he has those whose reporting he dislikes, he too is protected by the First Amendment. His opinions about the press, however odious, cannot be the basis for legal limitations and are not themselves the basis for this lawsuit. But Defendant Trump has done
2

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 3 of 26
more than to exercise his right to denounce his critics. He has threatened to engage, and has engaged, in conduct intended to retaliate against specific news organizations and journalists whose content and viewpoints displease him. Through his actions, Defendant Trump has intentionally conveyed to all writers and journalists that if he objects to their their coverage, they may be subject to retaliation by the federal government. That conduct violates the Constitution.
6. For example, Defendant Trump has repeatedly called for action to punish the online retailer Amazon because Jeff Bezos, its chief shareholder and CEO, owns the Washington Post, whose accurate coverage of his Administration the President finds objectionable. The President’s threats of government action, alone, caused a pronounced dip in Amazon’s stock value in July 2018. The President then followed through on his threats and issued an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service (“Postal Service”) to review its financial practices, including the shipping rates it offers companies like Amazon. On information and belief, he then personally directed U.S. Postmaster General Megan Brennan to double the rate the Postal Service charges Amazon and other firms to ship packages. On October 11, 2018, the Postal Service announced proposed rate increases, including a proposed 12-percent increase for the Parcel Select service used by Amazon.
7. Defendant Trump similarly has threatened and taken action to retaliate against CNN because he objects to its coverage of him. When Defendant Trump first learned during the 2016 campaign that CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, planned to merge with AT&T, he publicly threatened to use the Justice Department’s antitrust merger-review process to retaliate against CNN for its news coverage. Following Defendant Trump’s election, the Justice Department sued to block the merger, despite a long track record of not opposing vertical mergers like the one proposed between Time Warner and AT&T. While that lawsuit did not
3

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 4 of 26
succeed in the District Court, the litigation cost CNN’s parent significant resources, including money, time, and opportunity costs. Those litigation costs continue as the President’s Administration pursues an appeal.
8. Defendant Trump’s use and threatened use of official authority to punish critical reporting takes other forms as well. For example, he has threatened to take away White House press credentials of reporters whose coverage displeases him and has threatened to challenge NBC’s and other television stations’ broadcast licenses in retaliation for coverage he disliked. In July 2018, the White House banned CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins from a Rose Garden press conference for asking questions the White House deemed “inappropriate.”
9. The President’s intent to deter criticism through credible threats of punishment by the government is unmistakable and seeks to shape the landscape in which all coverage and commentary about the President is carried out. His conduct is designed to intimidate not just the specific targets of the President’s retaliatory actions and threats of action, but all who write or speak critically about the President or his Administration, including members of Plaintiff PEN America. Based on the President’s threats and the follow-up actions described above, journalists reasonably perceive a credible threat of government retaliation if the President is displeased by their reporting.
10. Many media outlets and individual journalists, including members of Plaintiff PEN America, have braved the President’s threats and have continued to do the reporting and writing necessary to hold the government to account. But they must do so against the backdrop of Defendant Trump’s credible threats of government retaliation that is intended to deter them. The fortitude of Plaintiff and the American media in the face of these threats does not render Defendant Trump’s actions any less calculated to chill their speech, nor less unconstitutional.
4

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 5 of 26
11. Defendant Trump’s actions infringe two of our most coveted liberties, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Freedom of speech is an essential component of a functioning democracy. Benjamin Franklin identified freedom of speech as the “principal pillar” of a free society and the primary bulwark against tyranny. A leader with “the power to punish for words,” he wrote, “would be armed with a weapon the most destructive and terrible.”
12. To ensure no American leader would wield such destructive power, and because they viewed it as vital to maintaining a democracy, our founders guaranteed freedom of the press in our Constitution and created a court system to protect it. As the Supreme Court said in 1936, “[t]he newspapers, magazines, and other journals of the country, it is safe to say, have shed and continue to shed, more light on the public and business affairs of the nation than any other instrumentality of publicity; and since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment, the suppression or abridgement of the publicity afforded by a free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern.” Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936).
13. Together, the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and a free press reflect “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
14. It is also “well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas,” Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972), and that the government cannot “orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates,” United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 728 (2012). Together, these protections prohibit the government
5

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 6 of 26
from attempting to restrict or otherwise improperly influence the news coverage of government activities through retaliatory acts and threats.
15. Defendant Trump has violated these First Amendment rights through his acts that cause reasonable journalists to believe that there are instances in which government power will be used to retaliate against critical speech. These acts cause Plaintiff PEN America’s members reasonably to fear that their reporting or writing may elicit governmental retaliation if the President deems it too critical. These acts also prevent Plaintiff’s members from receiving speech of investigative journalists, writers and commentators who operate free from the President’s efforts to chill and intimidate.
16. Plaintiff comes to this Court for relief because our constitutional system assigns to the courts the power and duty to remedy such an ongoing violation of the First Amendment rights of speakers and listeners.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the claims in this action arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, specifically the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 18. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Defendant is an officer or agency of the United States and Plaintiff PEN America resides in the District.
PARTIES 19. Plaintiff PEN America, a section 501(c)(3) organization headquartered in New York City, is an association of writers and other literary and media professionals, including journalists and publishers of information about the President and his Administration. Plaintiff’s mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties
6

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 7 of 26
that make it possible. PEN America’s bedrock work is long-term advocacy on behalf of individual writers who are being punished because of their work. PEN America monitors the government’s interactions with writers and journalists and produces informational content related to its advocacy work.
20. Plaintiff’s members write about, report on, and produce media content related to American government and politics. Plaintiff’s members produce, and plan to produce in the future, work that is held to the highest standards of accuracy, but that is often critical of the actions of politicians and governments, including the President and his Administration. This reporting informs the public about the workings of the government, promotes government transparency and enables the public to hold their representatives accountable. Plaintiff’s members also rely on information produced by a free and unchilled press to do their work.
21. Plaintiff’s members work for a wide variety of media entities, including organizations whose mission is to gather and report the news. Many of Plaintiff’s members work for, contribute to, and consume the work of media organizations that have been directly threatened by Defendant Trump for the content of their speech, including the Washington Post, CNN, NBC, the White House Press Corp, ESPN, and Univision. Plaintiff’s membership includes individuals who possess, or work for entities that possess, White House press credentials and broadcast licenses.
22. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the United States, a position in which he has served since January 20, 2017.
7

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 8 of 26
FACTS A. President Trump’s Unconstitutional Acts
23. As President, Defendant Trump exercises ultimate authority over the Executive Branch, controlling agencies’ actions through Executive Orders and the Appointments Clause. President Trump has repeatedly threatened to use the levers of government power that he oversees to retaliate against journalists and media companies for the content of their coverage. In some cases, he has followed through on those threats. Defendant Trump has thus far engaged in at least four categories of retaliatory actions targeting unfavorable news reporting: initiating a government review to raise postal rates; directing Department of Justice enforcement actions; threatening to revoke broadcast licenses; and interfering with White House press access.
Government Review to Raise Postal Rates 24. Defendant Trump has repeatedly threatened to use the U.S. Postal Service (“Postal Service”) and its rate structure to retaliate against Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post (also referred to as “the Post”), whose coverage he dislikes. 25. On April 12, 2018, he followed through on his threats by signing an Executive Order directing the Postal Service to review its rates. This Order, on information and belief, was aimed at Bezos’s company, Amazon, and was motivated by Defendant Trump’s displeasure at the reporting of Bezos’s other company, the Washington Post. 26. From the beginning of his campaign for President, Defendant Trump has repeatedly attacked the Post for its coverage of him, calling it biased, fictitious, and “a disgrace to journalism.” In a 2016 interview, he called the Post “a political instrument” that was writing “bad” and “wrong” stories “with no proper information,” and accused its reporters of writing a “false” book about him. He has routinely called the Washington Post “fake news” and personally attacked its writers.
8

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 9 of 26
27. During his presidency, when the Washington Post published unflattering stories about the inner workings of his Administration, Defendant Trump frequently responded with pointed denunciations of the accuracy of the Post’s work. On April 8, 2018, for example, after the Post ran a story about John Kelly’s frustrations as Chief of Staff, Defendant Trump tweeted: “The Washington Post is far more fiction than fact. Story after story is made up garbage - more like a poorly written novel than good reporting. Always quoting sources (not names), many of which do not exist. Story on John Kelly isn’t true, just another hit job!”
28. Defendant Trump has turned his ire over the Washington Post’s coverage into a vendetta against its owner Bezos, targeting Bezos’s main asset, Amazon, by issuing a series of threats to take governmental action that would harm Bezos and Amazon, and which were eventually acted upon.
29. During his campaign, Defendant Trump repeatedly threatened future action against Amazon, regularly tied to objections over the Post’s coverage. On information and belief, he did this to signal to Bezos and Amazon shareholders that he could – and would – use his official powers to adversely impact Amazon’s tax status and subject it to antitrust enforcement. As candidate Trump put it at a rally on February 26, 2016, while referring to Bezos and Amazon: “If I become president, oh do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.”
30. In a May 12, 2016 interview, following a series of Washington Post reports that critically scrutinized Defendant Trump’s business and financial dealings, and that later culminated in two Washington Post reporters publishing a book, Trump Revealed, Defendant Trump accused Bezos of “using the Washington Post for power so that the politicians in
9

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 10 of 26
Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed.” He also declared that “Amazon is getting away with murder, tax-wise.”
31. During the same interview, Defendant Trump denigrated the Washington Post reporters’ then-forthcoming book, Trump Revealed, calling it “all false stuff because the stories are so wrong,” and claiming that Bezos is “worried about me” because “he’s got a huge antitrust problem because he’s controlling so much. Amazon is controlling so much of what they’re doing.”
32. Once in office, Defendant Trump continued to threaten the use of governmental power to harm Bezos and the Washington Post in retaliation for the paper’s reporting. In July 2017, Defendant Trump twice consulted billionaire investor Leon Cooperman about challenging Amazon’s status as a monopoly. On information and belief, Defendant Trump was motivated to challenge Amazon’s status by his animus toward the Post for its critical coverage of him and by his desire to use his regulatory powers to influence and shape media coverage of his Administration.
33. On June 27, 2017, Washington Post journalist David Fahrenthold reported that the Trump Organization had displayed a fake depiction of Trump on the cover of Time Magazine at several of its clubs. The next day, Defendant Trump tweeted, “The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE NEWS!”
34. On July 24, 2017, Defendant Trump complained on Twitter about the Washington Post’s coverage of his Syria policy, accusing the Post of “fabricat[ing] the facts.” He then posted a second tweet suggesting that the “Fake News Washington Post” was “being used as a lobbyist weapon against Congress to keep Politicians from looking into Amazon no-tax monopoly.”
10

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 11 of 26
35. On December 29, 2017, following a Washington Post story on the Administration’s internal deliberations on how to handle “worries of a tough year ahead,” and a satirical end-of-year piece entitled “Was 2017 the end of something or just the beginning,” Defendant Trump tweeted that the Postal Service should be charging more to deliver Amazon’s packages: “Why is the United States Post Office [sic], which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer? Should be charging MUCH MORE!”
36. On information and belief, Defendant Trump has since repeatedly been told by his staff that his assertions about Amazon’s harmful impact on the Postal Service are incorrect, but he continues to repeat them.
37. Defendant Trump recently renewed and escalated his threats of action against Amazon following unflattering reporting in the Washington Post detailing the damage done to Trump’s family businesses by allegations involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 election. Defendant Trump repeated his false claims about costs to the Postal Service and his threats to raise Amazon’s shipping rates. Once again, he left no doubt that his motivation was animus against the Post, again calling it a “lobbyist” and “weapon” for Bezos.
38. In a series of tweets from March 29, 2018 to April 3, 2018, Defendant Trump made repeated false statements about Amazon and issued repeated threats to raise its postal shipping rates. Over the course of these threats from President Trump, Amazon sustained a $60 billion dip in market value.
39. On information and belief, Defendant Trump’s attacks on Amazon were motivated by animus toward Bezos and the Washington Post on account of its coverage of him
11

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 12 of 26
and his Administration. For example, in an April 13, 2018 article by Maya Kosoff, Vanity Fair quoted White House sources as saying that President Trump “has zero respect” for the Washington Post and wants to “[f--k] with” Bezos as a result.
40. On April 12, 2018, Defendant Trump followed through on his retaliatory threats, issuing an Executive Order directing a review of the Postal Service’s “unsustainable financial path.” The order included several provisions directed at Amazon, including an order to review the “expansion and pricing of the package delivery market.”
41. On information and belief, President Trump had by this time repeatedly and personally directed the Postmaster General to raise Amazon’s rates.
42. Even during the pendency of the review, Defendant Trump continued to threaten further action against Bezos and Amazon and linked his motivation clearly to the Washington Post’s coverage. On July 23, 2018, immediately following reports in the Post that President Trump was unhappy with the progress of talks with North Korea, the President tweeted that “[t]he Amazon Washington Post has gone crazy against me ever since they lost the Internet Tax Case in the U.S. Supreme Court,” i.e. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. He then renewed his threats to take antitrust action against Amazon and to raise its postal delivery rates. President Trump tweeted “Next up is the U.S. Post Office [sic] which they use, at a fraction of real cost, as their ‘delivery boy’ for a BIG percentage of their packages. . . In my opinion the Washington Post is nothing more than an expensive (the paper loses a fortune) lobbyist for Amazon. Is it used as protection against antitrust claims which many feel should be brought?”
43. On October 11, 2018, the Postal Service announced proposed rate hikes for its services, to include rate increases of up to 12 percent for the Parcel Select service used by Amazon. On information and belief, this action by the Postal Service would not have been taken
12

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 13 of 26
but for the President’s clearly expressed desire to punish Amazon for the reporting of the Washington Post.
DOJ Enforcement Actions 44. Defendant Trump has repeatedly threatened Department of Justice (“DOJ”) antitrust enforcement actions against media companies he views as unacceptably critical of him, taking particular aim at CNN. 45. Defendant Trump has long made known his deep-seated animus toward CNN for the content of its reporting. He repeatedly attacks CNN on Twitter, in speeches, interviews, and press conferences, calling it “fake news” and “garbage,” and has refused to answer questions from CNN reporters during press conferences, calling its coverage “terrible.” On information and belief, President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met with CNN leadership in early 2017 and demanded that “20 percent of its staff” be fired for their coverage of the 2016 election. 46. Defendant Trump has done far more than exercise the right to make known his dislike of CNN’s reporting. At a rally during the 2016 campaign, Defendant Trump threatened to block a proposed merger between Time Warner, CNN’s parent company, and AT&T, once he gained control of the DOJ, and made clear his retaliatory motive for doing so. On October 22, 2016 in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, he denounced the AT&T–Time Warner merger, telling his audience that CNN was part of the media “power structure” trying to suppress his votes. “AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN,” Defendant Trump said, declaring it “a deal we will not approve in my administration.” 47. Once in office, Defendant Trump followed through on this threat. On information and belief, during the pendency of the AT&T–Time Warner merger review process, advisers to
13

