Sen. Whitehouse Makes the Case Against Russ Vought's Nomination to Lead OMB
by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Feb 5, 2025
Senator Whitehouse and Senate Democrats hold up the Senate Floor to oppose Russ Vought's disgraceful nomination.
Transcript
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: WELL, WE'RE IN INTERESTING TIMES, MR. PRESIDENT. AND WE'RE BEGINNING TO SEE THE
CORPORATE AND BILLIONAIRE TAKEOVER OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. AND IN THAT CORPORATE AND
BILLIONAIRE TAKEOVER OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THE
NOMINEE RUSS VOUGHT TO RUN OMB HAS A KEY ROLE.
AND THAT KEY ROLE TO DO THE WORK FOR THE BILLIONAIRES AND THE BIG
CORPORATIONS IS WHAT MAKES HIM UNFIT AND DANGEROUS AND WHAT
COMPELS US TO COME TO THE FLOOR TONIGHT TO WARN THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE OF WHAT THIS GUY WILL DO AND WHO HE IS.
LET'S START WITH A LITTLE HISTORY. THIS IS THE GUY WHO VIOLATED THE
IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT BY WITHHOLDING 214 MILLION
APPROPRIATED DOLLARS FROM THE SOLDIERS F AND DYING IN
THE TRENCHES OF UKRAINE AGAINST
PUTIN'S THUG ARMY. IT WAS THAT STUNT THAT LED TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP. THIS IS THE GUY WHO CAUSED LIVES
TO BE LOST IN THOSE UKRAINIAN TRENCHES BY WITHHOLDING FUNDING
THEY NEEDED DESPERATELY, WITHHOLDING THE FUNDING THEY DESPERATELY NEEDED ILLEGALLY AND
WITHHOLDING THAT DESPERATELY NEEDED FUNDING ILLEGALLY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT A SCHEME BY
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE UKRAINIANS TO GIVE HIM DIRT ON HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.
THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY OF WHERE THIS GUY WILL GO.
THE OMB IS THE NERVE CENTER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND TO
HAVE SOMEONE THERE OF THAT CHARACTER IS DANGEROUS.
VOUGHT IS ALSO LAWLESS. THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT THAT HE VIOLATED, THE GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE SAID THIS. FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT THE PRESIDENT TO
SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN POLICY PRIORITIES FOR THOSE THAT CONGRESS HAS ENACTED INTO LAW.
HE VIOLATED THAT AND THEY SPECIFICALLY FIND THEREFORE WE
CONCLUDE THAT OMB VIOLATED THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT.
IS HE RE-PENTANT ABOUT THAT NOW
THAT THE ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICES THAT CALLED IT OUT AS BEING ILLEGAL. NEVER MIND THE UKRAINIAN LIVES
HE CAUSED TO BE LOST. NO. HE CONTINUES TO SAY THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN THOUGH NO COURT HAS EVER SAID SO. HE WAS PRESSED ON THIS QUESTION
IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. IN ANSWERING THE APPROPRIATIONS
RANKING MEMBER SENATOR MURRAY'S QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, HE SAID, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS STATED THAT
THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I AGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S
POSITION. AGAIN, NO COURT HAS SAID THIS.
HE SAID, IF I AM CONFIRMED AS THE DIRECTOR OF OMB, I WILL
FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND ULTIMATELY THE PRESIDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT.
PAY ATTENTION. I WILL FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND ULTIMATELY THE
PRESIDENT. NOT I WILL FOLLOW THE LAW. NOT I WILL FOLLOW COURT DECISIONS THAT SAY WHAT THE LAW
IS. NO. I WILL FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND ULTIMATELY THE
PRESIDENT. SO LET'S JUST HAVE A QUICK LOOK AT WHO HIS LEGAL COUNSEL IS.
PEOPLE MAY REMEMBER THIS. THIS IS A PAINTING THAT WAS
COMMISSIONED BY THIS GUY, THE BILLIONAIRE HARLAND CROW.
AS YOU MAY REMEMBER THE BILLIONAIRE HARLAND CROW HAS BEEN FUNDING THE LIFESTYLE OF
THE NEXT PERSON OVER, JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SECRET
GI GIFTS TO THE THOMAS FAMILY.
AND THE NEXT GUY OVER IN THE
PAYMENTSING -- BY THE WAY, IF YOU SAW KRISTI NOEM SWORN IN BY JUSTICE THOMAS, HE HAS A PICTURE
OF THIS RIGHT BEHIND THEM. HE'S SO PLEASED WITH IT THAT HE'S GOT HIS OWN VERSION OF IT.
HIM WITH HIS BILLIONAIRE SUGAR DADDY AND WITH MARK PAOLETTA.
THIS IS THE GUY WHO IS GOING TO BE THE LEGAL COUNSELS WHO ADVICE
VOUGHT IS GOING TO LISTEN TO. THIS GUY IS NECK DEEP IN THE
BILLIONAIRE COURT CAPTURE SCHEME. OF COURSE HIS ADVICE IS GOING TO BE WHAT THE BILLIONAIRES SAY.
THE NEXT GUY OVER IS LEONARD LEO, THE COURT FIXER.
THIS IS BASICALLY A PANORAMA OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT. THE BILLIONAIRE WHO FUNDS IT, THE JUSTICE WHO SECRETLY ACCEPTS
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BILLIONAIRE GIFTS, THE GUY WHO COOKS UP THE WHOLE SCHEME AND
TRAVELS WITH JUSTICES ON THESE BILLIONAIRE-FUNDED TRIPS, AND IS
HERE AT THE BILLIONAIRES' ESTATE IN THE ADIRONDACKS WITH THEM AND
OF COURSE MARK PAOLETTA. THAT'S WHOSE ADVICE HE'S GOING TO TAKE. AGAIN, HE WAS
CAREFUL NOT TO SAY NOT THE COURTS, NOT THE LAW. THE BILLIONAIRE COURT-FIXER GUY WHO'S NOW HIS COUNSEL AND THE
PRESIDENT WHO'S ALREADY SAID HE THINKS THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS GUY ON THIS QUESTION OF THE
IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT, HE HASN'T SAID HE'S GOING TO FOLLOW THE LOU EITHER. IN FACT, HE SAID, THE
IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT IS A STUPID LAW, AND HE TWEETED AT
RUSSELL VOUGHT, IMPOUND BABY, IMPOUND. HUH, YEAH, YOU'RE GOING TO GET
SOBER, LEGAL ADVICE FROM A GUY WHO SAYS IMPOUND, BABY, IMPOUND, AND HANGS OUT WITH BILLIONAIRES WHO FUND THE CAPTURE OF THE
SUPREME COURT AS PART OF LEONARD LEO'S SCHEME. THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF HOW
THIS GUY, RUSSELL VOUGHT, IS A CREATURE OF THE FAR-RIGHT
BILLIONAIRE DARK MONEY WORLD. BEFORE HE WENT TO OMB THE FIRST
TIME, HE WORKED AS VICE PRESIDENT OF HERITAGE ACTION. WHAT IS HERITAGE ACTION?
HERITAGE ACTION IS A BILLIONAIRE-FUNDED DARK MONEY GROUP THAT ADVOCATES FOR THE
THINGS THAT DARK MONEY BILLIONAIRES WANT, AND HE FOR YEARS WORKED FOR THEM.
THEN HE WENT INTO OMB, AND I SUBMIT HE STILL WORKED FOR THEM, ALTHOUGH THEY WEREN'T PAYING HIS
PAYCHECK AT THE TIME. HE GETS BACK OUT AFTER TRUMP WON, AND HE SETS UP SOMETHING
CALLED THE CENTER FOR RENEWING AMERICA. AGAIN, A BILLIONAIRE-FUNDED DARK
MONEY ENTERPRISE WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO ADVOCATE FOR THE THINGS
THAT THE DARK MONEY BILLIONAIRES WANT. IT ALSO, BY THE WAY, TOOK CARE
OF THE REFUGEES FROM THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
THAT CREEPY CHARACTER JEFFREY CLARK, WHO WAS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND TRIED TO WANGLE
HIS WAY INTO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BY PROPOSING
THAT HE WOULD PUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INTO THE ELECTION-FIXING SCHEME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS RUNNING DOWN IN GEORGIA, THAT
GUY. WHERE DID HE LAND? RIGHT, THE CENTRALITY FOR RENEWING AMERICA.
CONSIDER THE CENTER FOR RENEUROAMERICA, COURTESY OF -- THE CENTER FOR RENEWING AMERICA.
WHO ALSO THERE?
MR. PAOLETTA?
WHO ELSE? KASH PATEL, THE GUY WHO HAS THREATENED OVER AND OVER AGAIN
TO TURN THE FBI INTO A POLITICAL WEAPON FOR DONALD TRUMP AGAINST
HIS ADVERSARIES. HE WENT SO FAR AS TO REPOST A
TWEET OF HIMSELF CHAINSAWING THE
HEADS OFF MEMBERS OF HIS ENEMIES LIST. YEAH, THIS IS THE GUY WHO PUBLISHED AN ENEMIES LIST OF WHO
HE WAS GOING TO GET IN WHAT HE CALLED A MANHUNT, A MANHUNT BEGINS NOW, HE SAYS OF HIS
ENEMIES LIST. AND TRUMP WANTS TO PUT HIM IN CHARGE OF THE FBI SO IT BECOMES
HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL WEAPON. AND KASH PATEL HAS SHOWN TIME
AFTER TIME, INSTANCE AFTER INSTANCE, HE IS ALL TOO WILLING TO DO THAT.
AND WHERE DID HE LAND? YEAH, RIGHT AT VOUGHTS'S CENTER
FOR RENEWING AMERICA. SO THIS GUY VOUGHT IS NECK DEEP
IN THE BILLIONAIRE DARK MONEY OPERATION THAT IS WORKING RIGHT
NOW TO TAKE OVER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND RUN IT ITS OWN
WAY. THE WAY IT WANTED TO DO THIS IS THROUGH THE PLAN THAT IT COOKED
UP AND PAID FOR CALLED PROJECT 2025. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST
COUPLE OF WEEKS OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, YOU SEE PROJECT 2025 PLAYING OUT AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND WHO WAS THE CENTRAL ARCHITECT OF THE
HERITAGE FOUNDATION'S PROJECT
2025? OH, YES -- RUSSELL VOUGHT. PAID FOR WITH $120 MILLION.
YOU KNOW IN RHODE ISLAND THAT'S STILL A PRETTY GOOD NUMBER. $120 MILLION FROM A COUPLE OF
RIGHT-WING BILLIONAIRE FAMILIES TO COOK UP A SCHEME TO RUN THE
GOVERNMENT AND VOUGHT BOTH WRITES IT AND NOW GOES INTO IMPLEMENT PROJECT 2025.
IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE GUY'S LAWLESSNESS FROM ANOTHER ANGLE,
HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, SO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION, FOR INSTANCE, THAT IS AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT AGENCY BECAUSE IT ADJUDICATES DISPUTES IN THE ENERGY SECTOR
AND BECAUSE IT MAKES POLICY AND HAS TO DO A NUMBER OF THINGS, BUT IT HAS TO BE INDEPENDENT TO
HAVE THIS ADJUDICATIVE FUNCTION, OR THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR THE FEDERAL RESERVE. HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THEM SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT. HE SAYS, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
IS IDENTIFY THE POCKETS OF INDEPENDENTS AND SEIZE THEM.
SEIZE THEM. FOR THE CORPORATE AND BILLIONAIRE TAKEOVER THEY WANT
TO SEIZE THE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES IN GOVERNMENT SO THAT THEY'RE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE
BIG DONORS WHO PUT THIS ADMINISTRATION IN. HE SAID SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE
FEDERAL RESERVE, IT IS VERY HARD TO SQUARE THE FED'S INDEPENDENCE
WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
EXCEPT THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS SQUARED THE FED'S INDEPENDENCE WITH THE
CONSTITUTION FOR DECADES. THE DECISIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF INDEPENDENT AGENCIES GOES BACK TO THE
HUMPHREYS EX-HE CAN COULD YOU -- EXECUTOR'S CASE.
THIS HAS BEEN PRECEDENT IN WHICH LITERALLY DOZENS OF CASES INVOLVING INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
HAVE COME BEFORE THE COURT, AND IT HAS NEVER SAID THAT IT'S HARD TO SQUARE THE INDEPENDENCE OF
AGENCIES CONGRESS HAS DEEMED TO BE INDEPENDENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
THIS IS AN ECCENTRIC AND LAWLESS
LEGAL VIEW AND THEY INTEND TO IMPOSE IT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE LAW. THERE ARE -- NUMBER ONE, HE
SAID, IS GOING AFTER THIS WHOLE NOTION OF INDEPENDENCE. THERE ARE NO INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, HE SAYS.
THE SEC, THE FCC, THE CFPB -- NONE OF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
THE CONSTITUTION UNDERSTANDS. OH, YEAH -- EXCEPT FOR THOSE 90 YEARS OF SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY THAT.
IN ADDITION TO THE BILLIONAIRE
STOOGERY THAT HE'S BEEN INVOLVED IN FOR DECADES, IN ADDITION TO HIS PENCHANT FOR LAWLESSNESS
WHERE THERE IS CLEAR SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, HE'S JUST A
LITTLE BIT STRANGE. HERE'S WHAT HE HAS SAID ABOUT
THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO WORK IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT --
WE WANT THEM, HE SAID, TO BE TAU MATTERICALLY AFFECTED -- TAU
MATTERICALLY AFFECTED. WHEN THEY WAKE UP IN THE MORNING, WE WANT THEM TO NOT
WANT TO GO TO WORK BECAUSE THEY ARE INCREASINGLY VIEWED AS THE VILLIANS.
THE POSTMAN, THE VILLAIN; THE MEAT INSPECTOR WHO MAKES YOUR
STEAK SAFE, THE VILLAIN A THE PEOPLE WHO DO BRAIN CANCER RESEARCH FOR US.
YES WE DEFINITELY WANT THEM TO BE VIEWED AS VILLIANS. HE GOES ON, WE WANT THEIR
FUNDING TO BE SHUT DOWN SO THAT -- AND OF COURSE HE PICKS THE EPA BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING MOSTLY WITH POLLUTER
BILLIONAIRES -- WE WANT THEY ARE FUNDING TO BE SHUT DOWN SO THAT THE EPA CAN'T DO ALL OF THE
RULES AGAINST OUR ENERGY INDUSTRY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO BANDWIDTH FINANCIALLY TO DO SO.
WE WANT TO PUT THEM IN TRAUMA.
IF YOU WANT THAT'S NORMAL, YOU WANT TO GO HAVE JUST A LITTLE LOOK IN THE MIRROR. HE WANTS MASS FIRINGS, WHICH
WE'RE ALREADY SEEING THREATENED. HE WANTS TO ELIMINATE THE CIVIL
SERVICE, FIRE STAFFERS SO THAT THEY CAN BE REPLACED WITH LOYAL
PARTISANS. SO LET'S SAY YOU'RE BIG POLLUTER. LET'S SAY YOU'RE A BIG OIL
COMPANY. LET'S SAY YOU'RE NOT CLEANING UP YOUR METHANE LEAKS.
YOU'RE SPEWING METHANE INTO THE AIR FOR EVERYONE ELSE TO BREATHE. PROGRAMS THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR COMES TO YOU AND SAYS TO YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT TO CLEAN UP YOUR MESS HERE. YOU'RE SPILLING METHANE INTO THE
ATMOSPHERE. IT IS POISONING PEOPLE. YOU'VE GOT TO KNOCK IT OFF. NOPE. OUT YOU GO.
BRING IN THE SYCOPHANTS, BRING IN THE LOYAL PART, BRING IN --
LOYAL PARTISANS, BRING IN PEOPLE WHO HAVE TELL THE PEOPLE AT WORK
NOW, NEVER MIND. WE'VE GOT YOUR BACK NOW. YOU JUST KEEP LEAKING THAT METHANE. HERE'S ONE THAT KIND OF STUNNED
ME. PRETTY SIMPLE QUESTION. I ASKED HIM, DID JOE BIDEN WIN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
WHAT WAS HIS ANSWER? I BELIEVE THAT THE 20 ELECTION WAS RIGGED F -- I BELIEVE THAT
THE 2020 ELECTION WAS RIGGED. NO COURT HAS EVER BELIEVED THAT. PEOPLE GOT THEIR BAR TICKET
REMOVED FOR TELLING COURTS FALSEHOODS THAT THE ELECTION WAS
RIGGED. THIS WAS THE FIRST BIG LIE OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND
HE'S NOT OVER IT. AND HE WANTS TO GO AND RUN THE
NERVE CENTER OF OMB. HE EVEN WANTS TO INVOKE THE INSURRECTION ACT, BRING IN THE
UNITED STATES MILITARY ONTO DOMESTIC SOIL TO BREAK UP PEOPLE
WHO ARE PROTESTING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. THIS IS NOT A NORMAL GUY.
THIS IS NOT A GUY WHO RESPECTS THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION. THIS IS A TOOL OF A VERY SMALL
RIGHT-WING BILLIONAIRE ELITE, AND HE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF WITH HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE TRUMP
SCHEME TO HOLD BACK URGENTLY NEEDED MONEY FROM UKRAINIAN WARRIORS TRYING TO DEFEND THEIR
COUNTRY AGAINST PUTIN SO THAT HE COULD PUT PRESSURE ON ZELENSKYY
TO DEVELOP DIRT ON TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONENT. HE WAS PART OF THAT SCHEME. WHAT A GIECHLT THE LAST THING
THAT I'LL MENTION -- WHAT A GUY. THE LAST THING THAT I'LL MENTION IS THAT HE HAS DESCRIBED JOE BIDEN AND HIS ADMINISTRATION AS
HAVING ENGAGED IN CLIMATE FANATACISM.
CLIMATE FANATACISM. THIS FROM THE SLOW, CAUTIOUS,
TEMPERATE, NONCOMBATIVE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. I WISH THEY'D BEEN A LITTLE BIT
MORE FANATIC. BUT THEY SURE WEREN'T. THEY WERE SLOW, THEY WERE
CAUTIOUS, THEY WERE TEMPERATE, THEY WERE NONCOMBATIVES AND HE
FOUND THAT TO BE FANATIC. WELL, I'LL CLOSE WITH WHAT'S
COMING BECAUSE WHAT'S COMING FROM CLIMATE CHANGE IS A BEGINNING MELTDOWN IN PROPERTY
INSURANCE MARKETS ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY, WHICH IS GOING TO CASCADE INTO A PROBLEM IN
MORTGAGE MARKETS AROUND THE COUNTRY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET A MORTGAGE IF YOU CAN'T GET PROPERTY INSURANCE.
