(as to Donor No. 1’s claims)    For the First Amendment claim, Donor No. 1 proposes to certify a  class of all United States citizens who made anonymous donations to the Free Barrett  Brown campaign.    For the Stored Communications Act claim, Donor No. 1 proposes to  certify a class of all United States citizens who made donations to the Free Barrett Brown  campaign.    For the California constitutional right to privacy claim, Donor No. 1  proposes to certify a class of all California citizens who made anonymous donations to the  Free Barret Brown campaign.    Excluded from the classes are: Ms. Heath and Agent Smith, and each  of their agents and legal representatives.  Also excluded are the judge and staff to whom  this case is assigned, and the judge’s immediate family.    Donor No. 1 incorporates each of the allegations set forth above into  this claim for relief.    Defendants acted under color of law by serving the WePay Subpoena.   The WePay Subpoena’s bald assertion that the information it requested would be used at  Mr. Brown’s trial, without any indication or evidence of a connection to the crimes Mr.  Brown was charged with, demonstrates the complete lack of relevance of the information  requested.  The WePay Subpoena’s true purpose was to gather information regarding the  donors.  When WePay produced documents in response, the violation was complete.   Because Defendants had no cause to suspect wrongdoing by the donors, and thus could not  otherwise obtain information about the donors legally, they used the trial of Mr. Brown,  and the WePay Subpoena, as an illegal work-around.    The donations were acts of political expression, showing the donors’  frustrations with what they perceived to be government bullying and prosecutorial  overreach.  Donations made in support of litigation are protected by the First Amendment.   The donors violated no law by sending money to support Mr. Brown’s legal defense, and  instead were exercising their constitutionally protected rights.  Thus, Defendants’  surveillance of the donors was unlawful.    Plaintiffs incorporate each of the allegations set forth above into this  claim for relief.    The Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) provides that government  entities must obtain a warrant to compel the disclosure of the contents of electronic  communications that are less than 180 days old from electronic communication service  providers.  18 U.S.C. § 2703(a).      Government entities may require the disclosure of contents of  electronic communications that are more than 180 days old with a subpoena only if prior  notice is given to the customer or subscriber.  18 U.S.C. § 2703(b).    An “electronic communication” is “any transfer of signs, signals,  writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part  by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system that affects  interstate or foreign commerce[.]”  18 U.S.C. § 2510(12).    The “contents” of “electronic communications” include “any  information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.”  18   The surveillance program also violated Donor No. 1’s right of privacy  set out in Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution.  Donor No. 1 brings this claim  on behalf of a subclass of donors who are California citizens.  If discovery demonstrates  that donors from other states with constitutional privacy protections were ensnared in  Defendants’ surveillance program, Donor No. 1 will seek leave to amend his complaint to  bring claims on their behalf as well.  States with applicable constitutional privacy  protections include, without limitation, Alaska (Art. I, § 22), Arizona (Art. II, § 8), Florida  (Art. I, § 23), Hawaii (Art. I, § 6), Illinois (Art. I, §6), Louisiana (Art. I, § 5), Montana  (Art. II, § 10), South Carolina (Art. I, § 10), and Washington (Art. I, § 7).   A.  Declaring that the conduct alleged above violated the California  constitutional right to privacy;   B.  Awarding Donor No. 1 and the subclass damages according to proof at trial;   C.  Awarding Donor No. 1 the costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees,  associated with bringing this action; and  D.  Any other relief the Court deems proper.  A.  Declaring that the conduct alleged above violated the First Amendment  rights of Donor No. 1 and the class;  B.  Directing the FBI, DOJ, and other agencies or entities that received donors’  private, sensitive information to destroy such information;  C.  Enjoining Defendants from engaging in similar unlawful surveillance in the  future;   D.  Awarding Donor No. 1 the costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees,  associated with bringing this action; and  E.  Any other relief the Court deems proper.  OF THE UNITED STATES  CONSTITUTION; THE STORED  COMMUNICATIONS ACT; AND THE  RIGHT TO SPEAK AND ASSOCIATE ANONYMOUSLY  (Donor No. 1 and the Class Against Defendants Heath and Smith)   THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT  (Kevin Gallagher, Donor No. 1, and the Class Against the United States)   UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION  (Donor No. 1 And Subclass Against All Defendants)  