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 14 of 26
President Trump discussed using the merger approval application as “a potential point of leverage over [CNN].”
48. On information and belief, DOJ demanded the sale of CNN as a condition of its approval of the merger, leading a source close to the merger process to opine that “[t]his has become political . . . It’s all about CNN.”
49. On October 28, 2017, Defendant Trump’s close associate, Roger Stone, threatened CNN reporters on Twitter that if the merger were approved “the house cleaning at CNN of human excrement like @donlemon @jaketapper & dumb[f--k] @ananavarro will be swift.”
50. Because AT&T and Time-Warner are not content competitors, their proposed merger was a so-called “vertical” merger that federal government regulators have not sought to block since the Nixon Administration. Nonetheless, on November 20, 2017, the Antitrust Division filed a lawsuit to block the Time Warner–AT&T merger despite its decades-long practice of permitting such vertical mergers.
51. The lawsuit marked a stark turnabout by Makan Delrahim, the head of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division. Before joining the Trump Administration, on October 24, 2016, Delrahim gave an interview to Bloomberg, during which he said that he saw no problem with the Time Warner–AT&T merger. After working in the White House Counsel’s Office with President Trump, however, and upon taking charge of the Antitrust Division, Delrahim authorized the lawsuit.
52. On June 12, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, overseeing the federal antitrust trial, found against the government and ruled that the AT&T-Time Warner merger should go through without conditions. In rejecting the government’s case, Judge Leon
14

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 15 of 26
questioned why it had ever been brought, given the overwhelming precedent permitting similar mergers and noted the “staggering” cost of the litigation to both the defendants and the government. Following the verdict, Time Warner’s Executive Vice President Gary Ginsberg said the government’s case was “political in its motivation.”
53. On July 12, 2018, DOJ appealed the District Court’s decision and the case is currently pending before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
54. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the United States government deciding to shift policy to pursue antitrust enforcement actions in cases of vertical mergers, the President may not cause such enforcement actions to be brought in retaliation for protected speech.
55. Defendant Trump’s threats to use the DOJ to influence the flow of information to the public is not limited to CNN. On August 28, 2018, he complained, via Twitter, that:
Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of . . . results on ‘Trump News’ are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed! 56. Hours later, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow, standing outside the White House, threatened that the Trump Administration is “taking a look” at imposing regulations on Google. 57. On September 5, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced his intention to convene a meeting of Republican state attorneys general to discuss a possible federal investigation of whether Google, Facebook, and other social media companies are violating antitrust and free speech laws.
15

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 16 of 26
58. On September 22, 2018, the White House leaked a draft Executive Order that would instruct federal law enforcement and antitrust agencies to open investigations into social media companies. This leak was intended to, and did, have a negative market impact on these companies. The intent of leaking this information was to show these companies and other speakers the President dislikes that his White House has the power to significantly injure them with a simple leak if it dislikes their content. The intent of leaking this information was also to incentivize investors to pressure these companies to modify their content to be more to the liking of the President in order to avoid retaliatory actions that could impact the investors’ bottom line.
59. Some of the intended targets of this “warning shot” are the owners of companies at which Plaintiff members are employed or for whom they write. These actions were intended to chill the content created by Plaintiff’s members and have cast a chill that Plaintiff’s members must overcome in order to do their jobs.
60. Of course, the President may seek the adoption of otherwise constitutional legislation affecting or relating to social media, but he may not seek to regulate social media for the purpose of retaliating against it or to otherwise affect the content of what appears on it.
Threats to Revoke Broadcast Licenses 61. Defendant Trump has also threatened to revoke the broadcast licenses of media entities that he views as critics. 62. On October 11, 2017, he lashed out at NBC on Twitter for its reporting on statements the President had made about nuclear weapons at a Pentagon meeting. “Fake @NBCNews made up a story that I wanted a “tenfold” increase in our U.S. nuclear arsenal. Pure fiction, made up to demean. NBC = CNN!”
16

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 17 of 26
63. Minutes later, Defendant Trump followed that tweet with another threatening NBC’s broadcast license. “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!”
64. Later the same day, Defendant Trump broadened his threat to more outlets: “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!”
65. Although networks do not hold federal licenses, their individual affiliates do. Those licenses are subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission. Revocation of a federal license is a death sentence for a broadcast station.
Actions to Limit the Access of White House Reporters 66. Defendant Trump and his Administration have also acted to selectively deny journalist critics access to information from the White House. 67. Defendant Trump’s behavior in denying journalist critics access to information from the White House and about his Administration is a pattern dating back to his campaign. Prior to the election, on August 25, 2015, Defendant Trump had Jorge Ramos, Univision’s lead anchor, removed from a press conference after Ramos tried to ask Defendant Trump a question about immigration policy. 68. While on the campaign trail, Defendant Trump barred reporters from several news organizations, including the Washington Post, from obtaining press credentials at his rallies, news conferences, and other events. 69. As President, Defendant Trump has continued to threaten journalists whose coverage or questioning he found unfavorable to him or his Administration with revoking their access to official Administration and White House events.
17

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 18 of 26
70. On information and belief, Defendant Trump has repeatedly directed White House staff to ban reporters critical of his Administration from covering official events or to take away their press credentials. This included reporters from the Washington Post, CNN, and NBC News, and Defendant has specifically told his staff to consider blacklisting Jim Acosta of CNN and April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks in retaliation for their coverage, of which he disapproves.
71. On February 24, 2017, Defendant Trump’s then-White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer held an off-camera question-and-answer session before only an “expanded pool” of journalists in Spicer’s office rather than the press briefing room. The White House denied requests for access to the session from The New York Times, Politico, CNN, The Guardian, BBC, and others, based on its disapproval of their coverage.
72. On December 12, 2017, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told CNN’s Jim Acosta that she would block him from having future access if he attempted during President Trump’s bill signing to ask the President a question about one of his tweets attacking Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
73. On May 9, 2018, Defendant Trump threatened to revoke the credentials of all reporters whose coverage he finds negative.
74. Eventually, the President’s staff acted on these directives. On July 25, 2018, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Communications Director Bill Shine barred CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins from a Rose Garden press conference because Collins had earlier asked the President questions that the White House deemed “inappropriate.”
18

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 19 of 26
75. The Defendant’s intent in having staff bar Collins from this event was to make clear to all other reporters that they too might be barred from events or have their credentials revoked if they produced coverage critical of the President or his Administration.
B. The Harm to Plaintiff’s Members from Defendant Trump’s Unconstitutional Acts 76. Defendant Trump’s credible threats and retaliatory directives to use government
power to retaliate against critics improperly seek to suppress speech and influence the content of news reporting. Defendant’s use of the power and machinery of government to punish his media critics creates an atmosphere in which journalists must work under the threat of government retaliation. This environment, underscored by Defendant Trump’s campaign of intimidation against critical reporting, casts a chill on speech that – even if braved and overcome by diligent and courageous reporters – constitutes an ongoing First Amendment violation.
77. Plaintiff’s members cover and write about President Trump and his Administration and intend to continue to do so. In doing their work, they also rely on the reporting of others. But journalists write about the President and his Administration today with a reasonable recognition of a credible threat that Defendant Trump will use the levers of government power to punish them or their employers for critical speech. The First Amendment protects the press from having to work under such conditions.
78. Members of Plaintiff PEN America work for, or with, the Washington Post, Time Warner, CNN, NBC, the White House press corps, and other entities against whom Defendant Trump has used, or threatened to use, the machinery of government to retaliate for or suppress their critical speech. Plaintiff’s members are directly harmed by Defendant Trump’s actions even if they or their employers have not specifically been threatened with retaliatory action. In
19

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 20 of 26
order to do their jobs and speak, write and listen freely, they are forced to surmount the chill cast by the President’s conduct.
79. Defendant Trump’s threats and retaliatory actions directed at the Washington Post, Amazon, Time Warner, CNN, NBC, the White House press corps, and other news organizations and journalists are designed to unduly influence the content and tenor of news reporting on the President and his Administration, and to control public discussion.
80. Defendant Trump has also directed his ire towards countless other journalists and media outlets. Prior to assuming office, he singled out Megyn Kelly of Fox News for repeated criticism and attack. After assuming office, and after ESPN reporter Jemele Hill called him a “white supremacist,” Defendant Trump called for her to be fired. Hill was eventually suspended by ESPN and later left the network. White House staff reportedly collected dossiers of negative information about April Ryan and others for the purpose of intimidating them. And Ryan has spoken out about an atmosphere that she has described as placing “targets” on journalists who are viewed as critics of the Administration, subjecting them to online and other harassment. While these verbal attacks and other actions are not the subject of this legal action, they have created a dynamic in which no reporter or media outlet knows if they will also be the subject of Defendant’s attacks and whether that attack will be accompanied by unlawful retaliatory action by the federal government.
81. Many of the reporters and outlets that have been the direct targets of Defendant Trump’s attacks and retaliatory actions are, or work for, sizable companies. Although the First Amendment protects them from having to do so, they have significant resources with which to defend themselves and vindicate their rights. But for smaller outlets, independent media, freelancers, or other more vulnerable populations of writers who do not have those same
20

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 21 of 26
resources, continuing to write and report freely in the face of Defendant’s threats of retaliatory government action can require overcoming even greater risks.
82. Even if some news organizations and reporters directly threatened by Defendant Trump continue to cover him and his Administration exactly as they always have, the Defendant’s actions cast a chill and create a reasonable risk that some will not.
83. Plaintiff’s members are also listeners and recipients of speech, both from other members, as well as from other press and media organizations. Such speech gives Plaintiff’s members access to “social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences,” and allows Plaintiff’s members to engage in discussion and debate about matters of public interest.
84. Plaintiff’s members rely on uncensored and unchilled coverage from news outlets that is free from government-imposed chill in their own work, and they rely upon a media environment that is safeguarded from intentional efforts to deter critical coverage through the credible threat of government retaliation.
85. Defendant Trump’s credible threats of government retaliation, and his retaliatory uses of government power, harm Plaintiff’s members because his actions jeopardize their access to information and their right to receive information. Again, it is Defendant Trump’s intentional interference and actions with the aim of exerting improper influence that creates the First Amendment harm.
21

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 22 of 26
FIRST CLAIM Violation of the First Amendment—Freedoms of Speech and the Press
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief) 86. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 87. The First Amendment prohibits government officials from taking punitive acts against disfavored journalists and media entities in retaliation for their speech. 88. Defendant Trump does not intend his threats to invoke government regulatory powers against journalists and media entities to be empty, hollow threats. 89. Defendant Trump does not intend for the officers implementing policy in his Administration to ignore these threats. 90. Defendant Trump expects the officers implementing policy in his Administration to carry out his will. 91. Defendant Trump intends the writers, journalists and media outlets he has attacked to think twice before writing critically of him or his Administration. 92. Defendant Trump intends the writers, journalists and media outlets he has attacked to conform their coverage to what he would consider “fair.” 93. Defendant Trump unlawfully violated the First Amendment by using and threatening to use the power and machinery of the federal government to punish and intimidate perceived press critics through:
(a) issuing an Executive Order to review raising postal rates; (b) conducting law enforcement investigations and initiating enforcement
actions; (c) threatening to rescind broadcast licenses; and
22

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 23 of 26
(d) restricting access and threatening to revoke credentials for members of the White House press corps.
94. Defendant Trump’s credible threats and retaliatory actions violate the First Amendment because they are content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and cast a chill on a reasonable person of ordinary firmness to deter them from engaging in speech critical of the President.
95. Defendant Trump’s credible threats and retaliatory actions violate the First Amendment because they are content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and Plaintiff’s members own speech has in fact been chilled because they are forced to do their work in the face of a credible threat of retaliation.
96. Defendant Trump’s infringements of the First Amendment are subject to strict scrutiny, and there is no legitimate compelling government interest that justifies Defendant’s threats and retaliatory actions. And even there were such an interest, Defendant’s actions are not the least restrictive means of achieving it.
97. Plaintiff’s members work for or with the specific press entities that Defendant has used or threatened to use government retaliatory actions to punish and were within the scope of the intended target of Defendant Trump’s threats as writers who write about the President and his Administration, regardless of whether they were specifically named in threats. As a result of Defendant’s unconstitutional actions, Plaintiff’s members have suffered and continue to suffer harm caused by the President’s deliberate efforts to chill protected speech, which warrants immediate relief.
23

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 24 of 26
SECOND CLAIM Violation of the First Amendment—Right to Receive Information
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief) 98. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 99. The First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas. It prohibits the government from arbitrarily or vindictively limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw. The public, including Plaintiff PEN America’s members, has a right to receive information from press and media organizations free from undue government influence. 100. Defendant Trump unlawfully violated the First Amendment by using and threatening to use the power and machinery of the federal government to punish and intimidate:
(a) The Washington Post and Amazon; (b) CNN and Time Warner; (c) NBC; (d) The White House press corps; and (e) Other entities, publishers, and writers who cover the President and his
Administration. 101. Defendant Trump’s credible threats and retaliatory actions violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Those unlawful actions are content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech intended to unduly affect the content and tenor of the news and to orchestrate public discussion. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s members rely on each of the sources threatened or punished by the President to receive information. The President’s unconstitutional actions violate the right
24

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 25 of 26
of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s members to receive information free from undue government influence.
102. Defendant’s infringements of the First Amendment are subject to strict scrutiny, and there is no legitimate, compelling government interest that justifies Defendant’s prevention of Plaintiff’s members from receiving information and ideas. Even if there were such an interest, Defendant’s actions are not the least restrictive means of achieving it.
103. As a result of Defendant’s unconstitutional actions, Plaintiff’s members have suffered and continue to suffer harm, which warrants immediate relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff requests that this Court: 1. Enter judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) declaring that Defendant Donald J. Trump violated the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when he used his Presidential powers or the power of the federal government with intent to retaliate against or otherwise constrain speech critical of him or his Administration. 2. Enjoin Defendant Donald J. Trump from directing or ordering any officer, employee, agency, or other agent or instrumentality of the United States government to take any action against any person or entity with intent to retaliate against, intimidate, or otherwise constrain speech critical of him or his Administration. 3. Award Plaintiff its costs, including attorneys’ fees, and enter such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
25