AND UNLESS YOU'RE SELLING BILLIONAIRE TO BILLIONAIRE PALM BEACH ESTATES A, IF YOU WANT TO
SELL YOUR HOME, YOU GOT TO FIND SOMEBODY WHO CAN GET A MORTGAGE. IF YOUR HOME CAN'T GET A
MORTGAGE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET INSURANCE, YOU CAN'T I FIND A BUYER AND SO YOUR PROPERTY
VALUES CRASH. AND THE CHIEF ECONOMIST FOR
FREDDIE MAC HAS WARNEDED THAT THIS INSURANCE TO MORTGAGE TO PROPERTY VALUES CRASH IS GOING
TO HAPPEN AND IS GOING TO HIT AS HARD AS THE 2008 MORTGAGE METTLEDOWN. SO SOMEBODY THAT TAKES THIS NOT
SERIOUSLY AT ALL IS THE WRONG PERSON TO LEAD US AS WE HEAD
TOWARDS DISASTER. OUT OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, WHERE'S WHERE WE'RE SEEING
MASSIVE NONRENEWAL RATE INCREASES. THAT IS THE INSURANCE COMPANIES
TELLING PEOPLE WHO PAY THEIR PREMIUMS FOR YEARS, YOU'RE FIRED. WE DON'T WANT YOU ANYMORE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO INSURE YOUR
PROPERTY ANY LONGER. YOU'RE DONE. OR JACKING UP THE RATES. AND YOU CAN SEE OBVIOUSLY WHERE
THE HIGH PERCENTAGE PLACES ARE. IT'S IN COASTAL AND WILDFIRE AREAS.
HERE'S ANOTHER ONE. THIS FOLLOWED OUR BUDGET COMMITTEE REPORT, BUT THAT I
JUST AMERICANSED. THIS IS WHERE HOME INSURANCE PREMIUMS ARE PREDICTED TO GO BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
UP TO A 300% INCREASE.
THATS'S QUADRUPLING. IF YOU HAVE A $600,000 INSURANCE
POLICY THAT'S $2400. THAT'S ALL OVER. IT'S IN THE HOT SPOTS FOR WILDFIRE AND IN THE HOT SPOTS
FOR COASTAL PROPERTY DAMAGE FROM STORMS AND SEA LEVEL RISE. AND WHEN YOU RAISE HOME
INSURANCE PREMIUMS BY THAT MUCH, WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU KNOCK DOWN THE VALUE OF THE HOME. BECAUSE WHEN YOU BUY A HOME, IF
YOU'RE BUYING INTO A, LET'S SAY, $24,000 EXPENSE EVERY YEAR, THE
PRESENT VALUE OF $24,000 OUT OF YOUR POCKET YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR COMES OFF THE VALUE
OF THE HOUSE. SO IT WILL KNOCK DOWN PROPERTY VALUES. INDEED, IT IS PREDICTED THAT IN
MANY OF THESE AREAS HOMES ARE GOING TO LOSE AS MUCH AS 100% OF
THEIR VALUE. A HOME THAT PEOPLE HAVE INVESTED IN, PURCHASED, LOVED, RAISED
THEIR CHILDREN IN WILL LOSE ITS VALUE IN SOME PLACES COMPLETELY
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET INSURANCE, YOU CAN'T GET A MORTGAGE, YOU CAN'T FIND A BUYER, THE PLACE IS
GOING TO BURN, THE PLACE IS GOING TO FLOOD. AND IT'S NOT JUST ME WARNING OF
THESE THINGS. HERE IS AN ARTICLE FROM THE
"ECONOMIST" MAGAZINE, NOT EXACTLY A LIBERAL GREEN PUBLICATION, PREDICTING GLOBALLY
THAT THE NEXT HOUSING DISASTER IS GOING TO COME FROM CLIMATE
CHANGE. SEVERE WEATHER BROUGHT ABOUT BY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IS SHAKING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE
WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT ASSET CLASS -- REAL ESTATE. THE WORLD IS FACING ROUGHLY A
$IT 25 TRILLION HIT. THE IMPENDING BILL IS SO HUGE IT WILL HAVE GRIM IMPLICATIONS NOT
JUST FOR PERSONAL PROSPERITY, BUT ALSO FOR THE FINANCIAL
SYSTEM. CLIMATE CHANGE IN SHORT COULD PROMPT THE NEXT GLOBAL PROPERTY
CRASH. AND IF YOU LOOK BACK HERE TO FLORIDA, YOU SEE HOW ACUTE THE
TROUBLE IS AS THAT INSURANCE MARKET MELTS DOWN.
HOME INSURANCE IN FLORIDA, THE AVERAGE ANNUAL PREMIUM FOR A TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE STATE IS LIKELY TO HIT
NEARLY $12,000 THIS YEAR, SAYS "THE ECONOMIST" MAGAZINE.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION HAS BECOME FLORIDA'S LARGEST HOME INSURER.
IT'S EXPOSURE IS NOW $423 BILLION, MUCH MORE THAN THE
STATE'S PUBLIC DEBT. THIS IS A HIGH-RISK SITUATION. THE FINANCIAL TIMES REPORTING
SAYS THAT BILLION-DOLLAR-PLUS DISASTERS OCCUR ONCE EVERY THREE WEEKS NOW ON AVERAGE COMPARED
WITH EVERY FOUR MONTHS FOR
EQUIVALENT EASTERS IN THE
1980'S. CRACKS IN THE U.S. HOUSING MARKET WILL WIDEN. THIS DANGER OF HOUSING VALUES
COLLAPSE IS ALREADY UNDER WAY. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE U.S. ARE OVERVALUED BY $121
BILLION TO $237 BILLION FOR FLOOD RISKS ALONE. NOT THE WILDFIRE RISKS OUT WEST.
THE FLOOD RISKS ALONE. THAT'S THE FINANCIAL TIMES. "THE NEW YORK TIMES," WITHOUT
INSURANCE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A MORTGAGE. WITHOUT A MORTGAGE, MOST AMERICANS CAN'T BUY A HOME.
HEADLINE -- INSURERS ARE DESERTING HOMEOWNERS AS CLIMATE
SHOCKS WORSEN. BLOOMBERG NEWS, U.S. HOME INSURANCE REAL ESTATE MARKETS
TEETER ON FINANCIAL CRISIS.
HERE'S WHAT THEY SAY. IT'S HARD TO OVERSTATE THE ROLE THAT INSURANCE PLAYS IN THE
MODERN ECONOMY. BANKS WON'T MAKE MORTGAGE LOANS FOR UNINSURABLE PROPERTIES. WITHOUT THOSE LOANS, THE REAL
ESTATE MARKET SLOWS TO A CRAWL WHICH IN TURNS EATS AWAY HOUSEHOLD WEALTH AND THE TAX
REVENUE THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS RELY ON. FOR INSURERS TO PLAY THEIR PART
THEY HAVE TO FEEL CONFIDENT PREDICTING HOW MUCH DAMAGE THEY MAY HAVE TO COVER. THEY BUILD MODELS OF THE FUTURE
BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT ALL THE TIME. JUST ENOUGH TO WIN BY MORE THAN
THEY LOSE. CLIMATE CHANGE HAS MADE THAT MUCH HARDER. A WARMING WORLD IS MORE
DANGEROUS AND UNPREDICTABLE IN THE 1980'S. THE U.S. EXPERIENCED ROUGHLY
THREE DISASTERS A YEAR THAT DID AT LEAST $1 BILLION IN DAMAGE.
NOW THE ANNUAL OCCURRENCE IS CLOSER TO 18. AND IT'S NOT JUST NEWS REPORTS.
HERE'S THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ANALYSIS. THE RISKS OF CLIMATE CHANGE TO
THE UNITED STATES IN THE 21ST CENTURY, AS EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GAS FROM HUMAN
ACTIVITIES ACCUMULATE IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND OCEAN, IN THE
UNITED STATES THOSE CHANGES WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, REAL ESTATE, AND
FINANCIAL MARKETS. HERE'S THE FINANCIAL STABILITY BOARD. IT'S THE GLOBAL BOARD THAT
ADVISES BANKS ON HOW TO STAY SOUND.
L CLIMATE RELATED VULNERABILITIES IN THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM WHEN TRIGGERED BY CLIMATE
SHOCKS COULD THREATEN FINANCIAL STABILITY AND IN THE REAL ECONOMY OR THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM
LEANED TO FINANCIAL LOSSES. CLIMATE SHOCKS COULD ALSO AFFECT THE REAL ECONOMY THROUGH DAMAGE TO REAL ASSETS OR THE CREATION
OF STRANDED ASSETS OR A DISRUPTION TO ECONOMIC ACTIVITY THAT CAN FEED BACK TO THE
FINANCIAL SYSTEM. I'LL CUT TO ONE OF THE END POINTS HERE. THE PROJECTED PHYSICAL RISK
IMPACT FROM CLIMATE CHANGE COULD CAUSE GLOBAL GDP TO DECLINE VERSUS THE BASELINE BY 5.3% BY
2030 AND BY UP TO 15% BY 2050. THAT IS A GLOBAL RECESSION,
FOLKS. DRIVEN BY CLIMATE CHANGE, POUNDING INSURANCE MARKETS WHICH POUND MORTGAGE MARKETS.
AND THIS GUY THINKS THAT TAKING CLIMATE SCIENCE SERIOUSLY IS
FANATACISM.
HERE'S WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THINK ABOUT SOME OF THIS STUFF. PENALTIES ON HIGH POLLUTION
IMPORTS. LETTING HIGH POLLUTION CHINESE PRODUCTS INTO OUR COUNTRY, PUTTING A PENALTY ON THAT?
12% OPPOSE. 74% SUPPORT.
A 62% BE POSITIVE SWING. CARBON POLLUTION LIMITS ON BIG
COMPANIES, 12% DISAPPROVE, 72% SUPPORT. IMPOSE A FEE ON BIG POLLUTERS,
10% OPPOSE. 74% SUPPORT. A 64% SWING.
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WANTS TO SOLVE THIS CLIMATE PROBLEM WHICH IS WHY THE BILLIONAIRES NEED TO
COME IN AND TAKE OVER THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE INSIDE WITH
PEOPLE LIKE RUSSELL VOUGHT, SO
THEY CAN DEFEAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, CONTINUE TO POLLUTE, AND LET THE ECONOMIC MAYHEM ENSUE.
AND I'LL CLOSE WITH THIS LAST IMAGE JUST BECAUSE I REALLY LOVE
IT. HERE'S THE MAGA GUYING STANDING
OUTSIDE THE WALL OF TRUMP
MAR-A-LAGO PALACE. WE SHOWED THOSE ELITES WHO'S IN CHARGE. MEANTIME INSIDE ARE THE
HELICOPTERS FROM WALL STREET, BIG TECH, BEZOS, PHARMA, BIG AG,
MUSK, MUSK, KOHL, BIG OIL,
CRYPTO BROS. THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. MAGA MAY HAVE THOUGHT IT WON THE ELECTION, BUT HERE'S WHO REALLY
WON THE ELECTION. THE LOOTERS AND THE POLLUTERS. THE MUSKS WHO ARE RUNNING INTO
OUR INFORMATION SYSTEMS LOOTING DATA OUT OF THEM FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES, AND THE POLLUTERS WHO
WANT TO PRETEND THAT THIS CLIMATE CHANGE THREAT IS NOT
REAL. RUSS VOUGHT IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE HE WON'T FACE THE FACTS ON THESE THINGS BECAUSE HE
Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:06 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Feb 06, 2025 10:12 pm
BREAKING: Trump & Musk ACCEPT MAJOR LOSS in Court... SURRENDER?!?!
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
Feb 6, 2025
The Intersection with Popok
The rule of law is on a winning streak, beating the Trump administration six times already in the first 16 days. In breaking news, we have the latest temporary restraining order against Trump to stop Elon Musk from accessing Americans, personal and sensitive financial and medical information. Popok reports.
Transcript
[Michael Popok] We got a breaking news story here on legal AF. We have the fifth temporary restraining order entered against the Trump Administration. This time they've agreed to it. That's how bad their legal position is this time related to stopping Elon Musk and his phony Doge from accessing yours and my sensitive financial and medical information contained on the treasury Department servers related to all federal payments to Americans Medicare, Medicaid, disability, food stamps, welfare checks, student loans -- you name it! It's all housed on that server. Think about the things you've submitted, or been forced to submit, to the federal government in order to receive payments. That's what Elon Musk had access to.
Well no more, because there is a consent order, meaning the Trump Administration knew they were going to lose, and they entered into a temporary restraining order to avoid the judge doing it for them. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, senior judge, you could tell there was no love lost between the Judge and Donald Trump, because she thinks it was outrageous that he pardoned all the Jan6 insurrectionists after she worked to convict them. Justice convicted them. And she sentenced them. And so now we have the revenge of the DC judges.
I'm Michael Popok. As I said at the top of this, it's rule of law: 5; Trump Administration: 0. We have 5, actually 6 -- we have 5 temporary restraining orders; 1 preliminary injunction against 3 major issues that are important to Donald Trump; 1 win for the birthright citizenship not being eliminated from the Constitution by blocking an executive order; 1 preliminary injunction; 1 temporary restraining order for the federal funding related to stopping the federal funding to States, and not for-profits, that has been blocked; 2 temporary restraining orders stopping transgender men/women from being housed in a male prison, stopped by temporary restraining order.
and now, we've got the writing on the wall. We've got this group in Doge that said "Uncle! We'll agree to a temporary restraining order to stop Elon Musk, at least temporarily." Why is it temporary? It's because in the life cycle of a case in federal court, it starts with a temporary restraining order where the Judge kind of peeks under the hoods and says, "Yeah, I think you're going to win this case ultimately, and there's other factors that have to be analyzed: the balance of equities and you're going to suffer irreparable harm and all of that, and I'm going to hold the ring in the case -- it's got to go back to the status quo before the bad thing happened until I get around to a full-blown evidentiary hearing and a fuller record, and then she will consider it on a preliminary injunction standard, which is a similar standard, with more evidence, later in the case."
Well, the Judge said effectively, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who's a senior status Judge who's been doing this for a long time, she took a look at the papers, and she said to the parties, "Yeah, I could rule on this temporary injunction, or you guys could work it out and come up with something, meaning you, the Department of Justice/Department of the treasury/Trump, like, you're going to lose. So you might want to try to get something out of this, half a loaf out of this."
So the parties talked, and they did narrow the actual injunction from what the lawsuit seeks, but that doesn't mean that at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing in a month or two, that doesn't mean the Judge is going to adopt this narrow injunction, narrow block of Elon Musk, but he has been blocked.
I'll go over with you how it's narrower than what was originally sought, but that doesn't matter at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing which will probably be in the next week, two weeks, three weeks or so.
Meantime, the thing is blocked. And if you're the Movant, the party seeking the injunction, or the temporary restraining order, you don't care when the preliminary injunction hearing is set as long as you have your TRO right now, because you got what you want. Everything's stopped. Nothing can be done.
So here's what happened. Let's start with the lawsuit that got filed on February 3rd, then I'll read to you from the proposed order and the consent and we'll go from there.
So this was filed by Norm Eisen's group, for those that follow him closely here on the MeidasTouch Network and legal AF, under a couple of organizations he works with. One of them is State Democracy Defenders Fund; and the Public Citizen Litigation group. And they filed on behalf of the Alliance for Retired Americans; the American Federation of Government Employees by way of the AFL/CIO. So a labor union. And another labor union, the Service Employees International Union for the AFL/CIO, against the Treasury Secretary; the Department of Treasury; the Bureau of Fiscal Service, which is the one that takes in all the $5 trillion worth of revenue through the Internal Revenue Service, and other ways, and pays out $4-1/2 trillion dollars a year to payees like you and me. Really, it's the Trump Administration.
And what they, listen listen to these allegations. I'll read to you from the complaint first, then we'll get to the Order. Page 4, paragraph 7:
And then basically they're saying the Treasury Secretary, a week on the job, just turned over the keys to the servers and computers to Elon Musk, and they've been sucking it out with their own servers, apparently, trying to get the information.
I think damage has already been been done that needs to be redressed by the court. That looks like it'll be done at the preliminary injunction standard hearing.
Scott Beseant, in order to make changes in the privacy policy, or to make changes in how documents and information, data, private data of you and me is handled, he's got to go through the Administrative Procedures Act. He's got to announce it; he's got to publish it; he's got to tell us about it, and we have to have time to object, and do public comment; he has to file all sorts of notices about Privacy Act changes. He didn't do any of that! He just said, "Oh, there's the door."
You know, even when they try to do something good they do something terrible. Like when they nominated the guy, just to digress for a second, Scott Bessent, he's the first openly gay Treasury Secretary. He was there with his husband and his children when he got sworn in and I was like, "Well, all right. I get it. I mean I disagree with everything about the Trump Administration policy, but I do recognize the historic precedent of having Scott Bessent, who's a gay American, become Treasury Secretary. But all he's done is just turn over the keys to the kingdom immediately to whoever Donald Trump told him to do, exercising no independent judgment at all. So I'm done celebrating Scott Bessent.
Here's the Prayer for Relief. This is what the lawsuit seeks. Then I'll compare it to the judgment, or the new consent temporary restraining order that's about to be entered by the Judge. What they're see seeking is:
Now, here's what they ended up with. They ended up with something a little bit narrower than that. But, you know, it's only temporary. They filed a consent motion saying that the parties had gotten together at the Judge's urging and they've agreed to the following Proposed Order being entered by the Judge. All that means is that there's a temporary restraining order by consent.
I think it's interesting that the the guy for the Department of Justice, Trump's Department of Justice, that's signing on a lot of these things, is this guy Brett Shumate. I've talked about Brett Shumate, because they pressed him into action on day 1 to go argue in Seattle Washington about Birthright citizenship, being able to be removed from the Constitution by way of an Executive Order, where he got his head handed to him in two seconds flat by Judge Coughenour. It's the same Brett Shumate. So, they're sending him out to do a lot of the losing in the Department of Justice.
But what they've now agreed to is that the defendants will not provide access -- this is from the Proposed Order -- to any payment record or payment system maintained by The Bureau except to the two different people that work in the Treasury Department, blocking Elon Musk.
Now, I don't think, it's not defined payment record. And I don't like payment record. I want medical records; financial data; privacy data; personal information. I don't think this goes far enough. But it's only for a week or two as Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sets the full preliminary injunction hearing which, spoiler alert, the Trump Administration is going to lose. That will end up being the 2nd or 3rd preliminary injunction against this Administration.
But we kind of dove in there a little bit, got into the weeds, about how things work in courts with injunctions and temporary restraining orders. But that's the math: 32 cases filed already; 5 different temporary restraining orders; 1 preliminary injunction, soon to be 2 preliminary injunctions. So seven losses for the Trump Administration. And we're only 16 days in.
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
Feb 6, 2025
The Intersection with Popok
The rule of law is on a winning streak, beating the Trump administration six times already in the first 16 days. In breaking news, we have the latest temporary restraining order against Trump to stop Elon Musk from accessing Americans, personal and sensitive financial and medical information. Popok reports.
Transcript
[Michael Popok] We got a breaking news story here on legal AF. We have the fifth temporary restraining order entered against the Trump Administration. This time they've agreed to it. That's how bad their legal position is this time related to stopping Elon Musk and his phony Doge from accessing yours and my sensitive financial and medical information contained on the treasury Department servers related to all federal payments to Americans Medicare, Medicaid, disability, food stamps, welfare checks, student loans -- you name it! It's all housed on that server. Think about the things you've submitted, or been forced to submit, to the federal government in order to receive payments. That's what Elon Musk had access to.
Well no more, because there is a consent order, meaning the Trump Administration knew they were going to lose, and they entered into a temporary restraining order to avoid the judge doing it for them. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, senior judge, you could tell there was no love lost between the Judge and Donald Trump, because she thinks it was outrageous that he pardoned all the Jan6 insurrectionists after she worked to convict them. Justice convicted them. And she sentenced them. And so now we have the revenge of the DC judges.
I'm Michael Popok. As I said at the top of this, it's rule of law: 5; Trump Administration: 0. We have 5, actually 6 -- we have 5 temporary restraining orders; 1 preliminary injunction against 3 major issues that are important to Donald Trump; 1 win for the birthright citizenship not being eliminated from the Constitution by blocking an executive order; 1 preliminary injunction; 1 temporary restraining order for the federal funding related to stopping the federal funding to States, and not for-profits, that has been blocked; 2 temporary restraining orders stopping transgender men/women from being housed in a male prison, stopped by temporary restraining order.
and now, we've got the writing on the wall. We've got this group in Doge that said "Uncle! We'll agree to a temporary restraining order to stop Elon Musk, at least temporarily." Why is it temporary? It's because in the life cycle of a case in federal court, it starts with a temporary restraining order where the Judge kind of peeks under the hoods and says, "Yeah, I think you're going to win this case ultimately, and there's other factors that have to be analyzed: the balance of equities and you're going to suffer irreparable harm and all of that, and I'm going to hold the ring in the case -- it's got to go back to the status quo before the bad thing happened until I get around to a full-blown evidentiary hearing and a fuller record, and then she will consider it on a preliminary injunction standard, which is a similar standard, with more evidence, later in the case."
Well, the Judge said effectively, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who's a senior status Judge who's been doing this for a long time, she took a look at the papers, and she said to the parties, "Yeah, I could rule on this temporary injunction, or you guys could work it out and come up with something, meaning you, the Department of Justice/Department of the treasury/Trump, like, you're going to lose. So you might want to try to get something out of this, half a loaf out of this."
So the parties talked, and they did narrow the actual injunction from what the lawsuit seeks, but that doesn't mean that at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing in a month or two, that doesn't mean the Judge is going to adopt this narrow injunction, narrow block of Elon Musk, but he has been blocked.
I'll go over with you how it's narrower than what was originally sought, but that doesn't matter at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing which will probably be in the next week, two weeks, three weeks or so.
Meantime, the thing is blocked. And if you're the Movant, the party seeking the injunction, or the temporary restraining order, you don't care when the preliminary injunction hearing is set as long as you have your TRO right now, because you got what you want. Everything's stopped. Nothing can be done.
So here's what happened. Let's start with the lawsuit that got filed on February 3rd, then I'll read to you from the proposed order and the consent and we'll go from there.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Alliance for Retired Americans, 815 16th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20006,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 80 F Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20001, and
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, 1800 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20220,
Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20220, and
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, 3201 Pennsylvania Drive, Building E Landover, MD 20785,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-313
[url=x]COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF[/url]
So this was filed by Norm Eisen's group, for those that follow him closely here on the MeidasTouch Network and legal AF, under a couple of organizations he works with. One of them is State Democracy Defenders Fund; and the Public Citizen Litigation group. And they filed on behalf of the Alliance for Retired Americans; the American Federation of Government Employees by way of the AFL/CIO. So a labor union. And another labor union, the Service Employees International Union for the AFL/CIO, against the Treasury Secretary; the Department of Treasury; the Bureau of Fiscal Service, which is the one that takes in all the $5 trillion worth of revenue through the Internal Revenue Service, and other ways, and pays out $4-1/2 trillion dollars a year to payees like you and me. Really, it's the Trump Administration.
And what they, listen listen to these allegations. I'll read to you from the complaint first, then we'll get to the Order. Page 4, paragraph 7:
People who must share information with the federal government should not be forced to share information with Elon Musk or his “DOGE.” And federal law says they do not have to. The Privacy Act of 1974 generally, and the Internal Revenue Code with respect to taxpayer information, make it unlawful for Secretary Bessent to hand over access to the Bureau’s records on individuals to Elon Musk or other members of DOGE. Plaintiffs file this action to put an immediate stop to Defendant’s systematic, continuous, and ongoing violation of federal laws that protect the privacy of personal information contained in federal records. This Court’s exercise of equitable authority is the only adequate avenue available to Plaintiffs to protect the trust that Plaintiffs’ members, and other citizens, taxpayers, and workers, have placed in the federal government in reliance of the laws that Congress enacted to assure the public that what Secretary Bessent is doing would never happen.
And then basically they're saying the Treasury Secretary, a week on the job, just turned over the keys to the servers and computers to Elon Musk, and they've been sucking it out with their own servers, apparently, trying to get the information.
I think damage has already been been done that needs to be redressed by the court. That looks like it'll be done at the preliminary injunction standard hearing.
Scott Beseant, in order to make changes in the privacy policy, or to make changes in how documents and information, data, private data of you and me is handled, he's got to go through the Administrative Procedures Act. He's got to announce it; he's got to publish it; he's got to tell us about it, and we have to have time to object, and do public comment; he has to file all sorts of notices about Privacy Act changes. He didn't do any of that! He just said, "Oh, there's the door."
You know, even when they try to do something good they do something terrible. Like when they nominated the guy, just to digress for a second, Scott Bessent, he's the first openly gay Treasury Secretary. He was there with his husband and his children when he got sworn in and I was like, "Well, all right. I get it. I mean I disagree with everything about the Trump Administration policy, but I do recognize the historic precedent of having Scott Bessent, who's a gay American, become Treasury Secretary. But all he's done is just turn over the keys to the kingdom immediately to whoever Donald Trump told him to do, exercising no independent judgment at all. So I'm done celebrating Scott Bessent.
Here's the Prayer for Relief. This is what the lawsuit seeks. Then I'll compare it to the judgment, or the new consent temporary restraining order that's about to be entered by the Judge. What they're see seeking is:
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
a. Declare that Defendants’ decision to implement a system by which Elon Musk or other DOGE-affiliated individuals may access the Bureau’s records and obtain personal information about individuals and taxpayers contained there is unlawful.
b. Enjoin Defendants from continuing to permit such access or obtain such personal information.
c. Enjoin Defendants to ensure that future disclosure of individual records will occur only in accordance with the Privacy Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and the SORNs applicable to the system of records at issue.
d. Grant any temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief necessary to protect the privacy of individuals whose information is contained within the system of records.
e. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees for this action; and
f. Grant any other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
Now, here's what they ended up with. They ended up with something a little bit narrower than that. But, you know, it's only temporary. They filed a consent motion saying that the parties had gotten together at the Judge's urging and they've agreed to the following Proposed Order being entered by the Judge. All that means is that there's a temporary restraining order by consent.
I think it's interesting that the the guy for the Department of Justice, Trump's Department of Justice, that's signing on a lot of these things, is this guy Brett Shumate. I've talked about Brett Shumate, because they pressed him into action on day 1 to go argue in Seattle Washington about Birthright citizenship, being able to be removed from the Constitution by way of an Executive Order, where he got his head handed to him in two seconds flat by Judge Coughenour. It's the same Brett Shumate. So, they're sending him out to do a lot of the losing in the Department of Justice.
But what they've now agreed to is that the defendants will not provide access -- this is from the Proposed Order -- to any payment record or payment system maintained by The Bureau except to the two different people that work in the Treasury Department, blocking Elon Musk.
Now, I don't think, it's not defined payment record. And I don't like payment record. I want medical records; financial data; privacy data; personal information. I don't think this goes far enough. But it's only for a week or two as Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sets the full preliminary injunction hearing which, spoiler alert, the Trump Administration is going to lose. That will end up being the 2nd or 3rd preliminary injunction against this Administration.
But we kind of dove in there a little bit, got into the weeds, about how things work in courts with injunctions and temporary restraining orders. But that's the math: 32 cases filed already; 5 different temporary restraining orders; 1 preliminary injunction, soon to be 2 preliminary injunctions. So seven losses for the Trump Administration. And we're only 16 days in.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Feb 06, 2025 10:35 pm
DOGE shuts down "illegal" Payments to Lutheran Family Services
February 2, 2025
February 2, 2025
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
The @DOGE team is rapidly shutting down these illegal paymentsGeneral Mike Flynn @GenFlynn
Now it's the "Lutheran" faith (this use of "religion" as a money laundering operation must end):
Lutheran Family Services and affiliated organizations receive massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, and the numbers speak for themselves. These funds, total BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars.
Here are just a few of the recent grants awarded (pre @RobertKennedyJr) by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):
LUTHERAN IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICE INC: $367,612,906
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF THE SOUTH, INC: $134,190,472.95
LUTHERAN SERVICES FLORIDA, INC.: $82,937,819.95
There are MANY more organizations cashing in on our hard-earned money. These entities are receiving huge sums, which raise serious questions about how taxpayer funds are being spent and who’s benefiting.
It’s time to hold these organizations accountable. American taxpayers deserve transparency. Enough is enough!
And there is much more where these screen shots below came from.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Feb 06, 2025 10:45 pm
Elon Musk's DOGE agency gains access to Medicare, Medicaid payments
by Allen Cone & Darryl Coote
upi.com
U.S. News
Feb. 6, 2025 / 12:35 AM / Updated at 1:23 AM
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2025/02 ... 738814437/
Hundreds protest the Trump administrations aggressive moves to reshape the American government and American society at City Hall in Los Angeles, Calif., joining thousands in front of state capitals across the United States, on Wednesday. Protesters denounced his comments on a U.S. "take over" of Gaza, his immigration crackdown, anti-trans orders and Elon Musk's role in the White House. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI.
Feb. 6 (UPI) -- Representatives of Elon Musk's new federal agency have access to payments and contracting information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the healthcare coverage to more than one third of Americans.
Musk, who is worth around half a trillion dollars, was appointed by President Donald Trump to head the Department of Government Efficiency shortly after he won the Nov. 5 election.
"CMS has two senior Agency veterans -- one focused on policy and one focused on operations -- who are leading the collaboration with DOGE, including ensuring appropriate access to CMS systems and technology," CMS said in a statement Wednesday to media sites, including CNN and USA Today. "We are taking a thoughtful approach to see where there may be opportunities for more effective and efficient use of resources in line with meeting the goals of President Trump."
Government outlays, including waste
Musk said Wednesday that he believes CMS is rife with problems.
"Yeah, this is where the big money fraud is happening," he said on X, which he owns.
More than $100 billion in improper Medicare and Medicaid payments were made in 2023, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The $51.5 billion with Medicare and $21 billion with Medicaid represent 43% of all improper payments in the government.
The Wall Street Journal story first reported DOGE's work at the agency with access to payment and contracting systems but it has not yet received access to databases containing identifiable health information about Medicare and Medicaid enrollees.
The agency disbursed $1.5 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2024, about 22% of total federal spending. Musk has vowed to cut between $1 trillion and $2 trillion from the federal budget. Much of that budget is for Social Security, Medicaid, military and debt payments.
Medicare, the federal health program for adults 65 and over and the disabled, has about 66 million people while Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program covers nearly 80 million. About 12 million receive Medicare and Medicare.
Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services and Dr. Mehmet Oz, a former famous television host, to lead CMS. They haven't been confirmed by the U.S. Senate yet.
DOGE
Despite its name, DOGE is not a federal department but a Temporary Organization to be terminated July 4, 2026.
Since it was formed by Trump via a Jan. 20 executive order, it has attracted much controversy, criticism and litigation.
Musk's agency has access to systems at the Treasury Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Musk has said that "suspicious transactions" would be paused for review, but both CNN and CBS, citing Treasury officials, report that DOGE only has "read-only" access to the Treasury system.
It has been sued by federal employee unions over its access to the Treasury as well as over its formation, while several lawsuits state violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which establishes protections to prevent advisory committees from being inaccessible to the public, biased and partial.
It has received staunch Democratic pushback over its effective shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has described the organization as "an unelected shadow government" that is "conducting a hostile takeover of the government.
Protests
On Wednesday, protests were staged across the country against Trump's rule of the government by executive order and Musk's involvement as an unelected official.
In Los Angeles, UPI photographed protesters at City Hall waving signs calling for Musk to be arrested and deported. Other signs accused him of having "hijacked" the U.S. government.
"No one elected Elon Musk," one states. "Elon Musk is a terrible president," states another.
Musk's money from government
In 2024, Musk's SpaceX received at least $3.8 billion in government contracts, USA Today reported.
And his Tesla electric motor and clean energy company has received at least $2.8 billion in federal, state and local grants and tax credits since 2009, according to Good Jobs First.
by Allen Cone & Darryl Coote
upi.com
U.S. News
Feb. 6, 2025 / 12:35 AM / Updated at 1:23 AM
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2025/02 ... 738814437/
Hundreds protest the Trump administrations aggressive moves to reshape the American government and American society at City Hall in Los Angeles, Calif., joining thousands in front of state capitals across the United States, on Wednesday. Protesters denounced his comments on a U.S. "take over" of Gaza, his immigration crackdown, anti-trans orders and Elon Musk's role in the White House. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI.
Feb. 6 (UPI) -- Representatives of Elon Musk's new federal agency have access to payments and contracting information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the healthcare coverage to more than one third of Americans.
Musk, who is worth around half a trillion dollars, was appointed by President Donald Trump to head the Department of Government Efficiency shortly after he won the Nov. 5 election.
"CMS has two senior Agency veterans -- one focused on policy and one focused on operations -- who are leading the collaboration with DOGE, including ensuring appropriate access to CMS systems and technology," CMS said in a statement Wednesday to media sites, including CNN and USA Today. "We are taking a thoughtful approach to see where there may be opportunities for more effective and efficient use of resources in line with meeting the goals of President Trump."
Government outlays, including waste
Musk said Wednesday that he believes CMS is rife with problems.
"Yeah, this is where the big money fraud is happening," he said on X, which he owns.
More than $100 billion in improper Medicare and Medicaid payments were made in 2023, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The $51.5 billion with Medicare and $21 billion with Medicaid represent 43% of all improper payments in the government.
The Wall Street Journal story first reported DOGE's work at the agency with access to payment and contracting systems but it has not yet received access to databases containing identifiable health information about Medicare and Medicaid enrollees.
The agency disbursed $1.5 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2024, about 22% of total federal spending. Musk has vowed to cut between $1 trillion and $2 trillion from the federal budget. Much of that budget is for Social Security, Medicaid, military and debt payments.
Medicare, the federal health program for adults 65 and over and the disabled, has about 66 million people while Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program covers nearly 80 million. About 12 million receive Medicare and Medicare.
Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services and Dr. Mehmet Oz, a former famous television host, to lead CMS. They haven't been confirmed by the U.S. Senate yet.
DOGE
Despite its name, DOGE is not a federal department but a Temporary Organization to be terminated July 4, 2026.
Since it was formed by Trump via a Jan. 20 executive order, it has attracted much controversy, criticism and litigation.
Musk's agency has access to systems at the Treasury Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Musk has said that "suspicious transactions" would be paused for review, but both CNN and CBS, citing Treasury officials, report that DOGE only has "read-only" access to the Treasury system.
It has been sued by federal employee unions over its access to the Treasury as well as over its formation, while several lawsuits state violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which establishes protections to prevent advisory committees from being inaccessible to the public, biased and partial.
It has received staunch Democratic pushback over its effective shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has described the organization as "an unelected shadow government" that is "conducting a hostile takeover of the government.
Protests
On Wednesday, protests were staged across the country against Trump's rule of the government by executive order and Musk's involvement as an unelected official.
In Los Angeles, UPI photographed protesters at City Hall waving signs calling for Musk to be arrested and deported. Other signs accused him of having "hijacked" the U.S. government.
"No one elected Elon Musk," one states. "Elon Musk is a terrible president," states another.
Musk's money from government
In 2024, Musk's SpaceX received at least $3.8 billion in government contracts, USA Today reported.
And his Tesla electric motor and clean energy company has received at least $2.8 billion in federal, state and local grants and tax credits since 2009, according to Good Jobs First.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:04 pm
Japan Airlines plane collides with Delta jet at Seattle airport: The incident comes a week after an American Eagle regional jet collided with an Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River near Washington D.C.
by Michelle Del Rey
in Washington D.C.
Independent
Thursday 06 February 2025 02:32 GMT
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating after a Japan Airlines flight hit a Delta Airlines plane as the aircraft were taxiing at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Wednesday.
The strike happened around 10:40 a.m. in an area that is not under air traffic control, according to the agency. The Delta plane’s wing tip was struck by the Japan Airlines aircraft. The Delta flight was heading to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico with 142 customers on board. The customers deplaned and later boarded another plane to their final destination.
The airport worked with both airlines to deplane passengers and bring them to the terminal. Incoming flights were temporarily paused due to the incident. No one was injured.
“We apologize for the experience and delay in travels,” Delta said in a statement.
The FAA announced it is investigating the incident, while the National Transportation Safety Board said it was aware of the incident and is monitoring the situation.
The Independent has emailed Japan Airlines for comment.
The incident comes a week after an American Eagle regional jet collided with an Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River near Washington D.C., killing 67 people. Three soldiers were on the helicopter and 64 people were on the plane.
The soldiers were involved in a training session, officials said after the collision. There are no definitive answers as to what may have caused the crash but investigators suspect the helicopter was flying higher than its allowed 200 feet altitude.
Preliminary data shows the Black Hawk was flying at an altitude of 325 feet when it was struck by the helicopter.
A few days later, a medical transport plane crashed in Philadelphia, killing six people on board. The aircraft was heading to Springfield, Missouri with 11-year-old Valentina Guzmán Murillol, her mother, Lizeth Murillo Osuna and four crew members. The child just underwent treatment at Shriners Children’s Philadelphia hospital. It’s not yet known what led to that crash either.
In an X post on Wednesday, Elon Musk announced his intentions to “make rapid upgrades to the air traffic control system.” Days earlier, the FAA’s primary aircraft safety notification system failed for several hours, the Tesla CEO claimed.
Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency as a “special government employee,” said his team would be working on the matter.
by Michelle Del Rey
in Washington D.C.
Independent
Thursday 06 February 2025 02:32 GMT
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating after a Japan Airlines flight hit a Delta Airlines plane as the aircraft were taxiing at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Wednesday.
The strike happened around 10:40 a.m. in an area that is not under air traffic control, according to the agency. The Delta plane’s wing tip was struck by the Japan Airlines aircraft. The Delta flight was heading to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico with 142 customers on board. The customers deplaned and later boarded another plane to their final destination.
The airport worked with both airlines to deplane passengers and bring them to the terminal. Incoming flights were temporarily paused due to the incident. No one was injured.
“We apologize for the experience and delay in travels,” Delta said in a statement.
The FAA announced it is investigating the incident, while the National Transportation Safety Board said it was aware of the incident and is monitoring the situation.
The Independent has emailed Japan Airlines for comment.
The incident comes a week after an American Eagle regional jet collided with an Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River near Washington D.C., killing 67 people. Three soldiers were on the helicopter and 64 people were on the plane.
The soldiers were involved in a training session, officials said after the collision. There are no definitive answers as to what may have caused the crash but investigators suspect the helicopter was flying higher than its allowed 200 feet altitude.
Preliminary data shows the Black Hawk was flying at an altitude of 325 feet when it was struck by the helicopter.
A few days later, a medical transport plane crashed in Philadelphia, killing six people on board. The aircraft was heading to Springfield, Missouri with 11-year-old Valentina Guzmán Murillol, her mother, Lizeth Murillo Osuna and four crew members. The child just underwent treatment at Shriners Children’s Philadelphia hospital. It’s not yet known what led to that crash either.
In an X post on Wednesday, Elon Musk announced his intentions to “make rapid upgrades to the air traffic control system.” Days earlier, the FAA’s primary aircraft safety notification system failed for several hours, the Tesla CEO claimed.
Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency as a “special government employee,” said his team would be working on the matter.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:08 pm
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-9 Employees/Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; James McHenry, Acting Attorney General of the United States,
Defendant.