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 26 of 26

Dated: October 16, 2018
David A. Schulz (DS-3180) MEDIA FREEDOM AND INFORMATION
ACCESS CLINIC FLOYD ABRAMS INSTITUTE
FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Yale Law School 1675 Broadway, 19th Floor New York, NY 10019-5820 Tel: (212) 850-6103 Fax: (212) 223-1942 david.schulz@yale.edu
John Langford (JL-2367) MEDIA FREEDOM AND INFORMATION
ACCESS CLINIC FLOYD ABRAMS INSTITUTE
FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Yale Law School P.O. Box 208215 New Haven, CT 06520 Telephone: (203) 436-5831 Facsimile: (203) 432-3034 john.langford@yale.edu

Respectfully submitted,
THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. and MEDIA FREEDOM & INFORMATION ACCESS CLINIC
By: /s/ Kristy Parker___________________ Kristy Parker (pro hac vice filed herewith) THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue., NW, #163 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 849-9307 Facsimile: (929) 777-8428 kristy.parker@protectdemocracy.org
Ian Bassin (N.Y. Reg. No. 4683439) THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. 222 Broadway, 19th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (202) 599-0466 ian.bassin@protectdemocracy.org
Laurence M. Schwartztol (LS-1978) Justin Florence (pro hac vice forthcoming) THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. 10 Ware Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (202) 599-0466 larry.schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org justin.florence@protectdemocracy.org
Steven A. Hirsch, consultant with THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. (pro hac vice forthcoming) 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 676-2286 sahirsch2@gmail.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

26

 
 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 1 of 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

__________________________________________

)

PEN AMERICAN CENTER, INC.,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity

)

as President of the United States,

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

Civil Action No. 18-cv-9433-LGS

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION
1. This complaint by Plaintiff PEN American Center, Inc. (hereinafter, “PEN America”) arises out of official acts by the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, intended to stifle exercise of the constitutional protections of free speech and a free press. The President has violated the First Amendment, and his oath to uphold the Constitution, through directives to Administration officials to take retaliatory actions and credible public threats to use his government powers against those who report the news in ways he does not welcome. Although the President is free to criticize the press, he cannot use the power and authority of the United States government to punish and stifle it.
2. President Trump has intentionally hung a sword of Damocles over the heads of countless writers, journalists, and media entities, including Plaintiff’s members, many of whom work for the organizations President Trump has targeted. He has directed retaliatory actions and threats at specific news outlets and journalists whose content and viewpoints he views as hostile to him or his Administration, directly harming those organizations and their employees, including Plaintiff’s members. As a result, Plaintiff’s members who work for those

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 2 of 36
organizations or who have themselves been targeted, and all journalists who report on the President or his Administration, reasonably believe they face a credible threat of government retaliation for carrying out the duties of their profession. Defendant Trump’s actions seek to accomplish indirectly what he cannot do directly: impede professional and investigative journalism, and silence criticism.
3. From the earliest days of his presidential campaign to the present, Defendant Trump has called the press the “enemy of the people,” an epithet used by Joseph Stalin; has labeled any unfavorable coverage “fake news”; has singled out news organizations and individual reporters for particular abuse; and has said it is “frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write,” adding “people should look into that.” The President has declared war on all but the most fawning news organizations, exhibiting his antagonism in an almost daily barrage of tweets, press statements, and directives. Threats by the President against newspapers, networks, news sources, and individual journalists have become the norm. According to a database compiled by the Committee to Protect Journalists, since announcing his candidacy through his second year in office, President Trump has sent 1,339 tweets about the media that were critical, insinuating, condemning, or threatening. These communications frequently single out news organizations or individual journalists who the President believes have criticized his Administration.
4. As disturbing as it is for President Trump to disparage the exercise of freedoms protected by the First Amendment, his opinions about the press are not the basis for this lawsuit. Trump’s attacks on the press, however, have not been limited to talk. The President and officials acting at his direction have undertaken a variety of retaliatory acts intended to punish or intimidate news organizations whose coverage has displeased him, including:
• suspending the White House press credentials of reporters who the President believes failed to show him sufficient “respect”;
2

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 3 of 36
• revoking and threatening to revoke security clearances from former government officials who have engaged in public commentary, including on CNN and NBC, because they expressed criticism of the current Administration;
• issuing an executive order to raise postal rates to punish online retailer Amazon.com because Jeff Bezos, its chief shareholder and CEO, owns the Washington Post, whose coverage of his Administration the President finds objectionable;
• directing the Department of Justice to challenge a vertical merger between Time Warner and AT&T because of his antagonism to Time Warner subsidiary CNN and its news coverage of his Administration; and
• threatening to revoke NBC’s and other television stations’ broadcast licenses in retaliation for coverage the President dislikes.
Plaintiff PEN’s members include journalists and other media personnel who hold White House press credentials, and who work for the Washington Post, CNN, and NBC, who have thus been injured by Defendant Trump’s retaliation against them and their employers.
5. Defendant Trump’s actions infringe two of our most coveted liberties, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Freedom of speech is an essential component of a functioning democracy. Benjamin Franklin identified freedom of speech as the “principal pillar” of a free society and the primary bulwark against tyranny. A leader with “the power to punish for words,” he wrote, “would be armed with a weapon the most destructive and terrible.”
6. To ensure no American leader would wield such destructive power, and because they viewed it as vital to maintaining a democracy, our Founders guaranteed freedom of the press in our Constitution and entrusted our court system with protecting it. As the Supreme Court said in 1936, “[t]he newspapers, magazines, and other journals of the country, it is safe to say, have shed and continue to shed, more light on the public and business affairs of the nation than any other instrumentality of publicity; and since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment, the suppression or abridgement of the publicity afforded by
3

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 4 of 36

a free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern.” Grosjean v. Am. Press Co.,

297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936).

7. Together, the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and a free press

reflect “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be

uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and

sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” New York Times Co.

v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).

8. It is also “well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive

information and ideas,” Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972), and that the

government cannot “orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates,” United

States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 728 (2012). Together, these protections prohibit the government

from attempting to restrict or otherwise improperly influence the news coverage of government

activities through retaliatory acts and threats.

9.

Defendant Trump, whose retaliatory actions and threats cast a discernible chill

on the free press and those who rely on it for information, presents an extreme case, but

American history has seen other attempts by both federal and state executives to use the power of

their offices to infringe the First Amendment. When such abuses have been discovered, and

when given the opportunity to do so, courts have not hesitated to enforce the First Amendment

and prevent the abuse of power.

10. The Supreme Court first addressed constitutional limits on the government’s

authority to suppress criticism of public officials in Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S.

697 (1931). The Court held that the First Amendment barred a state law that authorized

suppression of malicious, scandalous, and defamatory newspapers, magazines, or other

periodicals. The case involved an injunction barring the publication of a “scandal sheet” called

4

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 5 of 36
The Saturday Press, in which “[m]any of the statements so highly improbable as to compel a finding that they are false,” and “[i]n every edition slanderous and defamatory matter predominates to the practical exclusion of all else.” Id. at 724 (Butler, J., dissenting). Among other things, Near set a constitutional baseline that the government has no authority to define what it thinks is “fake news” and use the machinery of government to suppress it.
11. As First Amendment doctrine evolved, officials periodically sought to evade constitutional review by using informal tools or by using neutral laws in a retaliatory way. Governor Huey Long of Louisiana, whose tenure was criticized by the state’s leading newspapers, punished big city newspapers for their coverage while at the same time attempted to avoid judicial scrutiny by having the legislature enact a seemingly neutral tax targeting only those publications with a weekly circulation exceeding 20,000 copies. The Supreme Court struck down the measure as a type of tax “with a long history of hostile misuse against the freedom of the press.” Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 250. It declared the scheme “a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled.” Id. at 250.
12. Presidents from across the political spectrum have used surreptitious methods to abuse their government powers to punish or discipline members of the press they believed treated them unfairly. Franklin D. Roosevelt had the FBI wiretap reporters from what he considered to be “unfriendly” newspapers, denied press credentials to critics of his foreign policy, and subjected hostile publishers to tax audits. The Kennedy Administration initiated, and the Johnson Administration continued, a plan to coordinate FCC Fairness Doctrine complaints to target radio stations that aired right-wing editorials, and to focus on small market stations that could not afford to respond. The Nixon Administration was particularly antagonistic to the press and subjected those on an “enemies list” to illegal wiretaps, tax audits, and office searches. It
5

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 6 of 36
threatened to take action against broadcast licenses owned by the Washington Post in retaliation for its coverage of the Watergate scandal, proposed an official monitoring system through the FCC, and manipulated tax and antitrust enforcement efforts to punish the press.
13. Many of these efforts to muzzle the press through misuse of governmental power escaped judicial scrutiny because they were not discovered until years – often decades – after the fact. More savvy presidents took pains to conceal their efforts to subvert the press because they accepted – publicly, at least – the limitations imposed by the First Amendment and thus sought to avoid disclosure of illegal behavior. Not so with this Administration. President Trump shows open contempt for freedom of the press and the right to dissent, and reveals his illegitimate censorial motives almost daily; he announces who he plans to punish and crows about it after he has done so. The President’s tweets are a confession; his boasts at innumerable rallies confirm his illicit intent.
14. Defendant Trump’s statements, whether made as a candidate or once in office, illustrate his purpose to use executive power to suppress and retaliate against what he perceives to be unfair or unfavorable press coverage. They reveal the “official” explanations for governmental actions targeting the press are pretextual, and show the actual purpose is to punish or intimidate those who question the Administration’s policies.
15. The President’s statements are relevant to assess the constitutionality of his actions. Even when acting in areas of expansive executive authority, such as control over immigration, an area considered “largely immune from judicial control,” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2402 (2018) (citation omitted), the Supreme Court has permitted reviewing courts to consider such statements and to “look behind the face” of an official action to determine the President’s actual purpose, id. at 2420. But while the President’s initiatives may survive scrutiny in areas where executive authority is at its zenith and is subject only to rational basis review,
6

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 7 of 36
such is not the case where his primary purpose is to retaliate against an adversarial press protected by the First Amendment.
16. Using governmental authority to retaliate against the exercise of free speech or press is never legitimate. Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 136 S. Ct. 1412, 1418 (2016). “Official reprisal for protected speech ‘offends the Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right.’” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006) (quoting Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588 n.10 (1998) (brackets in original)). The First Amendment thus “prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions . . . for speaking out.” Id. Even seemingly neutral actions violate this constitutional rule where circumstantial evidence demonstrates those actions were taken because of speech’s content or a speaker’s viewpoint. See Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 138 S. Ct. 1945 (2018). This constitutional principle prohibits the government from denying or revoking even privileges to which a person does not necessarily have a “right,” such as a tax exemption, a security clearance, or access to White House briefings, when the denial is motivated by a retaliatory purpose. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).
17. Where the President’s own words and actions reveal a manifest intent to intimidate and punish the press, it is the government’s burden to show its actions were not for a retaliatory purpose. Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283–87 (1977). When such criticism “transforms into an attempt to use the powers of a governmental office to intimidate or to discipline the press or one of its members because of what appears in print, a compelling governmental interest that cannot be served by less restrictive means must be shown for such use to meet Constitutional standards.” Borreca v. Fasi, 369 F. Supp. 906, 910 (D. Haw. 1974).
7

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 8 of 36
18. This is the natural province for judicial action – to constrain executive power when it exceeds constitutional bounds. It is particularly vital when the President seeks to undermine the independence of the press, because “[o]nly a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.” New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) (Black, J., concurring).
19. Defendant Trump has violated the First Amendment through his direct punishment of individual journalists and media organizations and their employees – including Plaintiff’s members – and acts that cause reasonable journalists to believe that the Defendant will use his government powers to retaliate against critical speech. These acts also prevent Plaintiff and its members from receiving speech of investigative journalists, writers and commentators who operate free from the President’s efforts to chill and intimidate.
20. Defendant Trump has adopted the language and the tactics of authoritarians who bolster their power by quashing dissent. But the Framers of our Constitution foresaw, and designed a system that could withstand, such an assault on our basic freedoms and our democracy. Our institutions, and especially our courts, exist precisely to check such abuses of power.
21. Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that this Court maintain the constitutional balance the Framers envisioned, and issue orders (a) declaring that Defendant Trump’s retaliatory actions violate the First Amendment, and (b) enjoining Defendant Trump from directing any officer, employee, agency, or other agent or instrumentality of the United States government to take any action intended to retaliate against disfavored speech.
8

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 9 of 36
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 22. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the claims in this action arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, specifically the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 23. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Defendant is an officer or agency of the United States and Plaintiff PEN America resides in the District.
PARTIES 24. Plaintiff PEN America, a section 501(c)(3) organization headquartered in New York City, is an association of writers and other literary and media professionals, including journalists and publishers of information about the President and his Administration. Plaintiff’s mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible. PEN America’s bedrock work is long-term advocacy on behalf of individual writers who are being punished because of the content of their speech. PEN America monitors the government’s interactions with writers and journalists and produces informational content related to its advocacy work. 25. Plaintiff PEN America has a traditional voluntary membership structure and includes members who work for journalistic organizations that have been subjected to threats and retaliatory acts from the Trump Administration. Its membership includes at least six members who work for, and whose work is published through CNN; at least eleven members who work for, and whose work is published through, the Washington Post; and at least six members who work for, and whose work is published through, NBC. These members, in some cases individually and otherwise through their employers, have been direct targets of Defendant Trump’s threats and retaliatory acts to punish their own and their employers’ speech.
9