Case 1:25-cv-00325
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiffs, John and Jane Does 1-9 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and former agents and/or employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (hereinafter “FBI”), by and through undersigned counsel, with their Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief, and state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs are currently employed agents and/or employees of the FBI, who, during the course of their duties worked on, or participated in the investigation of persons suspected of criminal activity related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol building ( “the Jan. 6 attack” or “Jan. 6 cases”) at the behest of Donald Trump, and/or the unlawful removal, retention and storage of classified documents by Mr. Trump (hereinafter “Mar-a-Lago case”). Upon returning to the Presidency, Mr. Trump has ordered the DOJ to conduct a review and purge of FBI personnel involved in these investigations and prosecutions. This directive is unlawful and retaliatory, and violates the Civil Service Reform Act 5 U.S.C. §§2301 and 2303.
Additionally, on or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were instructed to fill out a survey that would identify their specific role in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases. Some Plaintiffs were required to fill out the survey themselves, others were told that their supervisors would be filling out the form. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated information is going to be forwarded to upper management. Plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment action. Plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump, thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons. Defendant’s gathering, retention, and disclosure of Plaintiffs’ activities related the acts of former President Trump is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendments to the Constitution. It is also a violation of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment substantive and due process rights, such that the Court has the authority to enjoin the serious harm it is likely to cause. Moreover, the publication or dissemination of the information in these surveys would be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a, and would place Plaintiffs in immediate risk of serious harm. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the publication or dissemination of these surveys, or any information derived therefrom.
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiffs are employees of the FBI who worked on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases, and who have been informed that they are likely to be terminated in the very near future (the week of February 3-9, 2025) for such activity. They intend to represent a class of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees who participated in some manner in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and abuses of power by Donald Trump, or by those acting at his behest.
2. Defendant is the current Acting Attorney General of the United States, and the person authorized and tasked with enacting the political will of President Trump.
3. The Federal Bureau of Investigations is an agency under the control of the Department of Justice, with its headquarters located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20535. All essential personnel decisions and employment records are housed at the FBI headquarters.
JURISDICTION
4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court enjoys jurisdiction over this matter because Plaintiffs assert claims under the laws of the United States. This Court also has jurisdiction over this matter because the Defendant is an agency of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346.
5. Defendant waived sovereign immunity because the Privacy Act allows for damages against the United States.
6. Sovereign immunity for declaratory relief is waived by 5 U.S.C.§ 702, and by the fact that Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.
7. Plaintiffs are not seeking any universally applicable are national remedy or injunction. Rather they seek injunctive relief only for themselves and the members of the putative Class that are parties before this Court.
FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
8. The FBI investigates a variety of crimes, including terrorism, cybercrime, white collar crimes, and public corruption.
9. The FBI collects, analyzes, and shares intelligence to understand and combat security threats.
10. Additionally, the FBI provides services like fingerprint identification, laboratory examinations, and training.
11. The FBI protects the United States from foreign intelligence, espionage, and cyber operations, and combats cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes.
12. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and reports its investigations to the attorney general and United States attorneys' offices. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the FBI’s work to the security of the United States.
13. FBI agents are chosen through a highly selective process, and are carefully screened for aptitude and trustworthiness.
14. FBI agents go through more than four months of intensive training at the FBI academy before beginning their duties, and attend numerous training sessions throughout their careers to adapt to new technologies and emerging threats.
15. Many FBI agents are multi-lingual and routinely interface with intelligence agencies from allied nations.
16. The training FBI agents receive is comprehensive, and in some instances, extremely expensive.
17. On information and belief, Plaintiffs assert that each agent of the FBI receives more than 3 million dollars-worth of training in a twenty (20) year career.
18. FBI agents also develop specific expertise from their assignments and field duties, much of which cannot be replicated solely by training.
19. FBI agents often face threats to their personal safety, at times going under cover and/or working in extremely dangerous areas to obtain information necessary to secure the interests of the United States.
20. FBI agents are tasked by their chain and command and leadership team, and are not free to refuse assignments based on their political or personal preferences.
21. Plaintiffs’ tasks routinely involved, inter alia, reviewing video evidence, interviewing witnesses, executing search and arrest warrants, interfacing with confidential informants, reviewing and analyzing cyber communications, investigating financial transactions and other activities for the purpose of identifying persons engaged in unlawful conduct, and assisting in the prosecution of said persons, and/or providing support for such activities.
22. On or about January 6, 2021, a protest led by Donald Trump took place at the ellipse in front of the United States Capitol building, which erupted into violence.
23. Hundreds of rioters (“Jan. 6 Rioters”) forcefully breached the Capitol building, ignoring the directions of both Capitol Police and Police Officers of the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department ( “MPD”).
24. Rioters violently attacked law enforcement officers causing one fatality and hundreds of injuries. To date, five (5) police officers have died as a result of what transpired during the Jan. 6 attack.
25. Additionally, Jan 6 Rioters vandalized the halls of Congress, unlawfully entered into secured areas of the Capitol building, and threatened the lives of members of Congress and the Vice President of the United States.
26. Over the four years that followed the Jan. 6 attack, Plaintiffs worked diligently to bring to justice the persons who had engaged in illegal activity related to the incitement, planning, preparation and execution of the Jan. 6 attack, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 1,500 people.
27. A recurring theme in the trials of the Jan. 6 Defendants is that they appeared at the Capitol, and engaged in violent action at the urging and direct request of Donald Trump.
28. It is also undisputed that while Donald Trump was keenly aware of the violence taking place at the Capitol on that day, for hours he did nothing to intercede or persuade the Jan. 6 Rioters to cease their activity.
29. Information obtained during the investigation of the Jan. 6 attack also established that Mr. Trump was an active participant in the planning of the attack on the Capitol, and of the coordinated effort by some members of Congress to evade certification of the election results.
30. Plaintiffs assert that the ultimate goal of both the Jan. 6 attack and the efforts in Congress by allies of Donald Trump was to block the peaceful transition of power to the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election, Joe Biden.
31. As a result of the work of Plaintiffs and other members of the putative Class, Special Counsel Jack Smith ( “SC Smith”) achieved a Grand Jury indictment of Donald Trump which was in the process of being litigated when the 2024 Presidential Election took place.
32. Also, as a result of the work of Plaintiffs and the putative Class, SC Smith was able to secure a Grand Jury indictment of Mr. Trump for the unlawful removal, retention and storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
33. During his campaign for office, Mr. Trump repeatedly stated that he would personify “the vengeance” or “the retribution,” for those whom he called “political hostages,” for their actions during the Jan. 6 attack.
34. On or about November 9, 2024, Donald Trump was reelected President. On or about January 20, 2024, Mr. Trump was inaugurated.
35. Shortly after his inauguration, DOJ terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 cases.
36. These terminations were directed by Mr. Trump. They were politically motivated and unlawful, and were precisely the kind of retribution promised by Mr. Trump.
37. On or about February 1, 2025, Plaintiffs learned that a similar purge of personnel was being contemplated for the FBI.
38. On or about February 2, 2025, during a teleconference with many agents and several managers, some of the Plaintiffs were informed that they would be required to fill out a survey about their activities related to the Jan. 6 cases. See EXHIBIT 1.
39. As can be seen in EXHIBIT 1, the information supplied would be retrievable by the employees name and email address, or by other identifying information such as an employee number.
40. During this teleconference, Plaintiffs were informed that the order to fill out the survey was a lawful order according to the DOJ Office of General Counsel.
41. Plaintiffs assert that the specific purpose of this survey is to identify agents and other FBI personnel to be terminated as a form of politically motivated retribution.
42. Moreover, Plaintiffs have been informed that some of their personal information has already been posted by Jan. 6 convicted felons on “dark websites” (aka the “dark web”), and are particularly concerned about further publication of their personal information.
43. Plaintiffs assert that the very act of compiling lists of persons who worked on matters that upset Donald Trump is retaliatory in nature, intended to intimidate FBI agents and other personnel, and to discourage them from reporting any future malfeasance and by Donald Trump and his agents.
44. It has been widely reported that Elon Musk and persons working with him have recently attempted to access government databases that house personal information, without regard to security protocols, and without a legitimate business purpose.
45. Plaintiffs legitimately fear that the information being compiled will be accessed by persons who are not authorized to have access to it, and who lack the requisite security clearances to handle such information.
46. Plaintiffs further assert that even if they are not targeted for termination, they may face other retaliatory acts such as demotion, denial of job opportunities or denial of promotions in the future.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
47. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of:
48. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2), and alternatively, (b)(3).
49. The Class satisfies the numerosity requirement because it is composed of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees. The number of class members is so large that joinder of all its members is impracticable.
50. Common questions of law and fact include:
A. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to determine which FBI agents and other personnel worked on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases;
B. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to catalogue FBI agents and other personnel for eventual termination;
C. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to catalogue FBI agents for eventual other adverse employment actions;
D. Whether it is lawful for Defendant to collect the names, specific roles and other information requested in the survey for purposes of termination or other adverse employment actions.
E. Whether Defendant’s motivation in gather information about Plaintiffs’ activities is to target them for discrimination based on their real or perceived political affiliation.
F. Whether the collection of the survey’s information will result in Plaintiffs and the Class suffering irreparable harm.
G. Whether publication or dissemination of information gathered by the survey would cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm.
H. Whether the information gathered by the survey and stored by the FBI constitutes a “system of records” as Defined by the Privacy Act.
I. Whether all Plaintiffs have First and Fifth Amendment rights that would be violated if Defendant were to disclose the information gathered by the survey.
J. Whether all Plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights would be violated should Defendant use the information gathered to retaliate against Plaintiffs.
51. Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class because they are subject to the same decision and motivation, derived directly from the AG, and will all be made whole by the injunctive relief requested in this Class Complaint. Further, they have no interests that are antagonistic to the claims of the Class. They understand that this matter cannot be settled without the Court’s approval.
52. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs are committed to the vigorous representation of the Class. Plaintiffs have hired adequate counsel in the Center for Employment Justice, whose lawyers collectively have decades of experience in litigating complex class actions.
53. Plaintiffs’ counsel have agreed to advance the cost of the litigation contingent on the outcome of this case, and understand that no fee will be awarded without the Court’s approval.
54. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Joinder of all members of the class is impracticable, as the Plaintiff are located all over the country, and would require substantial and costly duplication of effort. Individual proceedings, therefore, would pose the risk of inconsistent adjudications. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
55. This Class may be certified under Rule 23(b).
A. 23(b)(1). Prosecution of separate actions by individual members would create the risk of (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, or (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
B. 23(b)(2). The party opposing the Class has acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the Class as a whole; or in the alternative
C. 23(b)(3). This action is suitable to proceed as a class action under 23(b)(3) because questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over individual questions, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Given the nature of the allegations, no class member has an interest in individually controlling the prosecution of this matter.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
(Violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution—Retaliation Based on Perceived Political Affiliation)
56. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
57. Government employees are protected by the First Amendment from discrimination or retaliation based on their political beliefs or affiliation, or the perception thereof.
58. On or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were asked to self-report their activities on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases, or were told their managers would be providing such information to Trump administration officials.
59. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated list of all Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago FBI agents and other personnel is going to be forwarded to senior members in Donald Trump’s administration.
60. On or about January 31, 2025, DOJ summarily terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases precisely because of the Trump administration’s perception of those attorneys’ political loyalties.
61. Plaintiffs reasonably believe and fear that the information gathered in the survey will also be used to target them for retaliatory discharge due to the Trump administration’s perception of their loyalties.
62. Donald Trump has made repeated public pronouncements of his intent to exact revenge upon persons he perceives to be disloyal to him by simply executing their duties in investigating acts incited by him and persons loyal to him.
63. Whatever the Trump administration believes about Plaintiffs’ political affiliation, it clearly believes that persons who were involved in the investigation and prosecution of Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases are insufficiently politically affiliated with Donald Trump to be entitled to retain their employment.
64. Plaintiffs assert that there is no other legitimate agency purpose for this list to be created or to exist. The FBI has sufficient information in other forms to identify the work of FBI agents, and to either laud or discipline them for their work performance.
65. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
66. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would be placed at immediate risk of serious personal harm and harm to their loved ones.
67. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would likely suffer measurable pecuniary damages such as loss of property, loss of income and damage to reputation.
68. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the Unite States would be severely compromised.
69. Plaintiffs emphasize that they work or worked on a wide variety of threats to the United States, originating both domestically and from abroad, and that the list of persons who would wish harm upon them for the execution of their duties is vast.
70. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.
COUNT II
(Violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution – Violation of Plaintiffs’ Substantive and Procedural Due Process Rights)
71. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
72. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protects against harms to a person’s reputation caused by government actors, often referred to as “reputation plus” and “stigma plus” harms.
73. Plaintiffs have a clearly defined interest in the maintenance of their reputations as professionals, acquired over years of faithful service to the United States.
74. Here, the potential of publication of information related to their work on Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases is an imminent threat to both their reputations, and to their prospects for either continued or future employment.
75. Moreover, Defendant has already harmed Plaintiffs’ reputation by publicly stating and implying that their work on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases was somehow wrongful, dishonest, politically motivated or improper.
76. Not only would the publication of Plaintiffs’ names or other identifying information harm their safety and reputations, but it would also burden their ability to find future employment with any entity with an interest in maintaining positive relationships with the Trump administration.
77. The survey that Plaintiffs are being asked to submit does not afford them any opportunity to defend their honor or reputation, and does not give them an opportunity to challenge any perceptions regarding the propriety of their actions.
78. As such, Defendant violates Plaintiffs’ substantive and procedural due process rights by forcing them to fill out a survey that places them at risk for severe, underserved reputational damage without the opportunity to be fully heard and to respond regarding the same.
COUNT III
(Violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Right to Privacy)
79. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
80. The Fifth Amendment requires Defendant to balance the constitutional privacy rights of federal officers against purported public interest in their activities.
81. Plaintiffs assert that the public does not have an interest in the specific investigative, administrative and law enforcement tasks of FBI agents and employees, particularly not with respect to matters that could still be active or litigated in the future.
82. Plaintiffs assert that any publication, dissemination, or transmission of the information gathered in the survey would violate their Fifth Amendment right to privacy.
83. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
84. Not only would the convicted felons Plaintiffs assisted to prosecute who are now at large have a keen interest in obtaining the information obtained by the survey, but so too would various other enemies of the United States.
85. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the United States would be severely compromised.
86. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.
COUNT IV
(Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a (b))
87. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
88. On or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were asked to self-report their activities on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases, or were told their managers would be providing such information to Trump administration officials.
89. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated list of all Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago FBI agents and other personnel is going to be forwarded to senior members in Donald Trump’s administration.
90. On or about January 31, 2025, DOJ summarily terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
91. Plaintiffs reasonably believe and fear that the target list will also be used to target them for retaliatory discharge.
92. Plaintiffs assert that the target list is a “system of records” as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
93. Plaintiffs assert that they are being mandated to provide information to formulate the “system of record,” and are not doing so of their own volition.
94. Plaintiffs assert that there is no legitimate agency purpose for this list to be created or to exist. The FBI has sufficient information in other forms to identify the work of FBI agents, and to either laud or discipline them for their work performance.
95. Plaintiffs state that they have not given any prior consent to the dissemination of the information in the target list.
96. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jam. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
97. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would be placed at immediate risk of serious personal harm and harm to their loved ones.
98. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the United States would be severely compromised.
99. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.
JURY TRIAL
100. Plaintiffs ask for trial by jury of all claims so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Pamela M. Keith
Pamela M. Keith [Bar. No 448421]
Scott M. Lempert [Bar No. 1045184]
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE
650 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 800-0292
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiffs
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-9 Employees/Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; James McHenry, Acting Attorney General of the United States,
Defendant.
Case 1:25-cv-00325
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiffs, John and Jane Does 1-9 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and former agents and/or employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (hereinafter “FBI”), by and through undersigned counsel, with their Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief, and state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs are currently employed agents and/or employees of the FBI, who, during the course of their duties worked on, or participated in the investigation of persons suspected of criminal activity related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol building ( “the Jan. 6 attack” or “Jan. 6 cases”) at the behest of Donald Trump, and/or the unlawful removal, retention and storage of classified documents by Mr. Trump (hereinafter “Mar-a-Lago case”). Upon returning to the Presidency, Mr. Trump has ordered the DOJ to conduct a review and purge of FBI personnel involved in these investigations and prosecutions. This directive is unlawful and retaliatory, and violates the Civil Service Reform Act 5 U.S.C. §§2301 and 2303.
Additionally, on or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were instructed to fill out a survey that would identify their specific role in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases. Some Plaintiffs were required to fill out the survey themselves, others were told that their supervisors would be filling out the form. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated information is going to be forwarded to upper management. Plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment action. Plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump, thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons. Defendant’s gathering, retention, and disclosure of Plaintiffs’ activities related the acts of former President Trump is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendments to the Constitution. It is also a violation of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment substantive and due process rights, such that the Court has the authority to enjoin the serious harm it is likely to cause. Moreover, the publication or dissemination of the information in these surveys would be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a, and would place Plaintiffs in immediate risk of serious harm. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the publication or dissemination of these surveys, or any information derived therefrom.
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiffs are employees of the FBI who worked on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases, and who have been informed that they are likely to be terminated in the very near future (the week of February 3-9, 2025) for such activity. They intend to represent a class of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees who participated in some manner in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and abuses of power by Donald Trump, or by those acting at his behest.
2. Defendant is the current Acting Attorney General of the United States, and the person authorized and tasked with enacting the political will of President Trump.
3. The Federal Bureau of Investigations is an agency under the control of the Department of Justice, with its headquarters located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20535. All essential personnel decisions and employment records are housed at the FBI headquarters.
JURISDICTION
4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court enjoys jurisdiction over this matter because Plaintiffs assert claims under the laws of the United States. This Court also has jurisdiction over this matter because the Defendant is an agency of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346.
5. Defendant waived sovereign immunity because the Privacy Act allows for damages against the United States.
6. Sovereign immunity for declaratory relief is waived by 5 U.S.C.§ 702, and by the fact that Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.
7. Plaintiffs are not seeking any universally applicable are national remedy or injunction. Rather they seek injunctive relief only for themselves and the members of the putative Class that are parties before this Court.
FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
8. The FBI investigates a variety of crimes, including terrorism, cybercrime, white collar crimes, and public corruption.
9. The FBI collects, analyzes, and shares intelligence to understand and combat security threats.
10. Additionally, the FBI provides services like fingerprint identification, laboratory examinations, and training.
11. The FBI protects the United States from foreign intelligence, espionage, and cyber operations, and combats cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes.
12. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and reports its investigations to the attorney general and United States attorneys' offices. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the FBI’s work to the security of the United States.
13. FBI agents are chosen through a highly selective process, and are carefully screened for aptitude and trustworthiness.
14. FBI agents go through more than four months of intensive training at the FBI academy before beginning their duties, and attend numerous training sessions throughout their careers to adapt to new technologies and emerging threats.
15. Many FBI agents are multi-lingual and routinely interface with intelligence agencies from allied nations.
16. The training FBI agents receive is comprehensive, and in some instances, extremely expensive.
17. On information and belief, Plaintiffs assert that each agent of the FBI receives more than 3 million dollars-worth of training in a twenty (20) year career.
18. FBI agents also develop specific expertise from their assignments and field duties, much of which cannot be replicated solely by training.
19. FBI agents often face threats to their personal safety, at times going under cover and/or working in extremely dangerous areas to obtain information necessary to secure the interests of the United States.