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 10 of 36
26. Plaintiff PEN America includes members who themselves hold White House press credentials, and many others who work for seventeen organizations that hold White House press credentials. These members, in some cases individually and otherwise through their employers, have been direct targets of Defendant Trump’s threats and retaliatory acts to punish their own and their employers’ speech.
27. Plaintiff’s members work for a wide variety of media entities, including organizations whose mission is to gather and report the news. In addition to the organizations identified above, Plaintiff’s members work for the following organizations, among others: the Associated Press, The New York Times, The Atlantic, Daily Beast, Los Angeles Times, Politico, The Boston Globe, and The Guardian. Plaintiff’s members write about, report on, and produce media content related to American government and politics. Plaintiff’s members produce, and plan to produce in the future, work that is held to the highest standards of accuracy, but that is often critical of the actions of politicians and governments, including the President and his Administration. This reporting informs the public about the workings of the government, promotes government transparency and enables the public to hold their representatives accountable. Plaintiff’s members also rely on information produced by journalists, news analysts, and opinion contributors who work for CNN, the Washington Post, NBC, and journalists who hold White House press credentials, to do their work.
28. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the United States, a position in which he has served since January 20, 2017.
FACTS A. President Trump’s Unconstitutional Acts
29. As President, Defendant Trump exercises authority over the Executive Branch, controlling agencies’ actions through Executive Orders and the Appointments Clause. President
10

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 11 of 36
Trump has repeatedly threatened to use, and has used, government power to retaliate against media companies, journalists, and their sources for the content of their commentary and coverage. Defendant Trump has taken action to disrupt White House press access by disfavored reporters, ordered the revocation of security clearances held by critics of his Administration, ordered an increase in postal rates as punishment for critical coverage by the Washington Post, directed a merger review in retaliation for news coverage by CNN, and threatened to revoke broadcast licenses held by television stations owned by or affiliated with the NBC network.
Actions to Limit the Access of White House Reporters 30. Defendant Trump and members of the Administration under his direction have acted to selectively deny disfavored journalists access to information from the White House. 31. The Defendant’s practice of denying press access based on reporters’ perceived viewpoints dates back to his presidential campaign. Prior to the election, on August 25, 2015, Defendant Trump had Jorge Ramos, Univision’s lead anchor, removed from a press conference after Ramos tried to ask Defendant Trump a question about immigration policy. During the campaign, Defendant Trump also barred reporters from several news organizations, including the Washington Post, from obtaining press credentials at rallies, news conferences, and other events. 32. Once in office, Defendant Trump threatened journalists whose coverage or questioning he perceived as unfavorable with revocation of their access to official Administration and White House events. 33. On information and belief, Defendant Trump repeatedly directed White House staff to ban reporters critical of his Administration from covering official events or to revoke press credentials. This included reporters from the Washington Post, CNN, and NBC News. Defendant specifically told his staff to consider blacklisting Jim Acosta of CNN, a PEN member,
11

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 12 of 36
and April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks in retaliation for their coverage of which he disapproves.
34. On February 24, 2017, Defendant Trump’s then-White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer held an off-camera question-and-answer session before only an “expanded pool” of journalists in Spicer’s office rather than on camera in the press briefing room. The White House denied requests for access to the session from The New York Times, Politico, CNN, The Guardian, BBC, and others, based on Defendant Trump’s disapproval of their coverage.
35. On December 12, 2017, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told PEN member Jim Acosta that she would block him from future access if he attempted to ask the President questions during a bill signing that day.
36. On May 9, 2018, Defendant Trump threatened to revoke the credentials of all reporters whose coverage he finds negative, tweeting “The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?”
37. On July 25, 2018, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Communications Director Bill Shine barred CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins from a Rose Garden press event because Collins had earlier asked the President questions that the White House deemed “inappropriate.” One purpose of this action was to send a message to other reporters that they too might be barred from events or have their credentials revoked if they produced coverage critical of the President or his Administration.
38. On November 7, 2018, CNN reporter and PEN member Jim Acosta asked a series of questions of President Trump concerning a migrant caravan that was then moving toward the U.S.-Mexico border. Defendant Trump responded by telling Acosta “you should let me run the
12

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 13 of 36
country . . . and if you did . . . , your ratings would be much better.” When Acosta attempted to ask a follow-up question, the President called him “a rude, terrible person” and said he “shouldn’t be working for CNN.” Later that day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced that the White House had suspended “the hard pass of the reporter involved until further notice.”
39. A so-called “hard pass” gives the holder access to designated areas for journalists in the White House, on Air Force One, and in other locations. This credential is necessary for members of the White House press corps to do their work.
40. The White House attempted to justify revocation of Acosta’s press credential by falsely accusing Acosta of “plac[ing] his hands” on a White House intern who tried to take the microphone from him and because of a breach of decorum. However, an undoctored video of the event contradicted this justification. Subsequently, the White House revised its justification to be that Acosta failed “to treat the White House with respect.”
41. On November 9, 2018, Defendant Trump threatened to revoke the credentials of other journalists who failed to show him “respect.” While doing so, Defendant Trump singled out April Ryan, White House correspondent for the American Urban Radio Networks, calling her “a loser” who “doesn’t know what the hell she is doing.” On information and belief, Ryan subsequently received threats of physical harm and hate mail, and felt compelled to hire a personal bodyguard.
42. On November 13, 2018, CNN and Jim Acosta sued Defendant Trump, Sanders, Shine, then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, and others, alleging that the revocation of Acosta’s pass was content-based suppression of speech in violation of the First Amendment, and that the revocation violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
13

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 14 of 36
43. On November 16, 2018, Judge Timothy Kelly issued a preliminary injunction restoring Acosta’s pass on the grounds that CNN and Acosta were likely to prevail on at least their due process claim and that they were suffering irreparable harm from the loss of Acosta’s White House access. Judge Kelly did not reach the First Amendment claim.
44. On November 19, 2018, the White House restored Acosta’s press credentials, and CNN and Acosta dismissed their lawsuit.
45. Also on November 19, 2018, Press Secretary Sanders informed the White House press corps that Acosta’s hard pass had been restored, but that “[w]e have also notified him of certain rules that will govern White House press conferences going forward.” The email listed the following rules:
1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;
2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;
3) “Yielding the floor” includes, when applicable, physically surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner;
4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)–(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass.
46. The White House expressly acknowledged it implemented these restrictions because of “behavior Mr. Acosta displayed at the November 7, 2018 press conference” and “the position taken by CNN.”
47. The November 19, 2018 email from Press Secretary Sanders added that “a more elaborate and comprehensive set of rules might need to be devised . . . for journalist conduct in the open (non-press room) areas inside and outside the White House and for Air Force One.” It added that such restrictions could be adopted “[i]f unprofessional behavior occurs in those settings, or if a court should decide that explicit rules are required to regulate conduct there.”
14

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 15 of 36
48. These rules are a pretext for future content-based restrictions on the speech of journalists who seek to cover the White House and a limitation on the ability of listeners to hear that speech. They place all members of the White House press corps at greater risk of retaliation, including Plaintiff’s members who hold White House credentials, and chill the speech of those journalists.
Revocation of Security Clearances 49. On July 23, 2018, White House Press Secretary Sanders announced that Defendant Trump was considering stripping six former national security officials of their security clearances, citing the officials’ public commentary regarding the Russia investigation. These six officials included former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden. 50. Former top government officials traditionally retain security clearances after leaving office so they can advise their successors and continue to assist the government. Clearances are typically revoked for cause—for example, due to security concerns such as financial distress, alcoholism, or mishandling of classified information. The issuing agency, not the President, traditionally initiates the process for revoking a security clearance—a process that usually involves memoranda explaining why the clearance is being withdrawn and sometimes an opportunity for appealing the revocation. 51. Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and Hayden are frequent contributors to the press whose commentary and contributions are sources of information for Plaintiff’s members, and each had publicly criticized Defendant Trump’s actions prior to Sanders’ announcement.
15

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 16 of 36
52. Brennan served as a contributor to MSNBC and had repeatedly challenged Defendant Trump’s actions in office both on television and via Twitter. In particular, his comments concerned alleged collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election. Clapper joined CNN as a contributor in mid-2017, and vocally challenged Trump’s actions on numerous occasions. Comey, McCabe, and Hayden had all likewise criticized Defendant Trump’s Administration in the press or on social media.
53. On August 15, 2018, Defendant Trump acted on his threat to revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director and MSNBC contributor John Brennan because of Brennan’s critical speech. Defendant Trump’s action against Brennan appears to be the first time in history that a U.S. president has ever issued or revoked a security clearance outside of the established process or for reasons other than security concerns.
54. The revocation of Brennan’s security clearance was purely retaliatory. As a result of Defendant Trump’s retaliatory act against Brennan, Plaintiff’s members and other contributors to the press—particularly those who hold security clearances—have an actual and well-founded fear that Defendant Trump may retaliate against them for speech that he dislikes.
Executive Order to Raise Postal Rates 55. Defendant Trump has repeatedly threatened to use the U.S. Postal Service (“Postal Service”) and its rate structure to retaliate against Jeff Bezos, who is chief shareholder and CEO of the online retailer Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), whose business model is dependent upon reasonable shipping rates, and also the owner of the Washington Post (also referred to herein as “the Post”), a frequent target of the President’s wrath. 56. From the beginning of his campaign for President, Defendant Trump repeatedly attacked the Washington Post for its coverage, calling it biased, fictitious, and “a disgrace to journalism.” In a 2016 interview, he called the Post “a political instrument” that was writing
16

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 17 of 36
“bad” and “wrong” stories “with no proper information,” and accused its reporters of writing a “false” book about him. He routinely has called the Washington Post “fake news” and personally attacked its writers.
57. Since taking office Defendant Trump has frequently denounced the accuracy of the Post’s reporting when it published unflattering stories about his Administration. On April 8, 2018, for example, after the Post ran a story about John Kelly’s frustrations as Chief of Staff, Defendant Trump tweeted: “The Washington Post is far more fiction than fact. Story after story is made up garbage - more like a poorly written novel than good reporting. Always quoting sources (not names), many of which do not exist. Story on John Kelly isn’t true, just another hit job!”
58. By the end of 2018, Defendant Trump and John Kelly were no longer on speaking terms, and Kelly had resigned as White House Chief of Staff.
59. Defendant Trump acted on his displeasure at the Post’s coverage by directly threatening the newspaper’s owner Bezos through his main asset, Amazon. During the presidential campaign, Defendant Trump repeatedly tied threatened future action against Amazon to his objections over the Post’s coverage. As Defendant Trump put it at a rally on February 26, 2016, while referring to Bezos and Amazon: “If I become president, oh do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.” On information and belief, candidate Trump intended this as a message to Bezos and Amazon shareholders that he could – and would – use his official powers to adversely affect Amazon’s tax status and subject it to antitrust enforcement.
60. In a May 12, 2016, interview, following a series of Washington Post reports that critically scrutinized Defendant Trump’s business and financial dealings, and that later culminated in two Washington Post reporters publishing a book, Trump Revealed, Defendant
17

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 18 of 36
Trump accused Bezos of “using the Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed.” He also declared that “Amazon is getting away with murder, tax-wise.”
61. During the same interview, Defendant Trump denigrated the Washington Post reporters’ then-forthcoming book, Trump Revealed, calling it “all false stuff because the stories are so wrong,” and claiming that Bezos is “worried about me” because “he’s got a huge antitrust problem because he’s controlling so much. Amazon is controlling so much of what they’re doing.”
62. Once in office, Defendant Trump continued to threaten the use of governmental power to harm Bezos and the Washington Post in retaliation for the paper’s reporting. In July 2017, Defendant Trump twice consulted billionaire investor Leon Cooperman about targeting Amazon using antitrust law. On information and belief, Defendant Trump was motivated to challenge Amazon’s status primarily by animus toward the Post for its critical coverage and his desire to use his regulatory powers to influence and shape media coverage of his Administration.
63. On June 27, 2017, the Washington Post reported that the Trump Organization had displayed fabricated copies of Time magazine depicting Donald Trump on the cover at several of its clubs. The next day, Defendant Trump tweeted, “The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE NEWS!”
64. On July 24, 2017, Defendant Trump complained on Twitter about the Washington Post’s coverage of his Syria policy, accusing the Post of “fabricat[ing] the facts.” He then posted a second tweet suggesting that the “Fake News Washington Post” was “being used as a lobbyist weapon against Congress to keep Politicians from looking into Amazon no-tax monopoly.”
18

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 19 of 36
65. On December 29, 2017, following a Washington Post story on the Administration’s internal deliberations on how to handle “worries of a tough year ahead,” and a satirical end-of-year piece entitled “Was 2017 the end of something or just the beginning?,” Defendant Trump tweeted that the Postal Service should be charging more to deliver Amazon’s packages: “Why is the United States Post Office [sic], which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer? Should be charging MUCH MORE!”
66. On information and belief, Defendant Trump has repeatedly been told by his staff that his assertions about Amazon’s adverse impact on the Postal Service are incorrect. Nevertheless, the President has continued to repeat these false claims and to advocate that higher postal rates be imposed on Amazon.
67. Defendant Trump escalated his threats of action against Amazon following unflattering reports in the Washington Post detailing the adverse negative impact on Trump’s family businesses caused by allegations involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Defendant. The President called the Post a “lobbyist” and “weapon” for Bezos, and once again threatened to raise Amazon’s shipping rates.
68. In a series of tweets between March 29 and April 3, 2018, Defendant Trump repeated the same false claims about Amazon and again threatened to raise its postal shipping rates. As a result of these threats, Amazon sustained a $60 billion decline in market value.
69. On April 12, 2018, Defendant Trump followed through on his retaliatory threats, issuing an Executive Order creating a Task Force on the United States Postal Service (the (“USPS Task Force”) and directing it to review the Postal Service’s “unsustainable financial path.” The order included several provisions directed at Amazon, including an order to review the “expansion and pricing of the package delivery market.” On information and belief,
19

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 20 of 36
President Trump had by this time repeatedly and personally directed the Postmaster General to raise Amazon’s rates.
70. Defendant Trump’s attacks on Amazon were motivated primarily by animus toward Bezos and the Washington Post arising from of unflattering news coverage of him and his Administration. An April 13, 2018, article in Vanity Fair quoted White House sources as saying that President Trump “has zero respect” for the Post and wants to “fuck with” Bezos as a result.
71. Defendant Trump continued to threaten further action against Bezos and Amazon and identified his motivation as the Washington Post’s coverage of his Administration. On July 23, 2018, immediately following Post reports that President Trump was unhappy with the progress of talks with North Korea, the President tweeted that “[t]he Amazon Washington Post has gone crazy against me ever since they lost the Internet Tax Case in the U.S. Supreme Court,” referring to South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018). He then renewed his threats to take antitrust action against Amazon and to raise its postal delivery rates. President Trump tweeted, “Next up is the U.S. Post Office [sic] which they use, at a fraction of real cost, as their ‘delivery boy’ for a BIG percentage of their packages. . . . In my opinion the Washington Post is nothing more than an expensive (the paper loses a fortune) lobbyist for Amazon. Is it used as protection against antitrust claims which many feel should be brought?”
72. On October 11, 2018, the Postal Service announced proposed rate increases, including a proposed twelve-percent increase for the Parcel Select service used by Amazon. This action by the Postal Service would not have been taken but for the President’s clearly expressed desire to punish Amazon for the reporting of the Washington Post.
73. On December 4, 2018, the USPS Task Force recommended increases in rates for “purely commercial use of package delivery services” and “mail products that are not deemed an
20

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 21 of 36
essential service,” which could encompass the majority of Amazon’s deliveries through the Postal Service. The USPS would not have reviewed package rates that impact Amazon’s business but for Defendant’s expressed intent to punish Amazon for the reporting of the Washington Post.
DOJ Enforcement Actions and Threatened Regulation 74. Defendant Trump has repeatedly threatened Department of Justice (“DOJ”) antitrust enforcement actions against media companies he views as critical of him, taking particular aim at CNN. 75. Defendant Trump has frequently expressed animus toward CNN for the content of its reporting. He has attacked CNN on Twitter, in speeches, interviews, and press conferences, calling it “fake news” and “garbage,” and has refused to answer questions from CNN reporters during press conferences, calling its coverage “terrible.” 76. On information and belief, President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met with CNN leadership in early 2017 and demanded that “20 percent of its staff” be fired for their coverage of the 2016 election. 77. Defendant Trump has threatened specific regulatory actions targeting CNN. During the 2016 campaign, Defendant Trump said that once he gained control of the DOJ he planned to block a proposed merger between Time Warner, CNN’s parent company, and AT&T, and made clear his retaliatory motive for doing so. On October 22, 2016, at a rally in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, he denounced the AT&T–Time Warner merger, telling his audience that CNN was part of the media “power structure” trying to suppress his votes. “AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN,” Defendant Trump said, declaring it “a deal we will not approve in my administration.”
21

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 22 of 36
78. Once in office, Defendant Trump followed through on this threat. On information and belief, during the pendency of the AT&T–Time Warner merger review process, advisers to President Trump discussed using the merger approval application as a potential point of leverage over CNN. DOJ demanded the sale of CNN as a condition of its approval of the merger, leading a source close to the merger process to state that “[t]his has become political . . . . It’s all about CNN.”
79. On November 20, 2017, the Antitrust Division filed a lawsuit to block the Time Warner–AT&T merger. On information and belief, the asserted antitrust theories the government advanced were pretextual. Because AT&T and Time-Warner are not content competitors, their proposed merger was a “vertical” merger, a form of merger that federal government regulators have not sought to block since the Nixon Administration.
80. Makan Delrahim, the head of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, had publicly stated before joining the Trump Administration that he saw no problem with the Time Warner–AT&T merger, noting it was a typical “vertical merger” and saying: “I think it’ll get a lot of attention, but I don’t see this as a major antitrust problem.” After working in the White House Counsel’s Office with President Trump, however, and upon taking charge of the Antitrust Division, Delrahim authorized the lawsuit to block the merger.
81. On June 12, 2018, Judge Richard Leon rejected the antitrust claims and approved the AT&T-Time Warner merger without conditions. The District Court’s decision is currently on appeal before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
82. Defendant Trump’s threats to use the DOJ to influence the flow of information to the public are not limited to CNN. On August 28, 2018, he complained, via Twitter, that:
Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair
22

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 23 of 36
Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of . . . results on ‘Trump News’ are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!
83. Within hours of President Trump’s tweet, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow announced that the Trump Administration is “taking a look” at imposing regulations on Google.
84. On September 5, 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced his intention to convene a meeting of Republican state attorneys general to discuss a possible federal investigation of whether Google, Facebook, and other social media companies are limiting the flow of speech and violating antitrust laws.
85. On September 22, 2018, the White House leaked a draft Executive Order that would instruct federal law enforcement and antitrust agencies to open investigations into social media companies. On information and belief, this leak was intended to, and did, have a negative market impact on these companies. The information was leaked as a “warning shot” to intimidate the companies named because of the information they transmit.
86. Members of PEN America are employed by companies that were targets of this “warning shot.” Plaintiff’s membership includes employees of CNN, Google, Facebook, and other companies that have been adversely affected by Defendant Trump’s retaliatory acts. Defendant’s actions were intended to chill the content created by Plaintiff’s members and have had the intended effect.
Threats to Revoke Broadcast Licenses 87. Defendant Trump has also threatened to revoke the broadcast licenses of media entities that he views as critics in an attempt to punish and suppress their lawful speech and reporting activities.
23

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 24 of 36
88. On October 11, 2017, the President lashed out at NBC on Twitter for its reporting on statements the President made about nuclear weapons at a Pentagon meeting. “Fake @NBCNews made up a story that I wanted a “tenfold” increase in our U.S. nuclear arsenal. Pure fiction, made up to demean. NBC = CNN!”
89. Minutes later, Defendant Trump followed that tweet with another threatening broadcast licenses of television stations owned and operated by NBC. “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!”
90. The same day, Defendant Trump broadened his threat to more outlets: “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!”
91. On December 16, 2018, Defendant Trump criticized NBC again on Twitter, claiming the network’s coverage and programming is illegal: “A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion?”
92. Members of PEN America are employed by NBC. B. The Harm to Plaintiff’s Members from Defendant Trump’s Unconstitutional Acts
Harm to Plaintiff’s Members’ Right to Speak and Cover the News 93. Defendant Trump’s retaliatory directives and credible threats to use government power to punish CNN, the Washington Post, NBC, and White House correspondents for the content of their coverage have inflicted financial and reputational harm on those news organizations, and created the future threat of retaliation for their ongoing coverage of the Defendant and his Administration. These retaliatory acts and threats have adversely affected
24

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 25 of 36
Plaintiff’s members who work for CNN, the Washington Post, NBC, and those who hold or work for entities that hold White House press credentials.
94. Plaintiff’s members who work for other news organizations or otherwise write about the Defendant and his Administration have also been affected. Defendant Trump’s retaliatory directives and threats to use government power against his critics improperly seek to suppress speech and influence the content of news reporting. Defendant’s use of government power to punish his media critics creates an atmosphere in which all journalists must work under the threat of government retaliation. This environment, underscored by Defendant Trump’s campaign of intimidation against critical reporting, casts a chill on speech that – even if braved and overcome by diligent and courageous reporters – has reshaped the environment in which our media operates and constitutes an ongoing First Amendment violation.
95. Plaintiff’s members are aware that Defendant Trump has directed his ire towards countless journalists and media outlets and have acted in accordance with their reasonable belief that he could do the same to them.
96. A research firm surveyed Plaintiff’s members and found that 1 percent had been fired or laid off because of the Defendant’s actions; 2 percent had been demoted, replaced, or denied an assignment because of the Defendant’s actions; 4 percent had been asked to make changes to a piece because their editor or publisher wanted to avoid controversy arising from Defendant’s reaction; 31 percent had “avoided posting, writing, or speaking on a particular topic due to concern about personal or professional repercussions” that would result from Defendant’s retaliatory acts; and 52 percent of respondents believed public criticism of the current Administration might put them at risk.
97. Many of the reporters and outlets that have been the direct targets of Defendant Trump’s retaliatory actions are, or work for, sizable companies. Such large companies have
25

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 26 of 36
significant resources with which to defend themselves and can afford to assert their First Amendment rights, but such entities also provide the Defendant with more opportunities for using regulatory measures as a form of retaliation. All media outlets and journalists covering the White House and this Administration must factor in the President’s threats and acts of retaliation against critical coverage as they do their work. All are aware that a prominent article, novel critique or new relevation may provoke reprisals from the President. Smaller outlets, independent media, freelancers, or other more vulnerable populations of writers—many of whom are Plaintiff’s members or employ Plaintiff’s members—do not have the same resources and are particularly vulnerable to Defendant’s retaliatory actions and threats.
98. Defendant’s retaliatory actions are sufficient to cause journalists and news organizations of reasonable firmness, including Plaintiff’s members, to alter their coverage of this Administration.
Harm to Plaintiff’s Members’ Right to Receive Speech 99. Plaintiff’s members are also listeners and recipients of speech, both from other members, as well as from news sources and commentators and other media organizations. Such speech communicates “social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences,” Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969), that informs reporting by Plaintiff’s members and facilitates discussion and debate about matters of public interest. 100. Defendant Trump’s retaliatory actions and threats directed at the Washington Post, Amazon, Time Warner, CNN, NBC, security clearance holders, the White House press corps, and other news organizations and journalists, are designed to unduly influence the content and tenor of news reporting on the President and his Administration, and to control public discussion. Journalists at CNN, the Washington Post, NBC, and other organizations targeted by the Defendant are willing speakers whose ability to provide news coverage unaffected by
26

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 27 of 36
government retaliation and threats has been harmed by Defendant’s actions. Plaintiff’s members rely on uncensored and independent coverage from news outlets that is free from governmentimposed chill in their own work, and on a media environment free from governmental efforts to deter critical coverage through retaliation.
101. Defendant Trump’s retaliatory uses of government power, and his ongoing threats to use such power, harm Plaintiff’s members by jeopardizing their access to information and commentary about the Administration. Plaintiff’s members are thereby deprived of their right to receive speech by Defendant’s actions.
C. Harm to Plaintiff’s Organization from Defendant’s Unconstitutional Acts Direct Harm to Plaintiff as an Organization
102. Defendant Trump’s retaliatory directives and credible threats to punish journalists and media companies for the content of their speech have caused a perceptible impairment of Plaintiff’s organizational activities, forcing Plaintiff to divert monetary and non-monetary resources in response, and impeding Plaintiff from fully carrying out other facets of its mission.
103. Plaintiff’s primary mission is to defend the liberties that make creative expression possible. Its work consists of long-term advocacy on behalf of individual writers who are being punished because of their work both internationally and in the United States.
104. Defendant’s illegal acts have forced Plaintiff to divert resources previously directed to advocating for free expression overseas to responding to Defendant’s First Amendment violations.
105. Immediately following the 2016 election, Plaintiff’s Board of Directors determined that members of the media who covered Defendant Trump in a way he perceived to be critical would likely be targeted for punishment by the government at the Defendant’s
27

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 28 of 36
direction. This conclusion was based on Defendant’s credible threats during his campaign to use government power to punish media critics once he became President.
106. Plaintiff has expended capital and resources in response to Defendant Trump’s retaliatory directives and threats to harm journalists and media companies. Plaintiff hired a fulltime Senior Director of Free Expression Programs, a significant percentage of whose work is devoted to defending the American free press against the Defendant’s retaliatory actions. Plaintiff also hired a First Amendment Attorney to serve as Director of U.S. Free Expression Programs to focus on defending the American press against the Defendant’s actions. In doing so, Plaintiff created two positions with full or partial responsibility of focusing on the threats Defendant Trump poses to journalists and their free expression, expending several hundred thousand dollars in organizational funds.
107. As a result of the Defendant’s retaliatory directives and credible threats to media organizations and journalists, Plaintiff established and staffed, for the first time, a Washington, D.C. office with a significant expenditure of organizational funds. Plaintiff did so to enhance its ability to be in close proximity to the nation’s capital to defend the freedom of the American press against the Defendant’s actions.
108. Responding to Defendant’s threats and retaliatiory acts have absorbed a large percentage of Plantiff’s staff’s time, particularly for the CEO, Senior Director of Free Expression Programs, Washington Director, Deputy Director of Free Expression Policy & Research, Communications Director, External Relations Manager, Online Editor, and Social Media Manager.
109. At substantial expense, Plaintiff commissioned a research firm to survey Plaintiff’s members in order to monitor the impact of Defendant’s retaliatory directives and threats to suppress media criticism on its members.
28

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 29 of 36
110. Directly in response to Defendant’s threats and retaliatiory acts against members of the press, Plaintiff has held large events and protests, initiated widely circulated petitions, released detailed research reports, and published a number of blog posts, articles, and statements.
111. Plaintiff has been forced to divert organizational resources away from other mission-critical activities to counter Defendant’s retaliatory directives and credible threats against journalists. Before Defendant’s election, U.S.-focused advocacy represented a smaller percentage of Plaintiff’s free expression work. Under the Trump Administration it has essentially come to equal, and at times exceed, Plaintiff’s internationally-focused activities. Initiatives undertaken by Plaintiff in response to actions of the Defendant and his Administration include: (1) creation and publication of a daily email newsletter highlighting developmens in free expression, launched in November 2016; (2) organization of “Writers Resist,” a major public protest and march to “defend free expression, reject hatred, and uphold truth in the face of lies and misinformation,” held on January 15, 2017; (3) launch of “Trump the Truth Timeline,” a running tally of incidents in the categories of “Attacks on the Truth,” “Undermining the Press,” “Intolerance of Dissenting Viewpoints,” “Government Transparency,” and “Other Infringements on Free Expression” by members of the Administration, which ran from January 20, 2017 through January 22, 2018; (4) release of a report entitled “Trump the Truth: Free Expression in the President’s First 100 Days,” published April 27, 2017, which analyzed areas of serious concern under President Trump based on the “Trump the Truth Timeline”; and (5) publication of more than two dozen press statements, op-eds, and commentary pieces throughout 2017 and 2018 on the free expression effects of President Trump and his Administration.
Harm to Plaintiff’s Organizational Right to Receive Speech 112. While Plaintiff’s mission is to defend press freedom as a constitutional right, Plaintiff’s advocacy work and much of its research and analysis relies heavily on the quality
29

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 30 of 36
reporting by others. It is critical that Plaintiff have access to credible information on which to base its arguments and actions. This information comes primarily from the work of trustworthy, professional media outlets, including those subject to the Defendant’s retaliatory acts.
113. Defendant has attempted to hamper the news Plaintiff receives by excluding, and threatening to exclude, media outlets and journalists from White House briefings based on viewpoint. White House correspondents are restricted in their ability to ask questions and face expulsion if they fail to show the Defendant sufficient “respect.” Former government officials who serve as news commentators have had security clearances revoked or threatened because they criticized the Administration. Plaintiff and its members are adversely affected when government retaliation and threats by the Defendant reduce the flow of information.
114. Defendant has likewise attempted to dampen the content or tenor of the news by issuing retaliatory directives and threats to punish CNN, the Washington Post, and NBC. Journalists at CNN, the Washington Post, NBC, and other organizations targeted by the Defendant, are willing speakers whose ability to provide news coverage unaffected by government retaliation and threats has been harmed by Defendant’s actions. Plaintiff is thereby deprived of its right to receive speech by Defendant’s actions.
FIRST CLAIM Violation of the First Amendment—Retaliation for Critical Reporting
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief) 115. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 116. The First Amendment prohibits government officials from punishing disfavored journalists and media entities in retaliation for their speech. “[T]he law is settled that as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions.” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006).
30