20. FBI agents are tasked by their chain and command and leadership team, and are not free to refuse assignments based on their political or personal preferences.
21. Plaintiffs’ tasks routinely involved, inter alia, reviewing video evidence, interviewing witnesses, executing search and arrest warrants, interfacing with confidential informants, reviewing and analyzing cyber communications, investigating financial transactions and other activities for the purpose of identifying persons engaged in unlawful conduct, and assisting in the prosecution of said persons, and/or providing support for such activities.
22. On or about January 6, 2021, a protest led by Donald Trump took place at the ellipse in front of the United States Capitol building, which erupted into violence.
23. Hundreds of rioters (“Jan. 6 Rioters”) forcefully breached the Capitol building, ignoring the directions of both Capitol Police and Police Officers of the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department ( “MPD”).
24. Rioters violently attacked law enforcement officers causing one fatality and hundreds of injuries. To date, five (5) police officers have died as a result of what transpired during the Jan. 6 attack.
25. Additionally, Jan 6 Rioters vandalized the halls of Congress, unlawfully entered into secured areas of the Capitol building, and threatened the lives of members of Congress and the Vice President of the United States.
26. Over the four years that followed the Jan. 6 attack, Plaintiffs worked diligently to bring to justice the persons who had engaged in illegal activity related to the incitement, planning, preparation and execution of the Jan. 6 attack, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 1,500 people.
27. A recurring theme in the trials of the Jan. 6 Defendants is that they appeared at the Capitol, and engaged in violent action at the urging and direct request of Donald Trump.
28. It is also undisputed that while Donald Trump was keenly aware of the violence taking place at the Capitol on that day, for hours he did nothing to intercede or persuade the Jan. 6 Rioters to cease their activity.
29. Information obtained during the investigation of the Jan. 6 attack also established that Mr. Trump was an active participant in the planning of the attack on the Capitol, and of the coordinated effort by some members of Congress to evade certification of the election results.
30. Plaintiffs assert that the ultimate goal of both the Jan. 6 attack and the efforts in Congress by allies of Donald Trump was to block the peaceful transition of power to the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election, Joe Biden.
31. As a result of the work of Plaintiffs and other members of the putative Class, Special Counsel Jack Smith ( “SC Smith”) achieved a Grand Jury indictment of Donald Trump which was in the process of being litigated when the 2024 Presidential Election took place.
32. Also, as a result of the work of Plaintiffs and the putative Class, SC Smith was able to secure a Grand Jury indictment of Mr. Trump for the unlawful removal, retention and storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
33. During his campaign for office, Mr. Trump repeatedly stated that he would personify “the vengeance” or “the retribution,” for those whom he called “political hostages,” for their actions during the Jan. 6 attack.
34. On or about November 9, 2024, Donald Trump was reelected President. On or about January 20, 2024, Mr. Trump was inaugurated.
35. Shortly after his inauguration, DOJ terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 cases.
36. These terminations were directed by Mr. Trump. They were politically motivated and unlawful, and were precisely the kind of retribution promised by Mr. Trump.
37. On or about February 1, 2025, Plaintiffs learned that a similar purge of personnel was being contemplated for the FBI.
38. On or about February 2, 2025, during a teleconference with many agents and several managers, some of the Plaintiffs were informed that they would be required to fill out a survey about their activities related to the Jan. 6 cases. See EXHIBIT 1.
39. As can be seen in EXHIBIT 1, the information supplied would be retrievable by the employees name and email address, or by other identifying information such as an employee number.
40. During this teleconference, Plaintiffs were informed that the order to fill out the survey was a lawful order according to the DOJ Office of General Counsel.
41. Plaintiffs assert that the specific purpose of this survey is to identify agents and other FBI personnel to be terminated as a form of politically motivated retribution.
42. Moreover, Plaintiffs have been informed that some of their personal information has already been posted by Jan. 6 convicted felons on “dark websites” (aka the “dark web”), and are particularly concerned about further publication of their personal information.
43. Plaintiffs assert that the very act of compiling lists of persons who worked on matters that upset Donald Trump is retaliatory in nature, intended to intimidate FBI agents and other personnel, and to discourage them from reporting any future malfeasance and by Donald Trump and his agents.
44. It has been widely reported that Elon Musk and persons working with him have recently attempted to access government databases that house personal information, without regard to security protocols, and without a legitimate business purpose.
45. Plaintiffs legitimately fear that the information being compiled will be accessed by persons who are not authorized to have access to it, and who lack the requisite security clearances to handle such information.
46. Plaintiffs further assert that even if they are not targeted for termination, they may face other retaliatory acts such as demotion, denial of job opportunities or denial of promotions in the future.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
47. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of:
All FBI personnel for whom a survey was requested and/or completed by the Trump administration that identifies their specific role in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
48. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2), and alternatively, (b)(3).
49. The Class satisfies the numerosity requirement because it is composed of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees. The number of class members is so large that joinder of all its members is impracticable.
50. Common questions of law and fact include:
A. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to determine which FBI agents and other personnel worked on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases;
B. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to catalogue FBI agents and other personnel for eventual termination;
C. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to catalogue FBI agents for eventual other adverse employment actions;
D. Whether it is lawful for Defendant to collect the names, specific roles and other information requested in the survey for purposes of termination or other adverse employment actions.
E. Whether Defendant’s motivation in gather information about Plaintiffs’ activities is to target them for discrimination based on their real or perceived political affiliation.
F. Whether the collection of the survey’s information will result in Plaintiffs and the Class suffering irreparable harm.
G. Whether publication or dissemination of information gathered by the survey would cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm.
H. Whether the information gathered by the survey and stored by the FBI constitutes a “system of records” as Defined by the Privacy Act.
I. Whether all Plaintiffs have First and Fifth Amendment rights that would be violated if Defendant were to disclose the information gathered by the survey.
J. Whether all Plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights would be violated should Defendant use the information gathered to retaliate against Plaintiffs.
51. Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class because they are subject to the same decision and motivation, derived directly from the AG, and will all be made whole by the injunctive relief requested in this Class Complaint. Further, they have no interests that are antagonistic to the claims of the Class. They understand that this matter cannot be settled without the Court’s approval.
52. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs are committed to the vigorous representation of the Class. Plaintiffs have hired adequate counsel in the Center for Employment Justice, whose lawyers collectively have decades of experience in litigating complex class actions.
53. Plaintiffs’ counsel have agreed to advance the cost of the litigation contingent on the outcome of this case, and understand that no fee will be awarded without the Court’s approval.
54. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Joinder of all members of the class is impracticable, as the Plaintiff are located all over the country, and would require substantial and costly duplication of effort. Individual proceedings, therefore, would pose the risk of inconsistent adjudications. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
55. This Class may be certified under Rule 23(b).
A. 23(b)(1). Prosecution of separate actions by individual members would create the risk of (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, or (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
B. 23(b)(2). The party opposing the Class has acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the Class as a whole; or in the alternative
C. 23(b)(3). This action is suitable to proceed as a class action under 23(b)(3) because questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over individual questions, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Given the nature of the allegations, no class member has an interest in individually controlling the prosecution of this matter.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
(Violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution—Retaliation Based on Perceived Political Affiliation)
56. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
57. Government employees are protected by the First Amendment from discrimination or retaliation based on their political beliefs or affiliation, or the perception thereof.
58. On or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were asked to self-report their activities on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases, or were told their managers would be providing such information to Trump administration officials.
59. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated list of all Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago FBI agents and other personnel is going to be forwarded to senior members in Donald Trump’s administration.
60. On or about January 31, 2025, DOJ summarily terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases precisely because of the Trump administration’s perception of those attorneys’ political loyalties.
61. Plaintiffs reasonably believe and fear that the information gathered in the survey will also be used to target them for retaliatory discharge due to the Trump administration’s perception of their loyalties.
62. Donald Trump has made repeated public pronouncements of his intent to exact revenge upon persons he perceives to be disloyal to him by simply executing their duties in investigating acts incited by him and persons loyal to him.
63. Whatever the Trump administration believes about Plaintiffs’ political affiliation, it clearly believes that persons who were involved in the investigation and prosecution of Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases are insufficiently politically affiliated with Donald Trump to be entitled to retain their employment.
64. Plaintiffs assert that there is no other legitimate agency purpose for this list to be created or to exist. The FBI has sufficient information in other forms to identify the work of FBI agents, and to either laud or discipline them for their work performance.
65. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
66. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would be placed at immediate risk of serious personal harm and harm to their loved ones.
67. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would likely suffer measurable pecuniary damages such as loss of property, loss of income and damage to reputation.
68. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the Unite States would be severely compromised.
69. Plaintiffs emphasize that they work or worked on a wide variety of threats to the United States, originating both domestically and from abroad, and that the list of persons who would wish harm upon them for the execution of their duties is vast.
70. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.
COUNT II
(Violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution – Violation of Plaintiffs’ Substantive and Procedural Due Process Rights)
71. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
72. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protects against harms to a person’s reputation caused by government actors, often referred to as “reputation plus” and “stigma plus” harms.
73. Plaintiffs have a clearly defined interest in the maintenance of their reputations as professionals, acquired over years of faithful service to the United States.
74. Here, the potential of publication of information related to their work on Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases is an imminent threat to both their reputations, and to their prospects for either continued or future employment.
75. Moreover, Defendant has already harmed Plaintiffs’ reputation by publicly stating and implying that their work on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases was somehow wrongful, dishonest, politically motivated or improper.
76. Not only would the publication of Plaintiffs’ names or other identifying information harm their safety and reputations, but it would also burden their ability to find future employment with any entity with an interest in maintaining positive relationships with the Trump administration.
77. The survey that Plaintiffs are being asked to submit does not afford them any opportunity to defend their honor or reputation, and does not give them an opportunity to challenge any perceptions regarding the propriety of their actions.
78. As such, Defendant violates Plaintiffs’ substantive and procedural due process rights by forcing them to fill out a survey that places them at risk for severe, underserved reputational damage without the opportunity to be fully heard and to respond regarding the same.
COUNT III
(Violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Right to Privacy)
79. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
80. The Fifth Amendment requires Defendant to balance the constitutional privacy rights of federal officers against purported public interest in their activities.
81. Plaintiffs assert that the public does not have an interest in the specific investigative, administrative and law enforcement tasks of FBI agents and employees, particularly not with respect to matters that could still be active or litigated in the future.
82. Plaintiffs assert that any publication, dissemination, or transmission of the information gathered in the survey would violate their Fifth Amendment right to privacy.
83. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
84. Not only would the convicted felons Plaintiffs assisted to prosecute who are now at large have a keen interest in obtaining the information obtained by the survey, but so too would various other enemies of the United States.
85. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the United States would be severely compromised.
86. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.
COUNT IV
(Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a (b))
87. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
88. On or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were asked to self-report their activities on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases, or were told their managers would be providing such information to Trump administration officials.
89. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated list of all Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago FBI agents and other personnel is going to be forwarded to senior members in Donald Trump’s administration.
90. On or about January 31, 2025, DOJ summarily terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
91. Plaintiffs reasonably believe and fear that the target list will also be used to target them for retaliatory discharge.
92. Plaintiffs assert that the target list is a “system of records” as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
93. Plaintiffs assert that they are being mandated to provide information to formulate the “system of record,” and are not doing so of their own volition.
94. Plaintiffs assert that there is no legitimate agency purpose for this list to be created or to exist. The FBI has sufficient information in other forms to identify the work of FBI agents, and to either laud or discipline them for their work performance.
95. Plaintiffs state that they have not given any prior consent to the dissemination of the information in the target list.
96. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jam. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
97. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would be placed at immediate risk of serious personal harm and harm to their loved ones.
98. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the United States would be severely compromised.
99. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.
JURY TRIAL
100. Plaintiffs ask for trial by jury of all claims so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Pamela M. Keith
Pamela M. Keith [Bar. No 448421]
Scott M. Lempert [Bar No. 1045184]
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE
650 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 800-0292
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiffs
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:14 pm
US judge temporarily blocks Trump buyout offer for government workers
by Daniel Wiessner, Tim Reid and Nathan Layne
Reuters
February 6, 2025 4:06 PM MST Updated a few seconds ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-gov ... 025-02-06/
Summary
• Administration targets poor-performing employees
• Administration says those who do not take offer could still lose their jobs
• Labor unions warn buyout offer may lack authority or funds
Feb 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the Trump administration's proposed buyout for federal workers until at least Monday, giving an initial win to labor unions that sued to stop it.
Even as the program was stayed, more than 60,000 federal employees have already accepted the buyout offer, a source told Reuters.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge George O'Toole in Boston pushes back a midnight deadline set by the Trump administration, which is pressuring federal workers to leave their jobs in an unprecedented drive to overhaul the federal government.
O'Toole could opt to delay the buyout further or block it on a more permanent basis when he next considers the legal challenge by the unions at a hearing on Monday.
The buyout proposal has upended Washington, sparking street protests and accusations by labor unions and opposition Democrats that Republican President Donald Trump is violating multiple laws.
The offer promises to pay employees' salaries until October, but that may not be ironclad. Current spending laws expire on March 14 and there is no guarantee that salaries will be funded beyond that point.
The Education Department told staffers that those who accept the buyout could see their paychecks stop at any time, media outlets reported. Labor unions and Democrats have said the offer is not trustworthy.
Some federal employees said they were heartened by Thursday's court ruling.
"It's a glimmer of hope that the courts might help us and block the whole resignation program," said an employee at the General Services Administration, which manages federal properties.
ANOTHER LAWSUIT
Trump has tasked the world's richest person, Elon Musk, to oversee a drastic slashing of the government workforce. As part of that effort, staffers working for Musk have sought access to government personnel files and payment records at a number of agencies, raising privacy and security concerns.
Trump's government overhaul has already resulted in staff purges at several agencies and dramatically scaled-back operations at America's main humanitarian aid agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said she and seven other Democratic state attorneys general would sue to stop Musk's quasi-governmental "Department of Government Efficiency" from accessing sensitive data.
"The president does not have the power to give away our private information to anyone he chooses," she said in a statement.
U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) speaks as demonstrators rally during a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump and the actions he has taken in the first weeks of his presidency, outside of the Department of Labor in Washington, U.S., February 5, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard Purchase Licensing Rights
The White House says it is following through on Trump's campaign promise to cut wasteful spending and slim down a bureaucracy that many conservatives see as left-leaning and unresponsive to the president's agenda.
60,000 ACCEPT OFFER SO FAR
Some federal workers say they are operating in a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Workers said they were downloading pay and benefit records that they feared could be erased from government computers as they weighed whether to take a buyout deal that might not be honored or stay on with the knowledge they could be fired.
"In the halls most people are stopping to ask one another what their decision will be, with many people saying they are scared because we are caught between two bad choices and very little time to make the decision," said one Treasury Department executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The 60,000 or so who have accepted the buyout constitute a little more than 2.5% of the 2.3 million federal workforce. It was unclear from which agencies those employees are leaving.
Roughly 6% of federal workers retire or resign in a typical year, according to the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.
The administration has told workers they could lose their jobs if they do not accept the buyout. Federal workers say they have been told to brace for dramatic cuts.
"We were told that nothing that is happening is normal and the goal is to reduce the workforce as fast as possible," said an executive at the Internal Revenue Service.
The White House continues to target new categories of workers for potential dismissal.
The Trump administration sent a new memo on Thursday to agency heads across government ordering them to provide by March 7 a list of all employees who received less than a “fully successful” performance rating in the past three years.
The memo said barriers should be eliminated so agencies can “swiftly terminate poor performing employees.”
The White House has also sought to identify workers hired within the last two years, who lack full civil-service protections and would be easier to fire.
And it has also ordered agency officials to identify those appointed by Trump's predecessor, former President Joe Biden, who remain in civil-service jobs, as well as those who have received poor performance ratings.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House is planning to order the Food and Drug Administration and other health-care agencies to fire thousands of workers. The White House denied the report.
Reporting by Tim Reid, Nathan Layne, Daniel Wiessner, Mike Stone, Maggie Fick, Jasper Ward, Richard Cowan, Gabriella Borter, Alexandra Ulmer, Ned Parker, Nathan Layne and Andy Sullivan; Writing by Andy Sullivan and James Oliphant; Editing by Ross Colvin, Marguerita Choy and Deepa Babington
by Daniel Wiessner, Tim Reid and Nathan Layne
Reuters
February 6, 2025 4:06 PM MST Updated a few seconds ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-gov ... 025-02-06/
Summary
• Administration targets poor-performing employees
• Administration says those who do not take offer could still lose their jobs
• Labor unions warn buyout offer may lack authority or funds
Feb 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the Trump administration's proposed buyout for federal workers until at least Monday, giving an initial win to labor unions that sued to stop it.
Even as the program was stayed, more than 60,000 federal employees have already accepted the buyout offer, a source told Reuters.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge George O'Toole in Boston pushes back a midnight deadline set by the Trump administration, which is pressuring federal workers to leave their jobs in an unprecedented drive to overhaul the federal government.
O'Toole could opt to delay the buyout further or block it on a more permanent basis when he next considers the legal challenge by the unions at a hearing on Monday.
The buyout proposal has upended Washington, sparking street protests and accusations by labor unions and opposition Democrats that Republican President Donald Trump is violating multiple laws.
The offer promises to pay employees' salaries until October, but that may not be ironclad. Current spending laws expire on March 14 and there is no guarantee that salaries will be funded beyond that point.
The Education Department told staffers that those who accept the buyout could see their paychecks stop at any time, media outlets reported. Labor unions and Democrats have said the offer is not trustworthy.
Some federal employees said they were heartened by Thursday's court ruling.
"It's a glimmer of hope that the courts might help us and block the whole resignation program," said an employee at the General Services Administration, which manages federal properties.
ANOTHER LAWSUIT
Trump has tasked the world's richest person, Elon Musk, to oversee a drastic slashing of the government workforce. As part of that effort, staffers working for Musk have sought access to government personnel files and payment records at a number of agencies, raising privacy and security concerns.
Trump's government overhaul has already resulted in staff purges at several agencies and dramatically scaled-back operations at America's main humanitarian aid agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said she and seven other Democratic state attorneys general would sue to stop Musk's quasi-governmental "Department of Government Efficiency" from accessing sensitive data.
"The president does not have the power to give away our private information to anyone he chooses," she said in a statement.
U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) speaks as demonstrators rally during a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump and the actions he has taken in the first weeks of his presidency, outside of the Department of Labor in Washington, U.S., February 5, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard Purchase Licensing Rights
The White House says it is following through on Trump's campaign promise to cut wasteful spending and slim down a bureaucracy that many conservatives see as left-leaning and unresponsive to the president's agenda.
60,000 ACCEPT OFFER SO FAR
Some federal workers say they are operating in a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Workers said they were downloading pay and benefit records that they feared could be erased from government computers as they weighed whether to take a buyout deal that might not be honored or stay on with the knowledge they could be fired.
"In the halls most people are stopping to ask one another what their decision will be, with many people saying they are scared because we are caught between two bad choices and very little time to make the decision," said one Treasury Department executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The 60,000 or so who have accepted the buyout constitute a little more than 2.5% of the 2.3 million federal workforce. It was unclear from which agencies those employees are leaving.
Roughly 6% of federal workers retire or resign in a typical year, according to the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.
The administration has told workers they could lose their jobs if they do not accept the buyout. Federal workers say they have been told to brace for dramatic cuts.
"We were told that nothing that is happening is normal and the goal is to reduce the workforce as fast as possible," said an executive at the Internal Revenue Service.