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 31 of 36
117. The President has taken actions to retaliate against specific news organizations and journalists whose content and viewpoints he dislikes. Retaliatory actions taken under the Defendant’s direction include:
(a) restricting access and threatening to revoke credentials for members of the White House press corps for asking critical questions;
(b) revoking and threatening to revoke security clearances held by former government officials who have criticized the current Administration as news commentators;
(c) ordering an increase in postal rates to punish the owner of the Washington Post for news coverage critical of the current Administration;
(d) using antitrust enforcement actions to punish CNN for coverage critical of the current Administration; and
(e) threatening to rescind broadcast licenses for coverage critical of the current Administration.
118. Defendant Trump has taken action to intimidate writers, journalists, and media outlets to deter criticism of him or his Administration.
119. Defendant Trump intends the writers, journalists, and media outlets he has attacked, and all other journalists, to conform their coverage to what he would consider “fair.”
120. Defendant Trump has openly described the retaliatory purpose underlying his actions targeting press organizations in public statements, speeches at rallies, and in myriad tweets. Where the President’s own words and actions reveal a manifest intent to intimidate and punish the press, it is the government’s burden to show its actions were not for a retaliatory purpose. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283–84 (1977).
121. Defendant Trump’s retaliatory actions violate the First Amendment because they are content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and cast a chill on reasonable persons of ordinary firmness intended to deter them from engaging in speech critical of the President.
122. Defendant Trump’s retaliatory actions toward news organizations and journalists are subject to strict scrutiny. No legitimate compelling government interest justifies Defendant’s
31

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 32 of 36
retaliatory actions and they are not the least restrictive means of achieving any legitimate governmental objective.
123. Plaintiff’s members work for or with the news organizations that Defendant has subjected to retaliatory acts. As a result of Defendant’s unconstitutional actions, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s members have suffered and continue to suffer harm caused by the President’s deliberate efforts to chill protected speech, which warrants immediate relief.
SECOND CLAIM Violation of the First Amendment—Retaliatory Threats
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief) 124. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 125. Any public official “who tries to shut down an avenue of expression of ideas and opinions through ‘actual or threatened imposition of government power or sanction’ is violating the First Amendment.” Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229, 230 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Am. Family Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 114, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 64–72 (1963). 126. Restrictions on the press that are accomplished by threat of official retaliation are considered to be informal prior restraints. Informal prior restraints are far more destructive of constitutional rights than formal procedures because they are entirely beyond the rule of law, affording no substantive or procedural protections whatsoever. The Supreme Court has explained that when censorship is achieved by intimidating threats of governmental action. “[t]here is no provision whatever for judicial superintendence before notices issue or even for judicial review,” and censorship turns on officials’ discretionary “determinations of objectionableness” with “no safeguards whatever against the suppression of . . . constitutionally protected[] matter.” Bantam Books, Inc., 372 U.S. at 70–71.
32

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 33 of 36
127. Informal censorship undermines essentially all substantive First Amendment protections, including the government’s obligation to prove its actions burdening speech serve a compelling interest using the least restrictive means possible, United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000), and the requirement that speech restrictions be narrowlytailored and precisely defined, see, e.g., Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 874–79 (1997). Similarly, it is antithetical to First Amendment doctrine for a government official to abuse his discretion and target or seek to eliminate particular speech based on his distaste for the speech. See City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 770 (1988).
128. Defendant’s constant, credible threats to use the powers of his office to punish disfavored news organizations and his penchant for singling out individual reporters for abuse has had a chilling effect on the press. The fact that the Defendant has been willing to act on such threats magnifies their censorial impact.
129. Defendant Trump does not intend his threats to invoke government regulatory powers against journalists and media entities to be empty, hollow threats. Defendant Trump expects the officers implementing policy in his Administration to carry out his will.
130. As a result of Defendant’s unconstitutional threats, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s members have suffered and continue to suffer harm caused by the President’s deliberate efforts to chill protected speech, which warrants immediate relief.
THIRD CLAIM Violation of the First Amendment—Right to Receive Information
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief) 131. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 132. The First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas. It prohibits the government from arbitrarily or vindictively limiting the stock of information from
33

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 34 of 36
which members of the public may draw. The public, including Plaintiff PEN America’s members and PEN America as an organization, has a right to receive information from press and media organizations free from undue government interference.
133. Defendant Trump unlawfully violated the First Amendment by using and threatening to use the power and machinery of the federal government to punish and intimidate various news organizations, including the Washington Post and Amazon, CNN and Time Warner, NBC, the White House press corps, and other entities, publishers, writers, and commentators who cover the President and his Administration.
134. Defendant Trump’s credible threats and retaliatory actions violate Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s members’ First Amendment rights. Those unlawful actions are content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech intended to unduly affect the content and tenor of the news and to orchestrate public discussion. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s members rely on each of the sources threatened or punished by the President to receive information. The President’s unconstitutional actions violate the right of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s members to receive information from those sources free from undue government influence.
135. Defendant Trump’s retaliatory actions toward news organizations and journalists are subject to strict scrutiny. No legitimate compelling government interest justifies Defendant’s retaliatory actions and they are not the least restrictive means of achieving any legitimate governmental objective.
136. As a result of Defendant’s unconstitutional actions, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s members have suffered and continue to suffer harm, which warrants immediate relief.
34

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 35 of 36

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff requests that this Court: 1. Enter judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) declaring that Defendant Donald J. Trump violated the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when he used Presidential powers or the power of the federal government to retaliate against or otherwise constrain speech critical of him or his Administration. 2. Enjoin Defendant Donald J. Trump from directing or ordering any officer, employee, agency, or other agent or instrumentality of the United States government to take any official action against any person or entity for the purpose of retaliating against, intimidating, or otherwise constraining speech critical of him or his Administration. 3. Award Plaintiff its costs, including attorneys’ fees, and enter such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: February 6, 2019
Robert Corn-Revere (RC-0359) Ronald G. London (RL-8734) Chelsea T. Kelly DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-4200 BobCornRevere@dwt.com RonnieLondon@dwt.com ChelseaKelly@dwt.com

Respectfully submitted,
THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC., MEDIA FREEDOM & INFORMATION ACCESS CLINIC, AND DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
By: /s/ Kristy Parker___________________ Kristy Parker (pro hac vice) THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue., NW, #163 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 849-9307 Facsimile: (929) 777-8428 kristy.parker@protectdemocracy.org

35

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 36 of 36

David A. Schulz (DS-3180) MEDIA FREEDOM AND INFORMATION ACCESS CLINIC FLOYD ABRAMS INSTITUTE FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Yale Law School1 1675 Broadway, 19th Floor New York, NY 10019-5820 Tel: (212) 850-6103 Fax: (212) 223-1942 david.schulz@yale.edu
John Langford (JL-2367) Francesca Procaccini Catherine Martinez, law student intern George Wang, law student intern Wendy Serra, law student intern MEDIA FREEDOM AND INFORMATION
ACCESS CLINIC FLOYD ABRAMS INSTITUTE FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Yale Law School P.O. Box 208215 New Haven, CT 06520 Telephone: (203) 436-5831 Facsimile: (203) 432-3034 john.langford@yale.edu

Ian Bassin (IB-2417) THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. 222 Broadway, 19th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (202) 599-0466 ian.bassin@protectdemocracy.org
Laurence M. Schwartztol (LS-1978) Justin Florence (pro hac vice pending) THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. 10 Ware Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (202) 599-0466 larry.schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org justin.florence@protectdemocracy.org
Steven A. Hirsch (SH-8188), consultant with THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. (SH-8188) 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 676-2286 sahirsch2@gmail.com
Counsel for Plaintiff

1 This amended complaint has been prepared in part by a clinic associated with the Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression and the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, but does not purport to present the school’s institutional views, if any.
36

 
 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------X

:

PEN AMERICAN CENTER, INC.,

:

Plaintiff, :

:

-against-

:

:

DONALD J. TRUMP,

:

Defendant. :

:

-------------------------------------------------------------X

18 Civ. 9433 (LGS) OPINION & ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:

Plaintiff Pen American Center, Inc. (“PEN America”) seeks a declaratory judgment and

injunctive relief against Defendant, President Donald J. Trump, for his alleged suppression of

media free speech. Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”)

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff lacks

standing, the Complaint fails to state a claim and the Court lacks the authority to enjoin

Defendant. For the reasons below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically,

claims for declaratory relief, based on Defendant’s practices of (i) revoking or threatening to

revoke White House press credentials and (ii) revoking or threatening to revoke national security

clearances, may proceed. Injunctive relief is improper. For all other allegations, Plaintiff lacks

standing.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from the Complaint and accepted as true for purposes of

this motion only. See Hu v. City of New York, 927 F.3d 81, 88 (2d Cir 2019).

PEN America is a nonprofit association of writers, literary and media professionals,

which defends the free speech rights of journalists in the United States and abroad. Among other

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 24
things, it “monitors the government’s interactions with writers and journalists and produces informational content related to its advocacy work.” Its advocacy and research depend “heavily on the quality reporting” in the press. PEN America members include journalists for the Washington Post, Cable News Network (“CNN”) and National Broadcasting Company (“NBC”), who report on Defendant’s Administration -- for example, Jim Acosta of CNN.
The Complaint alleges that, since assuming office, Defendant has engaged in a “campaign of intimidation against critical reporting.” Defendant has used “the power and authority of the United States government” “to take retaliatory actions and [make] credible public threats” against reporters who are critical of his Administration. Defendant’s motivation is to punish and chill critical press, and he has succeeded in doing so. According to a survey of PEN America members, thirty-one percent have avoided publishing on certain topics due to concern that Defendant will retaliate against them. One percent have been fired or laid off and two percent demoted, replaced or denied an assignment as a result of Defendant’s actions, and four percent have been asked to revise a piece before publication out of concern about Defendant’s reaction. Fifty-two percent believe public criticism of his Administration would put them at risk.
The Complaint alleges five sets of retaliatory acts and threats by Defendant against critical press: (i) his revocation or threats to revoke the White House press credentials of the White House press corps, or otherwise barring their access to press conferences, (ii) revocation or threats to revoke government officials’ security clearances, due to the officials’ critical commentary about Defendant in the press, (iii) threats to revoke television stations’ broadcast licenses, (iv) issuance of an executive order directing the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) to consider raising postal rates, which would impact Amazon.com’s (“Amazon’s”) shipping
2

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 3 of 24
costs, and in turn, Jeff Bezos, the main shareholder of both Amazon and the Washington Post, and (v) a directive to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to challenge the Time Warner-AT&T merger, out of hostility toward Time Warner’s subsidiary CNN, and other regulatory and investigatory threats aimed at internet companies. These actions, according to the Complaint, have chilled the speech of reporters and contributors to the press, who fear that Defendant will retaliate against them for any critical positions they take on Defendant.
A. Barring Access to the White House Press Corps Defendant has repeatedly barred the access of the White House press corps to press conferences and the White House entirely, after members speak or report critically about Defendant. The press corps are reporters stationed at the White House who cover the President and his Administration. To report from the White House, Air Force One and other locations where the President and his staff meet with the press, press corps members must have White House press credentials. On February 24, 2017, the White House Press Secretary (“Press Secretary”) held an offcamera session in his office, allowing only a select group of reporters to attend, and denying access to CNN, The New York Times, Politico, The Guardian and the British Broadcasting Corporation (“BBC”). On July 25, 2018, the Press Secretary barred a CNN reporter from a White House press event, after Defendant deemed an earlier question the reporter had asked “inappropriate.” In November 2018, Defendant threatened to revoke the press credentials of reporters who failed to show him “respect.” On the social media platform Twitter, Defendant has posed rhetorically whether to “[t]ake away credentials” of “Network News” because its coverage of the Administration is “negative (Fake).” Defendant has specifically targeted PEN America member and CNN White House press
3

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 4 of 24
corps reporter, Jim Acosta. On December 12, 2017, the Press Secretary told Mr. Acosta that he would be banned from future White House press sessions if he posed questions during a particular session. Later, at a different press session, Mr. Acosta asked the President critical questions about the Administration’s U.S.-Mexico border activity, leading Defendant to call Mr. Acosta a “rude, terrible person” who “shouldn’t be working for CNN.” The Press Secretary subsequently stripped Mr. Acosta’s press credentials on November 7, 2018. The White House falsely claimed it did so because Mr. Acosta had breached decorum and placed his hands on a White House intern who had tried to take away a microphone. Six days later, on November 13, 2018, Mr. Acosta obtained a preliminary injunction against Defendant and White House staff, which temporarily restored his press credentials. On November 19, 2018, the parties the lawsuit, and Mr. Acosta has maintained his press credentials since.
On the day of the settlement, the Press Secretary e-mailed the entire White House press corps, outlining rules of conduct. If “unprofessional behavior occurs” or if “a court should decide that explicit rules are required to regulate [the] conduct” of the press corps in the White House or Air Force One, the White House would adopt further rules. The e-mail expressly stated the rules of conduct were a response to the “behavior Mr. Acosta displayed at the November 7, 2018 press conference” and the “position taken by CNN.”
B. Revocation of Security Clearances Defendant has threatened to revoke or has revoked the security clearances of former government officials who comment critically about Defendant in the press. Security clearances are typically stripped only for cause by the federal agency that originally issued the clearance. Former officials maintain security clearances to continue advising successors and assisting the federal government as needed.
4

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 5 of 24
On July 23, 2018, the Press Secretary announced that Defendant was considering revoking the security clearances of six former high-level national security officials, citing their critical commentary about Defendant in the press. Shortly before the announcement, four of the officials had spoken to the press, in their capacity as regular media contributors. On August 15, 2018, Defendant revoked the clearance of one official, former Central Intelligence Agency Director and MSNBC contributor John Brennan.
C. Threats to Revoke Broadcast Licenses On Twitter, Defendant has questioned whether to challenge or revoke the broadcast licenses of networks whose reporting he dislikes. On October 11, 2017, Defendant tweeted: “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!” Later that day, he tweeted that the networks’ “licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked.” On December 16, 2018, Defendant suggested that NBC and other networks’ coverage “[s]hould be tested in courts,” because the networks “[o]nly defame & belittle! Collusion?” D. Postal Rates Executive Order Defendant allegedly retaliated against the Washington Post through the publication’s owner, Jeff Bezos, and Mr. Bezos’ e-commerce company, Amazon. On April 12, 2018, Defendant issued an executive order, directing the USPS to examine its “unsustainable financial path” and to consider raising the “pricing of the package delivery market.” The USPS’ proposals for new shipping rates, published in October and December 2018, risked increasing Amazon’s delivery costs significantly. For over a year before the executive order, Defendant was hostile toward the Washington Post, Amazon and Mr. Bezos, all of which he associates. Defendant’s tweets use the moniker
5

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 6 of 24
“Amazon Washington Post” or “#AmazonWashingtonPost.” After critical reporting by the Washington Post, Defendant called the newspaper a “lobbyist” and “weapon” for Mr. Bezos, and threatened to raise Amazon’s shipping rates. His tweets in March and April 2018 again threatened to raise postal rates. The Complaint alleges that, but for Defendant’s “expressed intent to punish” the Washington Post, he would not have issued the April 2018 USPS executive order.
E. DOJ Challenge to Time Warner-AT&T Merger Defendant regularly disparages CNN as “fake news” on social media and in public appearances. In retaliation for CNN’s critical coverage, Defendant allegedly directed the DOJ to block a proposed vertical merger between AT&T and Time Warner, the parent of CNN. Defendant and his advisers discussed in 2017 how a lawsuit could create leverage over CNN. In November 2017, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit against the merger, even though the DOJ had not brought a challenge to vertical mergers in decades. The DOJ lost at trial in June 2018. The Complaint alleges that the DOJ lawsuit is one instance in a pattern by Defendant of threatening companies he disfavors with federal regulation or investigation. In August 2018, Defendant directed a White House economic advisor to consider regulating Google, after Defendant tweeted that Google’s search engine disproportionately steered users to negative press about the Administration. Defendant also directed law enforcement, antitrust regulators and the Attorney General to look into investigating social media companies, allegedly “to influence the flow of information to the public” about Defendant and the Administration, on the companies’ platforms.
6

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 7 of 24
II. LEGAL STANDARDS “A district court properly dismisses an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction if the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it,” including when a “plaintiff lacks constitutional standing to bring the action.” Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms., S.A.R.L., 790 F.3d 411, 416–17 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted). “The plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that it has standing.” Id. at 417 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47, 56 (2d Cir. 2016). “[A]t the pleading stage, all facts averred by the plaintiffs must be taken as true for purposes of the standing inquiry.” Lerman v. Bd. of Elections in City of New York, 232 F.3d 135, 142 (2d Cir. 2000); accord Vullo v. Office of Comptroller of Currency, 378 F. Supp. 3d 271, 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“In evaluating a plaintiffs showing of standing, a court must accept as true all material facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.”) Whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction is resolved first before the sufficiency of the Complaint is considered. See Carver v. Nassau Cty. Interim Fin. Auth., 730 F.3d 150, 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Normally, in cases involving the issue of Article III subject matter jurisdiction, this issue would have to be addressed first.”).
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “all factual allegations in the
7

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 8 of 24
complaint are accepted as true and all inferences are drawn in the plaintiff’s favor.” Littlejohn v. City of N.Y., 795 F.3d 297, 306 (2d Cir. 2015). III. DISCUSSION
A. Standing Plaintiff has constitutional standing to pursue First Amendment claims against Defendant’s practice of (i) selectively barring access to the White House press corps, including by revoking or threatening to revoke press credentials, due to hostility to the reporters’ speech (the “Press Corps Claim”), and (ii) revoking or threatening to revoke the security clearances of former government officials whose commentary he dislikes (the “Security Clearance Claim”). As explained below, Plaintiff does not have standing to challenge Defendant’s alleged threats to revoke broadcast licenses, the executive order on postal rates, the directive to challenge the AT&T-Time Warner merger or regulatory threats against internet companies. “No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies” under Article III. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (quoting Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997)). The doctrine of standing enforces this limitation by identifying the “category of litigants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal court to seek redress for a legal wrong.” Id.; see Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (A plaintiff must “‘allege[] such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction.”) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99 (1975)). To establish standing, a plaintiff must plead: “(1) ‘an injury in fact’ to ‘a legally protected interest’ that is both ‘(a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical,’ (2) ‘a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
8

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 9 of 24
complained of,’ and (3) that it is ‘likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.’” Crupar-Weinmann v. Paris Baguette Am., Inc., 861 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61). Where, as here, Plaintiff is an entity, standing may be established either (i) directly, based on an injury to the entity itself, i.e. organizational standing, or (ii) in the organization’s representative capacity, based on the injuries to its members, i.e. associational standing. See Warth, 422 U.S at 511; Fair Hous. Justice Ctr., Inc. v. Cuomo, No. 18 Civ. 3196, 2019 WL 4805550, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019). Plaintiff argues that it has standing under both theories.
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s standing with respect to each set of retaliatory acts or threats must be addressed separately. Plaintiff argues, to the contrary, that it is challenging Defendant’s “ongoing informal policy of threatening and retaliating against the press through a variety of regulatory tools.” See Opp’n Br., Dkt. No. 48, at 2. Therefore, the relevant question for standing, according to Plaintiff, is whether this overall policy has injured Plaintiff, not whether each set of challenged actions has. The challenged actions are merely illustrative of the overall policy. This argument is unpersuasive. “[S]tanding is not dispensed with in gross. . . . Nor does a plaintiff who has been subject to injurious conduct of one kind possess by virtue of that injury the necessary stake in litigating conduct of another kind, although similar, to which he has not been subject.” See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 358 n.6 (1996) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted); accord Kiryas Joel All. v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 495 F. App’x 183, 189 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). The Complaint does not allege the operation of a single policy, but rather Defendant’s “variety of retaliatory acts,” listing each one separately by bullet point. The acts are moreover distinct, because they employ different modes of regulation against different groups of people or entities -- i.e. the press credentials of journalists, security clearances
9

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 10 of 24
of government officials, the merger of two private corporations, an executive order to the postal service and threatened regulation of internet companies. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s standing to challenge each of these government actions is discussed in turn.
1. Associational Standing Plaintiff has associational standing with respect to the Press Corps Claim, but not the other challenged conduct. To establish associational standing, a plaintiff must allege that: “(a) [an organization’s] members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); accord Am. Psychiatric Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 821 F.3d 352, 362 (2d Cir. 2016). Unless “all the members of an organization are affected by the challenged activity,” Plaintiff must name at least one of its “affected members” to establish associational standing at the pleading stage. Summers, 555 U.S. at 498-99; see Equal Vote Am. Corp. v. Cong., 397 F. Supp. 3d 503, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); Art & Antique Dealers League of Am., Inc. v. Seggos, No. 18 Civ. 2504, 2019 WL 416330, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2019) (A “plaintiff asserting associational standing must make specific allegations establishing that at least one identified member had suffered or would suffer harm . . . . [An organization’s mere] assertion that there is a probability that some of those members are threatened with concrete injury will not suffice.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Defendant challenges two elements of associational standing -- the first and third prongs of the Hunt test, including the Summers naming requirement.
a) Press Corps Claim Plaintiff has satisfied the two disputed elements for associational standing: the Complaint
10

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 11 of 24
pleads that at least one named member has individual standing and that no individual members are required to participate in the Press Corps Claim. Because the Complaint does not allege that the challenged conduct has affected all PEN America members-- in fact, it alleges the opposite -Plaintiff is required to identify at least one affected member by name.1
Regarding the naming requirement, the Complaint has named Mr. Acosta, who satisfies the three-pronged test for individual standing. Defendant’s retaliatory actions and threats have injured Mr. Acosta in two ways: (i) Mr. Acosta’s own speech has been chilled, and (ii) Mr. Acosta’s right to receive the speech of his press corps colleagues has been impeded, because their speech has been chilled. These are classic First Amendment injuries. See Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1972) (stating that, although claims of a “subjective chill” are insufficient, “a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm” to a speaker, with the effect of chilling speech, is sufficient for First Amendment standing); accord Davis v New York State Bd. of Elections, 689 Fed. App’x 665, 669 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order); see also Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 75657 (1976) (“[W]here a speaker exists,” the First Amendment “necessarily protects the right to receive” the speech) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Kass v. City of New York, 864 F.3d 200, 207 (2d Cir. 2017).
The Complaint alleges that Mr. Acosta and the press corps have suffered an “objective harm [and] a threat of a specific future harm,” Laird, 408 U.S. at 13-14, and that Mr. Acosta’s
1 Plaintiff relies on Bldg. & Const. Trades Council of Buffalo, New York & Vicinity v. Downtown Dev., Inc., 448 F.3d 138, 144-45 (2d Cir. 2006), to argue that Plaintiff need not name an injured member at the pleading stage for associational standing. This Court follows the later directive of the Supreme Court in Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 498-99 (2009), which provides the opposite.
11

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 12 of 24
resulting speech and receipt-of-information injuries are concrete, actual and particularized. Defendant has made an example of Mr. Acosta, by stripping his press credentials after he asked Defendant critical questions about the Administration, barring Mr. Acosta from the venue necessary to perform his job and directing the Press Secretary to warn other reporters that they would face similar consequences as Mr. Acosta. See Nat’l Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. Walsh, 714 F.3d 682, 689 (2d Cir. 2013) (“A plaintiff must allege something more than an abstract, subjective fear that his rights are chilled . . . but a real and imminent fear of such chilling is enough” based on the objective circumstances); Bordell v. Gen. Elec. Co., 922 F.2d 1057, 1061 (2d Cir. 1991) (a chilling injury is established through “objective evidence” that “challenged conduct has deterred [a speaker] from engaging in protected activity”). The allegations furthermore suggest that Defendant punished Mr. Acosta publicly in order to chill his speech and the press corps’. In demonstrating that Defendant would in fact punish reporters who spoke critically, Defendant made his threats of future punishment more credible, and consequently, effective. The speech injuries are furthermore particular to Mr. Acosta. As a member of the press corps, and as a reporter specially targeted by Defendant, Mr. Acosta is uniquely vulnerable to Defendant’s threats. He also has a unique interest in hearing the questions and discussion of his press corps colleagues with Defendant, which facilitate Mr. Acosta’s own reporting.2
The allegations also establish a causal connection between the injuries and the challenged
2 Defendant argues, to the contrary, that Mr. Acosta has no injury-in-fact because his press credentials were restored in November 2018. But this argument misunderstands the nature of the asserted injuries. Although loss of credentials may be injurious, Plaintiff has alleged instead that “speech [itself] has been adversely affected,” i.e. the injury of an ongoing chilling of speech and corollary ongoing interference with receipt of information. See Dorsett v. Cty. of Nassau, 732 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Plaintiff has standing if he can show either that his speech has been adversely affected by the government retaliation or that he has suffered some other concrete harm,” like loss of credentials.)
12

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 13 of 24
conduct. It is plain that the injuries trace to Defendant’s actions. A favorable ruling furthermore will likely redress the practice. The Complaint explicitly pleads, quoting from the Press Secretary’s e-mail, that Defendant and his staff are ready to heed a court decision on proper rules of conduct for governing the White House press corps.
Second, individual PEN America members need not participate in the Press Corps Claim, therefore satisfying the other disputed element of associational standing. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory ruling, and if appropriate, an injunction, against Defendant’s practice of banning the press corps for speech critical of Defendant and his Administration. The requested relief targets the practice overall, rather than redresses the harm to particular PEN America members. No individualized proof as to the fact and extent of injury is required. “[W]here the organization seeks a purely legal ruling” or an injunction “without requesting that the federal court award individualized relief to its member, the Hunt test may be satisfied.” See Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., 361 F.3d 696, 714 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Warth, 422 U.S. at 515-16).
b) Remaining Claims Plaintiff does not have associational standing for the other allegations -- Defendant’s revocation of security clearances, threats to revoke broadcast licenses, the postal rates executive order or the challenge to the AT&T-Time Warner merger and regulatory threats to internet companies -- because the Complaint does not identify any PEN America member who has standing to bring these claims. The only member named period is Mr. Acosta. But Mr. Acosta does not have a sufficient “personal stake” in these allegations to confer standing. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493. Mr. Acosta is many steps removed from each of the challenged actions, and any purported injury to him is far too speculative. See Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398,
13

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 14 of 24
410 (2013) (A “theory of standing, which relies on a highly attenuated chain of possibilities,” fails to establish that the “injury must be certainly impending”); accord Robinson v. Sessions, 721 F. App’x 20, 24 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order). Defendant’s remarks about revoking broadcast licenses are Twitter vitriol, posed as questions (“Collusion?” “At what point is it appropriate to challenge their License?”), and refer vaguely to “the Networks,” not to CNN where Mr. Acosta works. The injury to Mr. Acosta due to the AT&T-Time Warner antitrust lawsuit is similarly speculative, because the lawsuit targets only CNN’s parent. Likewise, the postal rates executive order, security clearance revocations and regulatory threats to Google and social media companies have no direct bearing on Mr. Acosta.
To the extent Plaintiff argues that Mr. Acosta has experienced a receipt-of-information injury because these challenged actions have chilled media speech generally, the Complaint fails to plead how this injury is particularized to Mr. Acosta. Even assuming the actions did chill media speech, Mr. Acosta is similarly situated to all journalists and the public at large, in being deprived of this speech. See Warth, 422 U.S. at 499 (“[W]hen the asserted harm is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.”); accord Kerven v. United States, No. 19 Civ. 722, 2020 WL 628748, at *1 (2d Cir. Feb. 11, 2020) (summary order). In any case, the Complaint fails to plead how these challenged actions -- except the security clearance allegations discussed below -- objectively chilled media speech.
2. Direct Organizational Standing Plaintiff has direct organizational standing to bring the Press Corps Claim and the Security Clearance Claim, but not the remaining claims. An organization has “standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself,” Warth, 422 U.S. at 511, where the
14