The White House continues to target new categories of workers for potential dismissal.
The Trump administration sent a new memo on Thursday to agency heads across government ordering them to provide by March 7 a list of all employees who received less than a “fully successful” performance rating in the past three years.
The memo said barriers should be eliminated so agencies can “swiftly terminate poor performing employees.”
The White House has also sought to identify workers hired within the last two years, who lack full civil-service protections and would be easier to fire.
And it has also ordered agency officials to identify those appointed by Trump's predecessor, former President Joe Biden, who remain in civil-service jobs, as well as those who have received poor performance ratings.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House is planning to order the Food and Drug Administration and other health-care agencies to fire thousands of workers. The White House denied the report.
Reporting by Tim Reid, Nathan Layne, Daniel Wiessner, Mike Stone, Maggie Fick, Jasper Ward, Richard Cowan, Gabriella Borter, Alexandra Ulmer, Ned Parker, Nathan Layne and Andy Sullivan; Writing by Andy Sullivan and James Oliphant; Editing by Ross Colvin, Marguerita Choy and Deepa Babington
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri Feb 07, 2025 12:44 am
Elon Musk DATA LEAK Sparks URGENT WARNING: FIVE ALARM FIRE!
by Suri Crowe
MeidasTouch
Feb 6, 2025
Nobody elected Elon Musk, a corrupt, near trillionaire who has implanted himself in our government. Musk, with the permission of the equally corrupt, Donald Trump, now has the keys to our Treasury and Americans' most sensitive information. How do we fight back? Suri Crowe has some ideas.
Transcript
[Suri Crowe] That is Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, doing the most to warn Americans of the dire situation that Donald Trump and his creepy first buddy and fellow psychopath Elon Musk, have put all of us Americans in. My name is Suri Crowe, and you are watching the MeidasTouch network.
Does anyone else feel like we're living in a real life Bond movie, but with two Bond villains, except where is James and Jane Bond? Well I will tell you at the end of this video, but you got to hang with me.
A group of senators and Congressional reps are now getting the message that this is a five alarm fire! And not a minute too soon! Here is more from Senators Wyden and Elizabeth Warren.
[Suri Crowe] So it is patently obvious to any of us who are not watching propaganda networks like Fox, OAN, Charlie Kirk, or crazy Alex Jones, that Elon Musk who is a non-elected, foreign-born, openly white supremacist, is now running our government with a band of teenage hackers. In addition to firing the head of the FAA, because the man was doing his job, and investigating Elon's Space X for safety violations, Musk also illegally fired Phyllis Fong, who was the Inspector General of the USDA. She was a 22-year nonpartisan veteran. And Fong, who contested her firing because Trump did not follow legal termination protocols, refused to leave her office. And so Trump had her physically removed from her office to degrade her. But Fong did not obey in advance. A lawsuit is coming, likely a successful lawsuit, and bravo to Phyllis Fong for holding her ground. Way to go; way to go.
Fong was overseeing investigations into consumer food safety; violations of Animal Welfare laws; including the spread of the Avian flu, which is spreading among cattle and chickens, and as of this recording has has killed at least one person.
And here's the kicker: the US Department of Agriculture is responsible for investigating Animal Welfare at zoos; research labs, etc., which most Americans are completely unaware of. I am, because I did several investigations on animal cruelty at roadside zoos, some of which I won investigative journalism awards for.
And Fong was specifically looking into Elon Musk's brain implant startup, Neuralink, for animal abuse allegations. So, of course, this monster wanted her gone.
The bottom line is that Trump's regime is lawless, doesn't want any checks and balances, or oversight, and that is why they are getting rid of career Federal prosecutors, career FBI agents, Inspectors Generals -- anyone who would say, "Stop! You are breaking the law!"
And all of his cabinet picks are enablers, and will destroy the very agencies that they are in charge of, which is why it is inexcusable, in my opinion, that any Democrat is voting to confirm Trump's nominations.
Here is a list of Democrats in the Senate who have voted for the most of Trump's picks. Pause to read.
Here's a list of Senate Democrats who have opposed Trump's cabinet picks. And this is what we should be expecting. Note that Senators Patty Murray, Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, to name a few, they are leading the way of how we behave when we are the party of opposition and pro democracy.
[Suri Crowe] So here is my wrap up. Where is James Bond? Where is Jane Bond? We are he and she. We are the ones we have been waiting for. Tthere are far more of us than this 1% of corrupt criminal hoarders.
Take a look at Elon Musk before his multiple plastic surgeries and hormones. etc. The very stuff he wants to take away from everyone else, including his trans daughter. He is an almost trillionaire, where no amount of money will ever make him feel secure enough. He and Trump are insecure bullies, weak men, an orange freak and a weird nerd.
So we oppose, we obstruct, we tell Representatives that they represent us, and we demand that they do not play footsie with Nazis. Look what the Canadians did. And what the Mexicans did. They stood up to these bullies, and we can too. They said, "We're not buying your American liquor; we're not going to buy any American Products; we're not going to abide by Elon Musk's Starlink contract." They said, "No!" And Trump folded. Paralysis is what authoritarians want. They flood the zone with shit. That is the Playbook. Putin is the master of this, so that people feel overwhelmed and helpless.
So step away if you must, but then, get back in the game. Call your representatives: MAGA or Democrats. And let them know that you are watching them, and that you are doing everything you can to put people in Congress who will represent your rights. And that you are talking to friends and family, and spreading the word about what they are doing to take away your rights and freedom. Because at the end of the day, these people just want to stay in power, which is pathetic! Yes, I agree. But that's what they want to hold on to. So remind them who votes them in.
And lastly, people, say they want "small" government, but do they really? Because the USDA regulates food safety/ Do you really want another E. coli/Listeria outbreak from your food, like the recent huge outbreak of Lysteria at a Boar's head plant in Northern Virginia? You take away the regulators in aviation safety, and planes are crashing, and falling out of the sky, as we have seen recently. You deregulate banks, your money is no longer guaranteed or safe. We need to be grateful for big government that is accountable and works for us. Because this -- what we have right now -- is a king and his corrupt court, looting our rights and our earned income benefits. It is inexcusable.
And lastly, before I sign off, I just want to remind people that when we rise up all together, we do have power. Trump tried to sneak in the turning off of faucets of trillions of dollars of money last week when he shut off Medicaid, Snap, WIC, veterans benefits, etc. And people became furious. I was one of them, Because at that very moment, my cancer surgery was temporarily cancelled. So I called my MAGA representative Jen Kiggins, I called my Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, and I didn't let up. And neither did millions of you. And as a result, there are now 2 federal district judges that said "No you don't, Donald Trump. You cannot do that." And there is now pending litigation, and he had to back off. And I am happy to say that, as of this recording, tomorrow I am going under the knife for my next cancer surgery, and I am excited. But we have to keep the pressure on, and that's how it works.
So I will be checking out, but I can't wait to be back here soon.
My name is Suri Crowe, and you are watching the Meidastouch Network. I hope to be back here very soon, and while I am gone, please you guys, keep up the pressure. Do not be weary and well-doing, for in due time you will reap a harvest of good. Okay? Peace.
by Suri Crowe
MeidasTouch
Feb 6, 2025
Nobody elected Elon Musk, a corrupt, near trillionaire who has implanted himself in our government. Musk, with the permission of the equally corrupt, Donald Trump, now has the keys to our Treasury and Americans' most sensitive information. How do we fight back? Suri Crowe has some ideas.
Transcript
[Sen. Ron Wyden, Ore.] Our Finance investigators got confirmation from whistleblowers late Friday that the treasury secretary had turned the keys over to the musk Hatchet Squad. And here's where we are now.
It is clear that unqualified and unaccountable people have seized control of the flow of taxpayer funds, and a trove of extremely sensitive data. They are seizing the tools you need for a coup. Their first target out of the gate wasn't anything to do with fraud or waste. It was a religious charity for poor people. If Donald Trump cared about improper payments, he wouldn't have fired the Inspectors General. Nobody should fall for that bit of misdirection.
Now, a few hours ago Trump claimed that Musk only looks at payments, and doesn't have the authority to shut any down. That's Donald Trump. It's pretty clear folks, that Musk sees it differently. As Trump and Musk continue targeting Americans they don't like, there's nothing to stop them from cutting off Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, and penalizing cities and states that defy Trump's illegal orders.
And a lot of us care deeply, as our constituents do, about privacy. Musk has access to to the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans' bank accounts, tax data, Social Security numbers, home addresses. If people are creeped out at Elon Musk and his Hatchet Squad having your bank accounts, your home address, social security number. Musk Hatchet Brigade has infiltrated a goldmine of data that every foreign spy, and every corrupt actor, would love to see. It is a prescription for nightmares.
[Suri Crowe] That is Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, doing the most to warn Americans of the dire situation that Donald Trump and his creepy first buddy and fellow psychopath Elon Musk, have put all of us Americans in. My name is Suri Crowe, and you are watching the MeidasTouch network.
Does anyone else feel like we're living in a real life Bond movie, but with two Bond villains, except where is James and Jane Bond? Well I will tell you at the end of this video, but you got to hang with me.
A group of senators and Congressional reps are now getting the message that this is a five alarm fire! And not a minute too soon! Here is more from Senators Wyden and Elizabeth Warren.
[Sen. Ron Wyden, Ore.] Let's remember that Musk reportedly couldn't get a security clearance because of his financial ties to the Chinese government, and his other foreign connections. That's the guy, folks, who's now got his hands on the personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans and some unknown number of businesses and groups.
Last point: the Trump Administration caused chaos in Medicaid and other services that are important to Americans last week when they shut down the primary payment portals to States and social service agencies. These are incompetent people! They don't care about the damage they're doing! And now they may be in charge of the tight-rope walk the Treasury has to do to avoid defaulting on out of debt. We're one mistake away from economic catastrophe.
[Sen. Elizabeth Warren] I just want to be clear about what's going on here. The system that makes sure that your granddad gets his social security check; the system that makes sure that your Mom's doctor gets Medicare payment to cover her medical appointment; and the system that makes sure that you get the tax refund that you're owed, has been taken over by Elon Musk. And every organization, from your State government that uses Federal money on that bridge project, to the local Head Start that takes care of little kids while their mommies and daddies go to work, is now at the mercy of Elon Musk. Maybe you get paid, or maybe you don't. Because now it appears that all of us work for Elon Musk.
Elon just grabbed the controls of our whole payment system, demanding the power to turn it on for his friends, or turn it off for anyone he doesn't like. One guy deciding who gets paid and who doesn't. It is not the law, but it is the reality.
[Suri Crowe] So it is patently obvious to any of us who are not watching propaganda networks like Fox, OAN, Charlie Kirk, or crazy Alex Jones, that Elon Musk who is a non-elected, foreign-born, openly white supremacist, is now running our government with a band of teenage hackers. In addition to firing the head of the FAA, because the man was doing his job, and investigating Elon's Space X for safety violations, Musk also illegally fired Phyllis Fong, who was the Inspector General of the USDA. She was a 22-year nonpartisan veteran. And Fong, who contested her firing because Trump did not follow legal termination protocols, refused to leave her office. And so Trump had her physically removed from her office to degrade her. But Fong did not obey in advance. A lawsuit is coming, likely a successful lawsuit, and bravo to Phyllis Fong for holding her ground. Way to go; way to go.
Fong was overseeing investigations into consumer food safety; violations of Animal Welfare laws; including the spread of the Avian flu, which is spreading among cattle and chickens, and as of this recording has has killed at least one person.
And here's the kicker: the US Department of Agriculture is responsible for investigating Animal Welfare at zoos; research labs, etc., which most Americans are completely unaware of. I am, because I did several investigations on animal cruelty at roadside zoos, some of which I won investigative journalism awards for.
And Fong was specifically looking into Elon Musk's brain implant startup, Neuralink, for animal abuse allegations. So, of course, this monster wanted her gone.
The bottom line is that Trump's regime is lawless, doesn't want any checks and balances, or oversight, and that is why they are getting rid of career Federal prosecutors, career FBI agents, Inspectors Generals -- anyone who would say, "Stop! You are breaking the law!"
And all of his cabinet picks are enablers, and will destroy the very agencies that they are in charge of, which is why it is inexcusable, in my opinion, that any Democrat is voting to confirm Trump's nominations.
Ruben Gallego (Ariz.) : 7
Maggie Hassan (N.H.: 7
Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.): 7
John Hickenlooper (Colo.): 6
Tim Kaine (Va.): 6
Mark Kelly (Ariz.): 6
Michael Bennett (Colo.): 5
John Fetterman (Pa.): 5
Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.): 5
Gary Peters (Mich.: 5
The Democratic senators most aligned with Trump in the inaugural tracker are:
· Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire
· Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire
· Gary Peters, Michigan
· Tim Kaine, Virginia
Here is a list of Democrats in the Senate who have voted for the most of Trump's picks. Pause to read.
Thirteen Democratic and independent senators were initially tied for the highest score, including our very own Patty Murray ()hurrah for Senator Murray!):
· Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut
· Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada
· Tammy Duckworth, Illinois
· Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
· Mazi Hirono, Hawaii
· Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico
· Ed Markey, Massachusetts
· Chris Murphy, Connecticut
· Patty Murray, Washington
· Jack Reed, Rhode Island
· Bernie Sanders, Vermont
· Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
· Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts
Here's a list of Senate Democrats who have opposed Trump's cabinet picks. And this is what we should be expecting. Note that Senators Patty Murray, Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, to name a few, they are leading the way of how we behave when we are the party of opposition and pro democracy.
[Sen. Ron Wyden, Ore.] These are incompetent people. They don't care about the damage they're doing. And now they may be in charge of the tightrope walk the Treasury has to do to avoid defaulting on out of debt. We're one mistake away from economic catastrophe.
[Suri Crowe] So here is my wrap up. Where is James Bond? Where is Jane Bond? We are he and she. We are the ones we have been waiting for. Tthere are far more of us than this 1% of corrupt criminal hoarders.
Take a look at Elon Musk before his multiple plastic surgeries and hormones. etc. The very stuff he wants to take away from everyone else, including his trans daughter. He is an almost trillionaire, where no amount of money will ever make him feel secure enough. He and Trump are insecure bullies, weak men, an orange freak and a weird nerd.
So we oppose, we obstruct, we tell Representatives that they represent us, and we demand that they do not play footsie with Nazis. Look what the Canadians did. And what the Mexicans did. They stood up to these bullies, and we can too. They said, "We're not buying your American liquor; we're not going to buy any American Products; we're not going to abide by Elon Musk's Starlink contract." They said, "No!" And Trump folded. Paralysis is what authoritarians want. They flood the zone with shit. That is the Playbook. Putin is the master of this, so that people feel overwhelmed and helpless.
So step away if you must, but then, get back in the game. Call your representatives: MAGA or Democrats. And let them know that you are watching them, and that you are doing everything you can to put people in Congress who will represent your rights. And that you are talking to friends and family, and spreading the word about what they are doing to take away your rights and freedom. Because at the end of the day, these people just want to stay in power, which is pathetic! Yes, I agree. But that's what they want to hold on to. So remind them who votes them in.
And lastly, people, say they want "small" government, but do they really? Because the USDA regulates food safety/ Do you really want another E. coli/Listeria outbreak from your food, like the recent huge outbreak of Lysteria at a Boar's head plant in Northern Virginia? You take away the regulators in aviation safety, and planes are crashing, and falling out of the sky, as we have seen recently. You deregulate banks, your money is no longer guaranteed or safe. We need to be grateful for big government that is accountable and works for us. Because this -- what we have right now -- is a king and his corrupt court, looting our rights and our earned income benefits. It is inexcusable.
And lastly, before I sign off, I just want to remind people that when we rise up all together, we do have power. Trump tried to sneak in the turning off of faucets of trillions of dollars of money last week when he shut off Medicaid, Snap, WIC, veterans benefits, etc. And people became furious. I was one of them, Because at that very moment, my cancer surgery was temporarily cancelled. So I called my MAGA representative Jen Kiggins, I called my Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, and I didn't let up. And neither did millions of you. And as a result, there are now 2 federal district judges that said "No you don't, Donald Trump. You cannot do that." And there is now pending litigation, and he had to back off. And I am happy to say that, as of this recording, tomorrow I am going under the knife for my next cancer surgery, and I am excited. But we have to keep the pressure on, and that's how it works.
So I will be checking out, but I can't wait to be back here soon.
My name is Suri Crowe, and you are watching the Meidastouch Network. I hope to be back here very soon, and while I am gone, please you guys, keep up the pressure. Do not be weary and well-doing, for in due time you will reap a harvest of good. Okay? Peace.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri Feb 07, 2025 12:57 am
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Alliance for Retired Americans,
815 16th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20006,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
80 F Street NW,
Washington, D.C. 20001, and
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO,
1800 Massachusetts Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20036,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury,
1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20220,
Department of the Treasury,
1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20220, and
Bureau of the Fiscal Service,
3201 Pennsy Drive, Building E
Landover, MD 20785,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-313
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Plaintiffs Alliance for Retired Americans, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, file this action against defendants Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury, and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, agencies of the United States, for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt Defendants’ unlawful ongoing, systematic, and continuous disclosure of personal and financial information contained in Defendants’ records to Elon Musk and other members of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), or to any other person.
2. Millions of individuals engage in financial transactions with the federal government. The government collects trillions of dollars from individuals who pay their income taxes, obtain government services, and pay back loans and other debts that they owe. People also receive money from the federal government. Social security retirement and disability payments, federal tax refunds, veterans’ benefits, and salaries and wages for federal workers are some examples of payment transactions that occur between ordinary individuals and federal agencies.
3. The job of effectuating these financial transactions for the federal government belongs to the Department of the Treasury (the Department), operating through the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (the Bureau). To carry out its duties, the Department collects and maintains sensitive personal and financial information about the individuals who are the counterparties to the transaction. Names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, birth places, home addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and bank account information about millions of individuals are maintained within the Department’s records to enable the secure and timely transfer of funds between federal agencies and members of the public.
4. Federal laws protect sensitive personal and financial information from improper disclosure and misuse, including by barring disclosure to individuals who lack a lawful and legitimate need for it.
5. In his first week as Treasury Secretary, defendant Bessent violated these restrictions. Elon Musk and/or other DOGE members had sought access to the Bureau’s records for some time, only to be rebuffed by the employee then in charge of the Bureau. Within a week of being sworn in as Treasury Secretary, Mr. Bessent placed that civil servant on leave and granted DOGE-affiliated individuals full access to the Bureau’s data and the computer systems that house them. He did so without making any public announcement, providing any legal justification or explanation for his decision, or undertaking the process required by law for altering the agency’s disclosure policies.
6. The scale of the intrusion into individuals’ privacy is massive and unprecedented. Millions of people cannot avoid engaging in financial transactions with the federal government and, therefore, cannot avoid having their sensitive personal and financial information maintained in government records. Secretary Bessent’s action granting DOGE-affiliated individuals full, continuous, and ongoing access to that information for an unspecified period of time means that retirees, taxpayers, federal employees, companies, and other individuals from all walks of life have no assurance that their information will receive the protection that federal law affords. And because Defendants’ actions and decisions are shrouded in secrecy, individuals will not have even basic information about what personal or financial information that Defendants are sharing with outside parties or how their information is being used.