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 15 of 24
organization “meet[s] the same standing test that applies to individuals,” i.e. the organization has an injury-in-fact fairly traceable to a defendant’s conduct and likely redressable by a favorable court decision. New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286, 294 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Make the Rd. New York v. Cuccinelli, No. 19 Civ. 7993, 2019 WL 5484638, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2019). Plaintiff advances two theories of direct injury: that Defendant’s actions have injured (i) its “organizational right to receive speech” and (ii) have forced Plaintiff to divert money away from its core activities. Only the first theory is successful as to the Press Corps Claim and Security Clearance Claim.
a) Receipt-of-Information Injury An organization’s right to receive information is impaired when it is unable to hear from a speaker who is willing to speak, but who has been obstructed by government action. See Virginia, 425 U.S. at 756-57 (1976) (“[W]here a speaker exists,” the First Amendment “necessarily protects the right to receive” the speech of an organizational plaintiff) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Kass v. City of New York, 864 F.3d 200, 207 (2d Cir. 2017); Student Members of Same v. Rumsfeld, 321 F. Supp. 2d 388, 395 (D. Conn. 2004) (“To demonstrate an injury to their First Amendment rights sufficient to confer jurisdiction, [the organization] must demonstrate that, but for the challenged order, [the speaker] is willing to share information prohibited by the [challenged] order.”) “This right is an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech and press,” because it both “follows ineluctably from the sender’s First Amendment right to send” speech and is a “necessary predicate to the recipient’s meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom.” Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 867 (1982).
15

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 16 of 24
With respect to the Security Clearance Claim, Plaintiff has a receipt-of-information injury
because Defendant’s actions plausibly chilled the speech of the six government officials named
in the Complaint. After four of these officials spoke critically about Defendant in the media, the
Press Secretary announced that Defendant was considering revoking the six officials’ security
clearances, expressly citing their media commentary. Defendant ultimately revoked the security
clearance of one official, an allegedly unprecedented action by a President. The officials are
otherwise frequent and willing speakers in the media. The Complaint has plausibly alleged
therefore that Defendant’s retaliation and threats of further retaliation against these officials have
objectively chilled the volume or quality of their media speech. Plaintiff’s right to receive the
speech has in turn been impaired.3
Plaintiff’s injury is particularized. See Spokeo Inc., 136 S.Ct. at 1548 (For an injury to be
particularized, “it must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.”); United States v.
3 Defendant argues that the Complaint does not allege an injury because it “has not identified any specific source from which its receipt of information has actually been disrupted” or that “any particular speaker has actually been chilled.” But as discussed, the Complaint identifies the six government officials whose security clearances are under threat. It explains why the clearances are valuable and necessary for their continued service as government advisors. It also explains that these officials are willing speakers. Therefore, Defendant’s threats to revoke their security clearances present an objective harm and threat of future harm -- specifically, to the officials’ professions and reputation -- which plausibly impede their free speech. See Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 473, 475 (1987) (finding speech injury to public official where a regulation created a “Hobson’s choice of foregoing . . . exposition of [the official’s] own views or suffering an injury to his reputation” and his ability to “practice his profession”); accord Davis, 689 F. App’x at 669. A speech injury occurs when the free flow of speech is impeded, and does not require complete elimination of speech. See Bordell, 922 F.2d at 1061 (a chilling injury is shown through “objective evidence” that “challenged conduct has deterred” speech). However, Defendant is correct that Plaintiff does not plead a receipt-of-information injury as to the hypothetical speech of “Plaintiff’s members and other contributors to the press—particularly those who hold security clearances [other than the identified government officials].” This allegation is too speculative, concerns a vague class of unidentified individuals, and fails to explain how Defendant’s targeting particular officials has injured these individuals.
16

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 17 of 24
Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 179-80 (1974) (The plaintiff “must have a personal stake in the outcome” and must assert “something more than generalized grievances.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff is an organization that, among other things, engages in advocacy for freedom of the press, monitors the government’s impact on the press, and publishes research and analysis on these issues. Plaintiff’s sources of information include these former government officials, who provide unique and expert insight on the Administration. Loss of these official’s speech is therefore not a generalized grievance and affects Plaintiff’s operations directly. See Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541, 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 563) (holding that a free speech rights nonprofit suffered a particularized receipt-of-information injury when President Trump blocked Twitter users and impeded the flow of online conversations, which the nonprofit otherwise followed), aff’d, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019), reh’g en banc denied, No. 18 Civ. 1691 (2d Cir. March 23, 2020). This injury is indisputably traceable to Defendant’s actions. The allegations that Defendant and his staff will be responsive to court orders suggest that a favorable ruling would deter Defendant from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against the officials’ speech.
Similarly, Plaintiff has organizational standing as to the Press Corps Claim. Defendant’s actions have plausibly chilled the White House press corps’ speech, the questions they ask Defendant and the reporting they consequently are able to publish. The chilling impedes Plaintiff’s right to receive information. Since PEN America monitors how government interacts with press, and its own members are in the White House press corps, Plaintiff has a particular interest in receiving and monitoring this speech. As discussed in Section III.A.1, the injury traces to Defendant’s actions and is redressable by a favorable court order.
Plaintiff has failed to assert a receipt-of-information injury as to the remaining claims. 17

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 18 of 24
The chain of causation linking (1) the challenged actions, (2) the injury to media speech and (3) the injury to Plaintiff’s right to receive the speech is too speculative. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 410. Regarding broadcast licenses, the Complaint fails to allege how Defendant’s three tweets, questioning whether he can revoke broadcast licenses of “the Networks,” has objectively chilled media speech. Likewise, Defendant’s directives regarding USPS postal rates, the AT&TTime Warner antitrust lawsuit and the regulation of internet companies impact the press even more tenuously. That a proposal of higher postal rates may affect Amazon, which in turn may affect Mr. Bezos, which in turn may affect the Washington Post, and then finally the news Plaintiff receives is too hypothetical. Similarly, the Complaint does not allege how a highly technical antitrust trial affects the speech of one of the parties’ subsidiaries, CNN. Nor is it clear how Defendant’s frustration toward a search engine and social media platforms, on which users share news stories, would impact the content of the news stories or Plaintiff’s ability to seek out news stories itself. Although the Complaint presents survey results from Plaintiff’s members showing that Defendant has deterred some of the members’ reporting, the results are not specifically connected to the challenged actions here.
b) Diversion-of-Resources Injury Plaintiff’s main theory of direct injury -- that it has been injured because Defendant has “forced [Plaintiff] to divert significant resources previously dedicated to advocating for expression overseas to responding to Defendant’s actions at home” -- is unpersuasive for all remaining claims. An organization is injured when there is a “perceptible impairment of [the] organization’s activities” due to the challenged conduct, see Nnebe v. Daus, 644 F.3d 147, 157 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 (1982)), but the injury must be “far more than simply a setback to the organization’s abstract social interests.” Havens
18

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 19 of 24
Realty Corp., 455 U.S. at 379 (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739 (1972)). The impairment may come in the form of an organization being “force[d to] divert money from its other current activities to advance its established organizational interests” or where an organization has to spend “money to combat activity that harms its organization’s [sic] core activities.” Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay, 868 F.3d 104, 110-11 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s argument fails because Defendant’s challenged activities have not impeded Plaintiff’s core activities, but have refocused and perhaps enlarged them.
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff has increased spending on domestic advocacy, including by establishing a Washington, D.C. office, commissioning a study, publishing frequent reports and organizing events to protest Defendant’s impact on free speech and press. But the principle in Havens Realty and cases following is that an organization is injured if it has been forced to spend money addressing roadblocks to its “core activities.” See Centro, 868 F.3d at 111. PEN America’s “primary mission” and “bedrock work” are to “defend the liberties that make creative expression possible,” “both internationally and in the United States” (emphasis added). Accordingly, a core activity of PEN America is to advocate for and monitor the free speech rights of journalists in the United States, not just abroad. Its increased domestic expenditures are not a diversion of money away from its core activities, but actually constitute the core activities. Simply because Plaintiff may have adjusted the relative amounts of money it spends on domestic and international core activities does not establish an injury. See Make the Rd. New York, 2019 WL 5484638, at *4 (“Courts have distinguished between cases where a defendant’s conduct forced a plaintiff to divert its resources and provide new services, therefore giving rise to organizational standing, and cases where a plaintiff was already providing the
19

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 20 of 24
services at issue and therefore failed to allege any injury.”) (collecting cases). B. Sufficiency of Claims The Complaint plausibly states the Press Corps Claim and Security Clearance Claim.
Plaintiff pursues each claim under two First Amendment theories: the bar against government threats that chill free speech and the bar against retaliatory government acts that punish speech. Both theories are viable.
Regarding unconstitutional threats, “[w]here the comments of a government official can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request, a valid claim can be stated.” Hammerhead Enters., Inc. v. Brezenoff, 707 F.2d 33, 39 (2d Cir. 1983); accord Lynch v. Ackley, 811 F.3d 569, 581 (2d Cir. 2016). “A public-official defendant who threatens to employ coercive state power to stifle protected speech violates a plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, regardless of whether the threatened punishment comes in the form of the use (or, misuse) of the defendant’s direct regulatory or decisionmaking authority over the plaintiff, or in some lessdirect form.” Okwedy v. Molinari, 333 F.3d 339, 344 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam); accord Richardson v. Pratcher, 48 F. Supp. 3d 651, 669 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Regarding the separate theory of First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) he has a right protected by the First Amendment; (2) the defendant’s actions were motivated or substantially caused by his exercise of that right; and (3) the defendant’s actions caused him some injury.” Dorsett v. Cty. of Nassau, 732 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 2013); accord Komatsu v. City of New York, No. 18 Civ. 3698, 2019 WL 4805904, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019).
The Complaint adequately pleads the Press Corps Claim. It alleges that Defendant unconstitutionally threatened the White House press corps by warning reporters that they would
20

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 21 of 24
be ousted from press conferences or have their press credentials revoked, if they spoke out in a way Defendant disfavored. The threats are lent credence by the fact that Defendant has acted on them before, by revoking Mr. Acosta’s credentials and barring reporters from particular press conferences. The Press Secretary indeed e-mailed the entire press corps to inform them of new rules of conduct and to warn of further consequences, citing the incident involving Mr. Acosta. The Complaint furthermore alleges that Defendant has decision-making authority to undertake these actions. As a result of the conduct, Plaintiff’s own member’s, Mr. Acosta’s, speech rights have been injured. Plaintiff has also suffered an injury to its right to receive information from the press corps.
The Press Corps Claim is also viable as a First Amendment retaliation claim. The Complaint alleges that Defendant revoked Mr. Acosta’s credentials only after a tense exchange, where Mr. Acosta asked Defendant critical questions and Defendant stated that Mr. Acosta was “rude” and should not work for CNN. The Press Secretary’s e-mail expressly stated that rules were being adopted, and other consequences might follow, due to the exchange. These facts plausibly allege that a motivation for Defendant’s actions is controlling and punishing speech he dislikes. The actions both injured Mr. Acosta’s speech rights and Plaintiff’s right to receive the press corps’ speech.
The Security Clearance Claim is also sufficiently pleaded. Defendant’s announcement that he would review the security clearances of six former government officials followed after some officials spoke critically about Defendant in the press. Defendant undoubtedly has authority to revoke the clearances. Defendant has plausibly threatened that, should the officials continue to provide critical commentary in the press, their security clearances would be jeopardized and revoked. Indeed, Defendant has already revoked Mr. Brennan’s security
21

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 22 of 24
clearance, lending credence to the threat. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered an injury to its right to receive the six officials’ speech.
Similarly, Defendant’s conduct gives rise to a retaliation claim. Defendant only began considering whether to revoke the security clearances after several officials spoke out critically about him. These allegations evince that Defendant’s motivation was to punish the officials’ past speech and to deter the officials’ media speech going forward. The Complaint plausibly alleges Plaintiff’s consequent receipt-of-information injury.
C. Injunctive Relief The surviving claims may only proceed as claims for declaratory, and not injunctive, relief. See 28 U.S.C. 2201(a) (a court “may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought,” provided there is “a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction”); Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ., 928 F.3d at 233-34 & 233 n.3 (affirming entry of a declaratory judgment against President Trump for a First Amendment violation). A “District Court’s grant of injunctive relief against the President himself is extraordinary and should . . . raise[] judicial eyebrows.” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 802 (1992). It is settled precedent that courts generally have “no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties,” although the Supreme Court has narrowly “left open the question whether the President might be subject to a judicial injunction requiring the performance of a purely ‘ministerial’ duty.” Id. (quoting Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475, 498–99, 18 L.Ed. 437 (1867)); accord Citizens for Responsibitliy and Ethics in Washington, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 19 Civ. 1333, 2020 WL 619959, at *9 (D.D.C. Feb. 10, 2020) (“While the question of whether the Court has the power to compel the President to perform a purely ministerial duty
22

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 23 of 24
may remain unsettled, the law is clear that the Court cannot issue such relief to require performance of official duties that are not ministerial.”) (internal citation omitted); Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ., 302 F. Supp. 3d at 578. A President’s actions are “ministerial” when “nothing is left to discretion.” Napolitano v. Flynn, 949 F.2d 617, 622 (2d Cir. 1991); accord Knight, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 578. By contrast, a President’s actions “are discretionary when the official exercises professional judgment in performing the actions.” Napolitano, 949 F.2d at 622.
Any injunction concerning the Press Corps Claim or Security Clearance Claim implicates Defendant’s discretionary responsibilities, and is therefore improper. The President has significant discretion over White House press credentials and reporters’ access to the White House and Air Force One. Indeed, the Complaint expressly alleges that Defendant has authority to adopt rules of conduct and to revoke press credentials where appropriate. Similarly, a President has broad discretion over national security issues, including the security clearances of current and former executive officials. See, e.g., Cafeteria & Rest. Workers Union, Local 473, AFL-CIO v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 896 (1961) (the executive branch, through military officials, has “unfettered control” over revocation of a security clearances in order to “manage the internal operation of an important federal military establishment”); see also Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 581 (2004) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (The Supreme Court “has long recognized” that the “President has constitutional authority to protect the national security and that this authority carries with it broad discretion”). Issuing an injunction to the President would impede his discretionary authority in these realms, and more generally, risk improper judicial encroachment on the executive branch. The remaining claims will proceed as claims for declaratory relief only, and the application for injunctive relief is denied.
23

Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 76 Filed 03/24/20 Page 24 of 24 IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion to dismiss for failure to state of claim is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. Nos. 45 and 67. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 24, 2020 New York, New York
24