7. People who must share information with the federal government should not be forced to share information with Elon Musk or his “DOGE.” And federal law says they do not have to. The Privacy Act of 1974 generally, and the Internal Revenue Code with respect to taxpayer information, make it unlawful for Secretary Bessent to hand over access to the Bureau’s records on individuals to Elon Musk or other members of DOGE. Plaintiffs file this action to put an immediate stop to Defendant’s systematic, continuous, and ongoing violation of federal laws that protect the privacy of personal information contained in federal records. This Court’s exercise of equitable authority is the only adequate avenue available to Plaintiffs to protect the trust that Plaintiffs’ members, and other citizens, taxpayers, and workers, have placed in the federal government in reliance of the laws that Congress enacted to assure the public that what Secretary Bessent is doing would never happen.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has statutory jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this action arises under the laws of the United States, namely, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706.
9. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A) because defendants are officers and agencies of the United States and because at least one defendant resides in Washington, D.C.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Alliance for Retired Americans is a grassroots advocacy organization with 4.4 million members. Founded by the AFL-CIO in 2001, the Alliance now has 39 state alliances and members in every state. The Alliance’s retiree activists are from all walks of life. They are former teachers, industrial workers, state and federal government workers, construction workers, and community leaders united in the belief that every American deserves a secure and dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work.
11. Plaintiff American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) is a labor organization and unincorporated association that represents approximately 800,000 federal civilian employees through its affiliated councils and locals in every state in the United States. AFGE members include nurses caring for our nation’s veterans, border patrol agents securing our borders, correctional officers maintaining safety in federal facilities, scientists conducting critical research, health care workers serving on military bases, civilian employees in the Department of Defense supporting our military personnel and their families, and employees of the Social Security Administration making sure retirees receive the benefits they have earned.
12. Plaintiff Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a labor union of approximately two million diverse workers who provide public services, healthcare, and property services throughout the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. SEIU represents approximately 80,000 federal sector employees in the U.S., including nurses, doctors, other healthcare workers, police officers, firefighters, correctional officers, office workers, scientists, engineers, analysts, maintenance workers, and more, who are employed by and receive paychecks from the federal government. SEIU also represents approximately 30,000 retiree members, many of whom receive checks from the Social Security Administration.
13. Defendant Scott Bessent is the Secretary of the Treasury.
14. Defendant Department of the Treasury is an agency of the United States, headquartered in Washington, D.C.
15. Defendant Bureau of the Fiscal Service is an agency of the United States headquartered in Landover, Maryland, and a component of the Department.
FACTS
Defendants’ Collection and Maintenance of Information on Individuals
16. Defendants are responsible for managing the finances of the United States Government. Their responsibilities include collecting receipts owed to the government and making payments to recipients of public funds. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3301, 3321. In fiscal year 2024, the Department processed nearly $5 trillion in receipts, including $2.4 trillion from individual income taxes, $1.7 trillion from social security taxes, and $530 billion from corporate income taxes. In that fiscal year, the Department handled $6.752 trillion in outlays, including $1.46 trillion for social security payments and $874 billion in defense spending.1 The U.S. Treasury is the largest collections, payments, cash management, and financial operation in the world.
17. To engage in financial transactions with individuals, Defendants must collect and maintain personal and financial information about those individuals. As federal agencies, the Department and the Bureau are subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, with respect to records that it maintains on individuals.
18. Under the Privacy Act, an agency must prepare a notice in the Federal Register “of the existence and character of the system of records” when such a system is established or revised. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4). This notice is referred to as a System of Records Notice (SORN). At least 30 days before publishing a SORN, an agency must “publish in the Federal Register notice of any new use or intended use of the information in the system, and provide an opportunity for interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments to the agency.” Id. § 552a(e)(11).
19. The Privacy Act requires a SORN to disclose, among other things, “the categories of individuals on whom records are maintained in the system,” “the categories of records maintained in the system,” “each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use,” and “the policies and practices of the agency regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retention, and disposal of the records.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4).
20. The current SORN for the Bureau was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020. 85 Fed. Reg. 11776. The Federal Register publication describes 20 systems of records for the Bureau.
21. SORN .002 concerns payment records, which are records “collected from federal government entities that are requesting disbursement of domestic and international payments to their recipients and is used to facilitate such payments.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 11779. Personal information contained in these records include “a payee’s name, Social Security number, employer identification number, or other agency identification or account number; date and location of birth, physical and/or electronic mailing address; telephone numbers; [and] payment amount,” as well as “financial institution information, including the routing number of his or her financial institution and the payee’s account number at the financial institution.” SORN .002 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.”
22. SORN .012 concerns records about individuals who owe a debt to the government. 85 Fed. Reg. at 11793. Personal information contained in these records include debtor names; taxpayer identifying numbers ( i.e., Social Security number or employer identification number); contact information, such as work and home addresses, email addresses, and work, home and cellular numbers; “information concerning the financial status of the debtor and his/her household, including income, assets, liabilities or other financial burdens, and any other resources from which the debt may be recovered”; and the name of employer or employer contact information. Id. at 11794. SORN .012 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.” Id. at 11796.
23. SORN .013 concerns records “about individuals who electronically authorize payments to the Federal Government.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 11796. Personal information contained in these records include names; taxpayer identifying numbers (i.e., Social Security numbers or employer identification numbers); contact information, such as work and home addresses, email addresses, and work, home, and cellular telephone numbers; the name and contact information of employers; dates of birth; driver’s license numbers; bank account information; credit and debit card numbers; individual payment information; and user names and passwords. Id. at 11796–97. SORN .013 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.” Id. at 11798.
24. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of a record about an individual to any person or another agency unless “the individual to whom the record pertains” consents or a statutory exception applies. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).
25. One exception to the Privacy Act prohibition on disclosure allows disclosure to “those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties.” Id. § 552a(b)(1).
26. Another exception permits disclosure for a “routine use” if the agency describes the routine use in a SORN. Id. § 552a(b)(3). The Bureau’s SORN, including SORN .002, .012, and .013 specify the routine uses for which records on individuals may be disclosed.
27. Because Defendants process tax-related transactions, they are also subject to the confidentiality requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6103. Section 6103 provides that “[r]eturns and return information shall be confidential,” and cannot be disclosed by a federal officer and employee unless authorized by statute. Return and return information include the taxpayer’s identity, mailing address, taxpayer identification number, claims for refund, and other information on tax returns. Id. § 6103(b)(1), (2), (6). The officers and employees of the Treasury Department may access return and return information if their “official duties require such inspection or disclosure for tax administration purposes.” Id. § 6103(h)(1).
Defendants’ Disclosure of Bureau Records on Individuals to DOGE
28. President Trump was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2025. The same day, he issued an executive order establishing a so-called “Department of Government Efficiency.” Under the executive order, the United States Digital Service was renamed the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and a “temporary organization” was established under 5 U.S.C. § 3161 entitled “the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization.”
29. The executive order directs the USDS Administrator to “work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.” It also directs agency heads to “take all necessary steps, in coordination with the USDS Administrator and to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure USDS has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.” The executive order “displaces all prior executive orders and regulations, insofar as they are subject to direct presidential amendment, that might serve as a barrier to providing USDS access to agency records and systems as described above.”
30. Since his inauguration, President Trump has not formally identified the individual who would serve as USDS Administrator or the full list of individuals that are part of the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization.
31. During the presidential campaign, President Trump announced that billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk would have a leadership role in DOGE. It is widely reported that, since the inauguration, Mr. Musk has played a leadership role in DOGE activities across the federal government.
32. The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen. The Trump administration also has not publicly revealed the employment status of other individuals who are part of DOGE.
33. Sometime after November 5, 2024, DOGE representatives reportedly approached officials in the Department seeking access to the agency’s payment systems. DOGE’s efforts to obtain access continued after President Trump’s inauguration.
34. Initially, DOGE’s requests for access to the Treasury’s payment systems were reportedly rebuffed by David A. Lebryk, the highest-ranking career official at the agency and the individual who had been in charge of the Bureau. According to press reports, Mr. Lebryk advised DOGE representatives during the transition period that the information contained in the payment systems was proprietary and should not be shared outside of the government.
35. On January 27, 2025, the Senate confirmed Mr. Bessent as President Trump’s Treasury Secretary, and he was sworn in the following day. On information and belief, Secretary Bessent and his chief of staff Dan Katz had a meeting with Mr. Lebryk later that week, after which Mr. Lebryk was placed on administrative leave. On Friday, January 31, Mr. Lebryk announced that he was retiring from the Treasury after 35 years in federal service.
36. On information and belief, on Friday evening, January 31, defendant Bessent gave representatives of DOGE full access to the federal payment system.2 Senator Ron Wyden, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance, has reported that DOGE’s access to Treasury’s payment system is complete. He has stated that DOGE has “*full* access to this system. Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors…. All of it.”3
37. Defendants have not released the full list of DOGE-affiliated individuals who have been provided access to the Treasury’s payment systems, or whether those individuals are employees of the Bureau, the Department, another agency, or a private enterprise. Tom Krause, the Chief Executive Officer of Cloud Software Group (according to that company’s website, see https://www.cloud.com/leadership (Feb. 3, 2025)) is reported to be working at the Treasury Department.4 And Secretary Bessent has reportedly “signed off on a plan to give access to the payment system to a team led by” Mr. Krause, who is identified in the article as “a liaison to Musk’s DOGE group that operates out of” the USDS.5 Defendants have not publicly disclosed the members of Mr. Krause’s team or provided the details of the “plan” for access that Secretary Bessent reportedly signed off on. Although an anonymous source assured that “no one outside Treasury would have access” to the payment system, the source apparently did not indicate whether information contained in the payment system would be disseminated outside of the Bureau.
38. Mr. Musk has suggested that the DOGE team has the authority to control disbursements at the Bureau. In response to an allegation by General Mike Flynn (ret.) that certain federal grants to Lutheran Family Services and affiliated organizations should end, Mr. Musk responded on X (formerly Twitter) that “The @DOGE team is rapidly shutting down these illegal payments.”6
Defendants’ Unlawful Actions Harm Plaintiffs’ Members
39. Plaintiffs’ members are among the millions of people who send or receive money to the federal government using the Bureau’s payment, collections, and electronic funds systems.
40. Plaintiff Alliance for Retired Americans has members who receive monthly Social Security retirement payments from the Treasury Department. It also has members who receive other forms of retirement and health-related benefits, such as Railroad Retirement Benefits, pension income for federal government service, disability and workers compensation benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Program, federal black lung benefits and veterans benefits. Plaintiffs AFGE and SEIU each have members who are federal employees and who work in a wide variety of positions, in every state and the District of Columbia. Their members who are actively working must engage in transactions with Defendants to receive their salaries and wages from their federal employment, while their retired members must do so to receive their pension benefits.
41. Each Plaintiff also has members who pay federal income taxes or receive refunds and who have done so and will do so again in the current tax season.
42. The Bureau will collect and maintain personal and financial information about Plaintiffs’ members to make the income payments and benefits they are owed and to process their tax payments or refunds.
43. Defendants have the statutory responsibility to protect the sensitive personal and financial information that they collect and maintain about individuals from unnecessary and unlawful disclosure to third parties. Defendants have acted inconsistently with that responsibility by granting individuals associated with DOGE access to the extensive records that the Bureau maintains on every individual with whom it engages in financial transactions. Moreover, Defendants have taken this action without obtaining or even asking for the consent of affected individuals.
44. Plaintiffs’ members rely on Defendants’ payment, collection, and other systems to make and receive payments from the government. They do not have the option of avoiding dealing with Defendants to avoid improper disclosure or misuse of their personal and financial information. Defendants’ actions have thus harmed Plaintiffs’ members by depriving them of privacy protections guaranteed to them by federal law and, consequently, the ability to decide for themselves whether Elon Musk or other individuals should be able to obtain and use their personal data to advance DOGE’s agenda.
COUNT I
(Contrary to law)
45. The APA directs courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions that are found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
46. The Privacy Act prohibits Defendants from disclosing records on individuals to Mr. Musk, other individuals associated with DOGE, or any other person without the individual’s consent except in specified circumstances.
47. The Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6013, prohibits Defendants from disclosing return and return information about taxpayers to Mr. Musk, other individuals associated with DOGE, or any other person except for officers or employees of the Treasury Department whose official duties require such inspection or disclosure for tax administration purposes.
48. Defendants have implemented a continuous and ongoing system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members without obtaining consent from each member.
49. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members to individuals who are not officers or employees of the Bureau who have a need for the records in the performance of their duties.
50. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members to individuals for purposes other than the routine uses specified in the Bureau’s SORNs.
51. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing tax returns and return information of Plaintiffs’ members to individuals who are not officers and employees involved in tax administration as part of their official duties.
52. Defendants’ actions violate the prohibitions in the Privacy Act and Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and are thus contrary to law.
53. Defendants’ action is “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. An individual action against the agency for damages under the Privacy Act or the Internal Revenue Code would not put a stop to the ongoing unlawful access that Defendants have granted to the personal and financial information of Plaintiffs’ members. Defendants’ action therefore is “subject to judicial review.” Id. § 702.
COUNT II
(Arbitrary and capricious)
54. The APA directs courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions that are found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
55. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious when an agency fails to engage in reasoned decision-making when it adopts or alters its policies.
56. Defendants failed to engage in reasoned decision-making when they implemented a system under which Elon Musk or other individuals associated with DOGE could access the Bureau’s records for purposes other than those authorized by the Privacy Act, the Bureau’s SORNs, and the Internal Revenue Code. In particular, Defendants failed to consider their legal obligations under federal law, the harm that their actions would cause to the objectives that those statutes sought to achieve, or the harm caused to Plaintiffs’ members or the general public.
57. Defendant’s action is final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court and therefore is subject to judicial review. Id. § 704; see id. § 702.
COUNT III
(Excess of statutory authority)
58. Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to protect records on individuals, and the returns and return information of taxpayers, from unauthorized disclosure.
59. Defendants’ ongoing, systematic, and continuous action in permitting Elon Musk and/or other individuals associated with DOGE to access the Bureau’s records and the personal and financial information contained therein violates that duty and is in excess of their statutory authority. Id. § 706(2)(C).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
a. Declare that Defendants’ decision to implement a system by which Elon Musk or other DOGE-affiliated individuals may access the Bureau’s records and obtain personal information about individuals and taxpayers contained there is unlawful.
b. Enjoin Defendants from continuing to permit such access or obtain such personal information.
c. Enjoin Defendants to ensure that future disclosure of individual records will occur only in accordance with the Privacy Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and the SORNs applicable to the system of records at issue.
d. Grant any temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief necessary to protect the privacy of individuals whose information is contained within the system of records.
e. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees for this action; and
f. Grant any other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
Dated: February 3, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nandan M. Joshi
Nandan M. Joshi (DC Bar No. 456750)
Nicolas Sansone (DC Bar No. 1686810)
Allison M. Zieve (DC Bar No. 424786)
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 588-1000
Norman L. Eisen (DC Bar No. 435051)
State Democracy Defenders Fund
600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, #15180
Washington, DC 20003
_______________
Notes:
1 U.S. Dep’t of Treas., Bur. of Fiscal Serv., Final Monthly Treasury Statement, Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government For Fiscal Year 2024 Through September 30, 2024, and Other Periods 4.
2 Andrew Duehren et al., Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Full Access to Treasury’s Payments System, N.Y. Times, Feb. 1, 2025.
3 @wyden.senate.gov, Bluesky (Feb. 1. 2025, 3:37 pm) https://bsky. app/ profile/ wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23.
4 Andrew Duehren et al., Treasury Official Quits After Resisting Musk’s Requests on Payments, N.Y. Times, Jan. 31, 2025.
5 Michael Stratford et al., Trump administration gives Musk allies access to Treasury payment system, Politico, Feb. 1, 2025.
6 @elonmusk, X (Feb. 2, 2025 3:14 am) https://x.com/elonmusk/status/ 1885964969335808217.
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Alliance for Retired Americans,
815 16th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20006,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
80 F Street NW,
Washington, D.C. 20001, and
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO,
1800 Massachusetts Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20036,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury,
1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20220,
Department of the Treasury,
1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20220, and
Bureau of the Fiscal Service,
3201 Pennsy Drive, Building E
Landover, MD 20785,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-313
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Plaintiffs Alliance for Retired Americans, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, file this action against defendants Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury, and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, agencies of the United States, for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt Defendants’ unlawful ongoing, systematic, and continuous disclosure of personal and financial information contained in Defendants’ records to Elon Musk and other members of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), or to any other person.
2. Millions of individuals engage in financial transactions with the federal government. The government collects trillions of dollars from individuals who pay their income taxes, obtain government services, and pay back loans and other debts that they owe. People also receive money from the federal government. Social security retirement and disability payments, federal tax refunds, veterans’ benefits, and salaries and wages for federal workers are some examples of payment transactions that occur between ordinary individuals and federal agencies.
3. The job of effectuating these financial transactions for the federal government belongs to the Department of the Treasury (the Department), operating through the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (the Bureau). To carry out its duties, the Department collects and maintains sensitive personal and financial information about the individuals who are the counterparties to the transaction. Names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, birth places, home addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and bank account information about millions of individuals are maintained within the Department’s records to enable the secure and timely transfer of funds between federal agencies and members of the public.
4. Federal laws protect sensitive personal and financial information from improper disclosure and misuse, including by barring disclosure to individuals who lack a lawful and legitimate need for it.
5. In his first week as Treasury Secretary, defendant Bessent violated these restrictions. Elon Musk and/or other DOGE members had sought access to the Bureau’s records for some time, only to be rebuffed by the employee then in charge of the Bureau. Within a week of being sworn in as Treasury Secretary, Mr. Bessent placed that civil servant on leave and granted DOGE-affiliated individuals full access to the Bureau’s data and the computer systems that house them. He did so without making any public announcement, providing any legal justification or explanation for his decision, or undertaking the process required by law for altering the agency’s disclosure policies.
6. The scale of the intrusion into individuals’ privacy is massive and unprecedented. Millions of people cannot avoid engaging in financial transactions with the federal government and, therefore, cannot avoid having their sensitive personal and financial information maintained in government records. Secretary Bessent’s action granting DOGE-affiliated individuals full, continuous, and ongoing access to that information for an unspecified period of time means that retirees, taxpayers, federal employees, companies, and other individuals from all walks of life have no assurance that their information will receive the protection that federal law affords. And because Defendants’ actions and decisions are shrouded in secrecy, individuals will not have even basic information about what personal or financial information that Defendants are sharing with outside parties or how their information is being used.
7. People who must share information with the federal government should not be forced to share information with Elon Musk or his “DOGE.” And federal law says they do not have to. The Privacy Act of 1974 generally, and the Internal Revenue Code with respect to taxpayer information, make it unlawful for Secretary Bessent to hand over access to the Bureau’s records on individuals to Elon Musk or other members of DOGE. Plaintiffs file this action to put an immediate stop to Defendant’s systematic, continuous, and ongoing violation of federal laws that protect the privacy of personal information contained in federal records. This Court’s exercise of equitable authority is the only adequate avenue available to Plaintiffs to protect the trust that Plaintiffs’ members, and other citizens, taxpayers, and workers, have placed in the federal government in reliance of the laws that Congress enacted to assure the public that what Secretary Bessent is doing would never happen.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has statutory jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this action arises under the laws of the United States, namely, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706.
9. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A) because defendants are officers and agencies of the United States and because at least one defendant resides in Washington, D.C.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Alliance for Retired Americans is a grassroots advocacy organization with 4.4 million members. Founded by the AFL-CIO in 2001, the Alliance now has 39 state alliances and members in every state. The Alliance’s retiree activists are from all walks of life. They are former teachers, industrial workers, state and federal government workers, construction workers, and community leaders united in the belief that every American deserves a secure and dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work.
11. Plaintiff American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) is a labor organization and unincorporated association that represents approximately 800,000 federal civilian employees through its affiliated councils and locals in every state in the United States. AFGE members include nurses caring for our nation’s veterans, border patrol agents securing our borders, correctional officers maintaining safety in federal facilities, scientists conducting critical research, health care workers serving on military bases, civilian employees in the Department of Defense supporting our military personnel and their families, and employees of the Social Security Administration making sure retirees receive the benefits they have earned.
12. Plaintiff Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a labor union of approximately two million diverse workers who provide public services, healthcare, and property services throughout the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. SEIU represents approximately 80,000 federal sector employees in the U.S., including nurses, doctors, other healthcare workers, police officers, firefighters, correctional officers, office workers, scientists, engineers, analysts, maintenance workers, and more, who are employed by and receive paychecks from the federal government. SEIU also represents approximately 30,000 retiree members, many of whom receive checks from the Social Security Administration.
13. Defendant Scott Bessent is the Secretary of the Treasury.
14. Defendant Department of the Treasury is an agency of the United States, headquartered in Washington, D.C.
15. Defendant Bureau of the Fiscal Service is an agency of the United States headquartered in Landover, Maryland, and a component of the Department.
FACTS
Defendants’ Collection and Maintenance of Information on Individuals
16. Defendants are responsible for managing the finances of the United States Government. Their responsibilities include collecting receipts owed to the government and making payments to recipients of public funds. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3301, 3321. In fiscal year 2024, the Department processed nearly $5 trillion in receipts, including $2.4 trillion from individual income taxes, $1.7 trillion from social security taxes, and $530 billion from corporate income taxes. In that fiscal year, the Department handled $6.752 trillion in outlays, including $1.46 trillion for social security payments and $874 billion in defense spending.1 The U.S. Treasury is the largest collections, payments, cash management, and financial operation in the world.
17. To engage in financial transactions with individuals, Defendants must collect and maintain personal and financial information about those individuals. As federal agencies, the Department and the Bureau are subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, with respect to records that it maintains on individuals.
18. Under the Privacy Act, an agency must prepare a notice in the Federal Register “of the existence and character of the system of records” when such a system is established or revised. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4). This notice is referred to as a System of Records Notice (SORN). At least 30 days before publishing a SORN, an agency must “publish in the Federal Register notice of any new use or intended use of the information in the system, and provide an opportunity for interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments to the agency.” Id. § 552a(e)(11).
19. The Privacy Act requires a SORN to disclose, among other things, “the categories of individuals on whom records are maintained in the system,” “the categories of records maintained in the system,” “each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use,” and “the policies and practices of the agency regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retention, and disposal of the records.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4).
20. The current SORN for the Bureau was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020. 85 Fed. Reg. 11776. The Federal Register publication describes 20 systems of records for the Bureau.
21. SORN .002 concerns payment records, which are records “collected from federal government entities that are requesting disbursement of domestic and international payments to their recipients and is used to facilitate such payments.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 11779. Personal information contained in these records include “a payee’s name, Social Security number, employer identification number, or other agency identification or account number; date and location of birth, physical and/or electronic mailing address; telephone numbers; [and] payment amount,” as well as “financial institution information, including the routing number of his or her financial institution and the payee’s account number at the financial institution.” SORN .002 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.”
22. SORN .012 concerns records about individuals who owe a debt to the government. 85 Fed. Reg. at 11793. Personal information contained in these records include debtor names; taxpayer identifying numbers ( i.e., Social Security number or employer identification number); contact information, such as work and home addresses, email addresses, and work, home and cellular numbers; “information concerning the financial status of the debtor and his/her household, including income, assets, liabilities or other financial burdens, and any other resources from which the debt may be recovered”; and the name of employer or employer contact information. Id. at 11794. SORN .012 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.” Id. at 11796.
23. SORN .013 concerns records “about individuals who electronically authorize payments to the Federal Government.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 11796. Personal information contained in these records include names; taxpayer identifying numbers (i.e., Social Security numbers or employer identification numbers); contact information, such as work and home addresses, email addresses, and work, home, and cellular telephone numbers; the name and contact information of employers; dates of birth; driver’s license numbers; bank account information; credit and debit card numbers; individual payment information; and user names and passwords. Id. at 11796–97. SORN .013 states that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.” Id. at 11798.
24. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of a record about an individual to any person or another agency unless “the individual to whom the record pertains” consents or a statutory exception applies. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).
25. One exception to the Privacy Act prohibition on disclosure allows disclosure to “those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties.” Id. § 552a(b)(1).
26. Another exception permits disclosure for a “routine use” if the agency describes the routine use in a SORN. Id. § 552a(b)(3). The Bureau’s SORN, including SORN .002, .012, and .013 specify the routine uses for which records on individuals may be disclosed.
27. Because Defendants process tax-related transactions, they are also subject to the confidentiality requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6103. Section 6103 provides that “[r]eturns and return information shall be confidential,” and cannot be disclosed by a federal officer and employee unless authorized by statute. Return and return information include the taxpayer’s identity, mailing address, taxpayer identification number, claims for refund, and other information on tax returns. Id. § 6103(b)(1), (2), (6). The officers and employees of the Treasury Department may access return and return information if their “official duties require such inspection or disclosure for tax administration purposes.” Id. § 6103(h)(1).
Defendants’ Disclosure of Bureau Records on Individuals to DOGE
28. President Trump was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2025. The same day, he issued an executive order establishing a so-called “Department of Government Efficiency.” Under the executive order, the United States Digital Service was renamed the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and a “temporary organization” was established under 5 U.S.C. § 3161 entitled “the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization.”
29. The executive order directs the USDS Administrator to “work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.” It also directs agency heads to “take all necessary steps, in coordination with the USDS Administrator and to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure USDS has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.” The executive order “displaces all prior executive orders and regulations, insofar as they are subject to direct presidential amendment, that might serve as a barrier to providing USDS access to agency records and systems as described above.”
30. Since his inauguration, President Trump has not formally identified the individual who would serve as USDS Administrator or the full list of individuals that are part of the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization.
31. During the presidential campaign, President Trump announced that billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk would have a leadership role in DOGE. It is widely reported that, since the inauguration, Mr. Musk has played a leadership role in DOGE activities across the federal government.
32. The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen. The Trump administration also has not publicly revealed the employment status of other individuals who are part of DOGE.
33. Sometime after November 5, 2024, DOGE representatives reportedly approached officials in the Department seeking access to the agency’s payment systems. DOGE’s efforts to obtain access continued after President Trump’s inauguration.
34. Initially, DOGE’s requests for access to the Treasury’s payment systems were reportedly rebuffed by David A. Lebryk, the highest-ranking career official at the agency and the individual who had been in charge of the Bureau. According to press reports, Mr. Lebryk advised DOGE representatives during the transition period that the information contained in the payment systems was proprietary and should not be shared outside of the government.
35. On January 27, 2025, the Senate confirmed Mr. Bessent as President Trump’s Treasury Secretary, and he was sworn in the following day. On information and belief, Secretary Bessent and his chief of staff Dan Katz had a meeting with Mr. Lebryk later that week, after which Mr. Lebryk was placed on administrative leave. On Friday, January 31, Mr. Lebryk announced that he was retiring from the Treasury after 35 years in federal service.
36. On information and belief, on Friday evening, January 31, defendant Bessent gave representatives of DOGE full access to the federal payment system.2 Senator Ron Wyden, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance, has reported that DOGE’s access to Treasury’s payment system is complete. He has stated that DOGE has “*full* access to this system. Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors…. All of it.”3
37. Defendants have not released the full list of DOGE-affiliated individuals who have been provided access to the Treasury’s payment systems, or whether those individuals are employees of the Bureau, the Department, another agency, or a private enterprise. Tom Krause, the Chief Executive Officer of Cloud Software Group (according to that company’s website, see https://www.cloud.com/leadership (Feb. 3, 2025)) is reported to be working at the Treasury Department.4 And Secretary Bessent has reportedly “signed off on a plan to give access to the payment system to a team led by” Mr. Krause, who is identified in the article as “a liaison to Musk’s DOGE group that operates out of” the USDS.5 Defendants have not publicly disclosed the members of Mr. Krause’s team or provided the details of the “plan” for access that Secretary Bessent reportedly signed off on. Although an anonymous source assured that “no one outside Treasury would have access” to the payment system, the source apparently did not indicate whether information contained in the payment system would be disseminated outside of the Bureau.
38. Mr. Musk has suggested that the DOGE team has the authority to control disbursements at the Bureau. In response to an allegation by General Mike Flynn (ret.) that certain federal grants to Lutheran Family Services and affiliated organizations should end, Mr. Musk responded on X (formerly Twitter) that “The @DOGE team is rapidly shutting down these illegal payments.”6
Defendants’ Unlawful Actions Harm Plaintiffs’ Members
39. Plaintiffs’ members are among the millions of people who send or receive money to the federal government using the Bureau’s payment, collections, and electronic funds systems.
40. Plaintiff Alliance for Retired Americans has members who receive monthly Social Security retirement payments from the Treasury Department. It also has members who receive other forms of retirement and health-related benefits, such as Railroad Retirement Benefits, pension income for federal government service, disability and workers compensation benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Program, federal black lung benefits and veterans benefits. Plaintiffs AFGE and SEIU each have members who are federal employees and who work in a wide variety of positions, in every state and the District of Columbia. Their members who are actively working must engage in transactions with Defendants to receive their salaries and wages from their federal employment, while their retired members must do so to receive their pension benefits.
41. Each Plaintiff also has members who pay federal income taxes or receive refunds and who have done so and will do so again in the current tax season.
42. The Bureau will collect and maintain personal and financial information about Plaintiffs’ members to make the income payments and benefits they are owed and to process their tax payments or refunds.
43. Defendants have the statutory responsibility to protect the sensitive personal and financial information that they collect and maintain about individuals from unnecessary and unlawful disclosure to third parties. Defendants have acted inconsistently with that responsibility by granting individuals associated with DOGE access to the extensive records that the Bureau maintains on every individual with whom it engages in financial transactions. Moreover, Defendants have taken this action without obtaining or even asking for the consent of affected individuals.
44. Plaintiffs’ members rely on Defendants’ payment, collection, and other systems to make and receive payments from the government. They do not have the option of avoiding dealing with Defendants to avoid improper disclosure or misuse of their personal and financial information. Defendants’ actions have thus harmed Plaintiffs’ members by depriving them of privacy protections guaranteed to them by federal law and, consequently, the ability to decide for themselves whether Elon Musk or other individuals should be able to obtain and use their personal data to advance DOGE’s agenda.
COUNT I
(Contrary to law)
45. The APA directs courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions that are found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
46. The Privacy Act prohibits Defendants from disclosing records on individuals to Mr. Musk, other individuals associated with DOGE, or any other person without the individual’s consent except in specified circumstances.
47. The Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6013, prohibits Defendants from disclosing return and return information about taxpayers to Mr. Musk, other individuals associated with DOGE, or any other person except for officers or employees of the Treasury Department whose official duties require such inspection or disclosure for tax administration purposes.
48. Defendants have implemented a continuous and ongoing system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members without obtaining consent from each member.
49. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members to individuals who are not officers or employees of the Bureau who have a need for the records in the performance of their duties.
50. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing records on Plaintiffs’ members to individuals for purposes other than the routine uses specified in the Bureau’s SORNs.
51. Defendants have implemented a system for disclosing tax returns and return information of Plaintiffs’ members to individuals who are not officers and employees involved in tax administration as part of their official duties.
52. Defendants’ actions violate the prohibitions in the Privacy Act and Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and are thus contrary to law.
53. Defendants’ action is “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. An individual action against the agency for damages under the Privacy Act or the Internal Revenue Code would not put a stop to the ongoing unlawful access that Defendants have granted to the personal and financial information of Plaintiffs’ members. Defendants’ action therefore is “subject to judicial review.” Id. § 702.
COUNT II
(Arbitrary and capricious)
54. The APA directs courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions that are found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
55. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious when an agency fails to engage in reasoned decision-making when it adopts or alters its policies.
56. Defendants failed to engage in reasoned decision-making when they implemented a system under which Elon Musk or other individuals associated with DOGE could access the Bureau’s records for purposes other than those authorized by the Privacy Act, the Bureau’s SORNs, and the Internal Revenue Code. In particular, Defendants failed to consider their legal obligations under federal law, the harm that their actions would cause to the objectives that those statutes sought to achieve, or the harm caused to Plaintiffs’ members or the general public.
57. Defendant’s action is final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court and therefore is subject to judicial review. Id. § 704; see id. § 702.
COUNT III
(Excess of statutory authority)
58. Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to protect records on individuals, and the returns and return information of taxpayers, from unauthorized disclosure.
59. Defendants’ ongoing, systematic, and continuous action in permitting Elon Musk and/or other individuals associated with DOGE to access the Bureau’s records and the personal and financial information contained therein violates that duty and is in excess of their statutory authority. Id. § 706(2)(C).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
a. Declare that Defendants’ decision to implement a system by which Elon Musk or other DOGE-affiliated individuals may access the Bureau’s records and obtain personal information about individuals and taxpayers contained there is unlawful.
b. Enjoin Defendants from continuing to permit such access or obtain such personal information.
c. Enjoin Defendants to ensure that future disclosure of individual records will occur only in accordance with the Privacy Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and the SORNs applicable to the system of records at issue.
d. Grant any temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief necessary to protect the privacy of individuals whose information is contained within the system of records.
e. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees for this action; and
f. Grant any other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
Dated: February 3, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nandan M. Joshi
Nandan M. Joshi (DC Bar No. 456750)
Nicolas Sansone (DC Bar No. 1686810)
Allison M. Zieve (DC Bar No. 424786)
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 588-1000
Norman L. Eisen (DC Bar No. 435051)
State Democracy Defenders Fund
600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, #15180
Washington, DC 20003
_______________
Notes:
1 U.S. Dep’t of Treas., Bur. of Fiscal Serv., Final Monthly Treasury Statement, Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government For Fiscal Year 2024 Through September 30, 2024, and Other Periods 4.
2 Andrew Duehren et al., Elon Musk’s Team Now Has Full Access to Treasury’s Payments System, N.Y. Times, Feb. 1, 2025.
3 @wyden.senate.gov, Bluesky (Feb. 1. 2025, 3:37 pm) https://bsky. app/ profile/ wyden.senate.gov/post/3lh5ejpwncc23.
4 Andrew Duehren et al., Treasury Official Quits After Resisting Musk’s Requests on Payments, N.Y. Times, Jan. 31, 2025.
5 Michael Stratford et al., Trump administration gives Musk allies access to Treasury payment system, Politico, Feb. 1, 2025.
6 @elonmusk, X (Feb. 2, 2025 3:14 am) https://x.com/elonmusk/status/ 1885964969335808217.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri Feb 07, 2025 1:09 am
US judge blocks Trump from sending transgender women to men's prisons
by Mike Scarcella, Nate Raymond and Luc Cohen
Reuters
February 5, 2025 1 0:28 AM MST Updated a day ago
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge- ... 025-02-05/
WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from moving transgender women to men's prisons and ending their gender-affirming care.
In a broad ruling temporarily halting an executive order that Trump, a Republican, signed on his first day back in office on Jan. 20, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington found that three transgender inmates who sued would likely succeed in arguing the policy was unconstitutional.
The decision marked the second time that a federal judge had sided with LGBTQ legal rights groups who sued to prevent the U.S. Bureau of Prisons from implementing the order.
Lamberth's order applies to all 16 transgender women currently housed in federal women's prisons. It goes further than a Jan. 26 decision by a federal judge in Boston blocking prison officials from transferring an individual transgender woman to a men's facility.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department, which defended the Trump administration in court, declined to comment. The Bureau of Prisons did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The three transgender women who brought the Washington, D.C. case argued transgender women would face violence and sexual assault in men's prisons, which would violate their right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. Justice Department attorney John Robinson had argued that the Bureau of Prisons has broad authority to make inmate placement decisions. He urged Lamberth, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, to wait for the agency to revise its policies before issuing any order compelling the continuation of medical treatment.
In his decision, Lamberth wrote that the government did not dispute the plaintiffs' assertion that transgender persons were at a higher risk of physical and sexual violence than other inmates when housed in a facility corresponding to their biological sex.
Trump's executive order directed the federal government to only recognize two, biologically distinct sexes, male and female; house transgender women in men's prisons; and cease funding for any gender-affirming medical care for inmates.
Prior to Trump's order, the Bureau of Prisons had been operating under guidelines adopted in 2022 during Democratic former President Joe Biden's tenure requiring prisons to consider inmates' "current gender expression" when deciding where to house them.
Biden's policy was a reversal from earlier guidance during Trump's first term.
The lawsuit filed on Jan. 30 also argued that Trump's executive order discriminates against transgender people on the basis of sex in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
About 2,230 transgender inmates are housed in federal custodial facilities and halfway houses, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. About two thirds of them, 1,506, are transgender women, most of whom are housed in men's prisons.
Reporting by Mike Scarcella in Washington and Nate Raymond in Boston; Additional reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Noeleen Walder and Christopher Cushing
by Mike Scarcella, Nate Raymond and Luc Cohen
Reuters
February 5, 2025 1 0:28 AM MST Updated a day ago
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge- ... 025-02-05/
WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from moving transgender women to men's prisons and ending their gender-affirming care.
In a broad ruling temporarily halting an executive order that Trump, a Republican, signed on his first day back in office on Jan. 20, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington found that three transgender inmates who sued would likely succeed in arguing the policy was unconstitutional.
The decision marked the second time that a federal judge had sided with LGBTQ legal rights groups who sued to prevent the U.S. Bureau of Prisons from implementing the order.
Lamberth's order applies to all 16 transgender women currently housed in federal women's prisons. It goes further than a Jan. 26 decision by a federal judge in Boston blocking prison officials from transferring an individual transgender woman to a men's facility.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department, which defended the Trump administration in court, declined to comment. The Bureau of Prisons did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The three transgender women who brought the Washington, D.C. case argued transgender women would face violence and sexual assault in men's prisons, which would violate their right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. Justice Department attorney John Robinson had argued that the Bureau of Prisons has broad authority to make inmate placement decisions. He urged Lamberth, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, to wait for the agency to revise its policies before issuing any order compelling the continuation of medical treatment.
In his decision, Lamberth wrote that the government did not dispute the plaintiffs' assertion that transgender persons were at a higher risk of physical and sexual violence than other inmates when housed in a facility corresponding to their biological sex.
Trump's executive order directed the federal government to only recognize two, biologically distinct sexes, male and female; house transgender women in men's prisons; and cease funding for any gender-affirming medical care for inmates.
Prior to Trump's order, the Bureau of Prisons had been operating under guidelines adopted in 2022 during Democratic former President Joe Biden's tenure requiring prisons to consider inmates' "current gender expression" when deciding where to house them.
Biden's policy was a reversal from earlier guidance during Trump's first term.
The lawsuit filed on Jan. 30 also argued that Trump's executive order discriminates against transgender people on the basis of sex in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
About 2,230 transgender inmates are housed in federal custodial facilities and halfway houses, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. About two thirds of them, 1,506, are transgender women, most of whom are housed in men's prisons.
Reporting by Mike Scarcella in Washington and Nate Raymond in Boston; Additional reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Noeleen Walder and Christopher Cushing
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37580
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests