Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Digital Links To FISA FOIA Lawsuit Against Mueller Sessions Wray FBI and DOJ

    Uploaded by

    Emanuel McCray
    427 views1 page
    The Complaint seeks the following relief: Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Rod Jay Rosenstein, Christopher Asher Wray, and Robert Swan Mueller III, and provide Plaintiff with the following relief: (a) A declaratory judgment that Defendant Sessions’ recusal without the prior advice and consent of the President violates the Constitution and Title 28; (b) A declaratory judgment that the appointment of Defendant Mueller to investigate President Trump and his associates, supporters and voters violates the Constitution and Title 28; (c) A declaratory judgment that Chairman Goodlatte’s letter requesting the DOJ to appoint a “special counsel” to investigate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others violates the Constitution and Title 28 because the Constitution provides all the power and authority this Branch of Government needs to investigate, impeach, convict and remove government officials; (d) A declaratory judgment that §§ 600.1 through 600.10 of Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations violates the Constitution and Title 28 because the use of the conjunction “and” in § 600.1 strips the President of the Executive Power algorithm embodied in Article II, § 1, Clause 1; Article II, § 2, Clause 2; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 503, 509, 531, 533, 541, 543 and 546; (e) A declaratory judgment that the FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all applications for “unmasking” to be submitted to and approved by the FISC; (f) A declaratory judgment that the FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all “queries of data…using U.S. person identifiers” to be submitted to and approved by the FISC; (g) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all news media seeking to publish the “unmasked” names of U.S. persons and the information obtained from “queries of data…using U.S. person identifiers” be submitted to and approved by the FISC before publication; (h) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require the FISC to convene a Grand Jury for purposes of identifying and recommending the prosecution of all individuals and members of the press responsible for causing the disclosure and or publication of unmasked names of U.S. persons and the information obtained from “queries of data…using U.S. person identifiers” without the prior approval of the FISC; (i) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require the FISC to provide to a “masked” U.S. person notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the name of a “masked” U.S. person is unmasked; (j) A declaratory judgment that the withholding of the “Comey Memo” leaked to The New York Times violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights implemented under 5 U.S.C. § 552; (k) An Order that the Defendants produce, by a date certain, a copy of the “Comey Memo” leaked to The New York Times; (l) An Order enjoining the Defendants and the other members of the U.S. Intelligence Community from making applications for warrants under the FISA unless or until Congress enacts law consistent with paragraphs 210(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i), supra; (m) An Order awarding to Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action pursuant to statutes; and (n) An Order granting to Plaintiffs all further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. Footnote 17. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 503 and 541, the President is vested with sole Power to appoint an Attorney General and a U.S. Attorney, and thro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Complaint seeks the following relief: Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Rod Jay Rosenstein, Christopher Asher Wray, and Robert Swan Mueller III, and provide Plaintiff with the following relief: (a) A declaratory judgment that Defendant Sessions’ recusal without the prior advice and consent of the President violates the Constitution and Title 28; (b) A declaratory judgment that the appointment of Defendant Mueller to investigate President Trump and his associates, supporters and voters violates the Constitution and Title 28; (c) A declaratory judgment that Chairman Goodlatte’s letter requesting the DOJ to appoint a “special counsel” to investigate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others violates the Constitution and Title 28 because the Constitution provides all the power and authority this Branch of Government needs to investigate, impeach, convict and remove government officials; (d) A declaratory judgment that §§ 600.1 through 600.10 of Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations violates the Constitution and Title 28 because the use of the conjunction “and” in § 600.1 strips the President of the Executive Power algorithm embodied in Article II, § 1, Clause 1; Article II, § 2, Clause 2; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 503, 509, 531, 533, 541, 543 and 546; (e) A declaratory judgment that the FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all applications for “unmasking” to be submitted to and approved by the FISC; (f) A declaratory judgment that the FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all “queries of data…using U.S. person identifiers” to be submitted to and approved by the FISC; (g) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all news media seeking to publish the “unmasked” names of U.S. persons and the information obtained from “queries of data…using U.S. person identifiers” be submitted to and approved by the FISC before publication; (h) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require the FISC to convene a Grand Jury for purposes of identifying and recommending the prosecution of all individuals and members of the press responsible for causing the disclosure and or publication of unmasked names of U.S. persons and the information obtained from “queries of data…using U.S. person identifiers” without the prior approval of the FISC; (i) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require the FISC to provide to a “masked” U.S. person notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the name of a “masked” U.S. person is unmasked; (j) A declaratory judgment that the withholding of the “Comey Memo” leaked to The New York Times violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights implemented under 5 U.S.C. § 552; (k) An Order that the Defendants produce, by a date certain, a copy of the “Comey Memo” leaked to The New York Times; (l) An Order enjoining the Defendants and the other members of the U.S. Intelligence Community from making applications for warrants under the FISA unless or until Congress enacts law consistent with paragraphs 210(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i), supra; (m) An Order awarding to Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action pursuant to statutes; and (n) An Order granting to Plaintiffs all further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. Footnote 17. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 503 and 541, the President is vested with sole Power to appoint an Attorney General and a U.S. Attorney, and thro

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    427 views1 page

    Digital Links To FISA FOIA Lawsuit Against Mueller Sessions Wray FBI and DOJ

    Uploaded by

    Emanuel McCray
    The Complaint seeks the following relief: Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Rod Jay Rosenstein, Christopher Asher Wray, and Robert Swan Mueller III, and provide Plaintiff with the following relief: (a) A declaratory judgment that Defendant Sessions’ recusal without the prior advice and consent of the President violates the Constitution and Title 28; (b) A declaratory judgment that the appointment of Defendant Mueller to investigate President Trump and his associates, supporters and voters violates the Constitution and Title 28; (c) A declaratory judgment that Chairman Goodlatte’s letter requesting the DOJ to appoint a “special counsel” to investigate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others violates the Constitution and Title 28 because the Constitution provides all the power and authority this Branch of Government needs to investigate, impeach, convict and remove government officials; (d) A declaratory judgment that §§ 600.1 through 600.10 of Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations violates the Constitution and Title 28 because the use of the conjunction “and” in § 600.1 strips the President of the Executive Power algorithm embodied in Article II, § 1, Clause 1; Article II, § 2, Clause 2; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 503, 509, 531, 533, 541, 543 and 546; (e) A declaratory judgment that the FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all applications for “unmasking” to be submitted to and approved by the FISC; (f) A declaratory judgment that the FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all “queries of data…using U.S. person identifiers” to be submitted to and approved by the FISC; (g) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require all news media seeking to publish the “unmasked” names of U.S. persons and the information obtained from “queries of data…using U.S. person identifiers” be submitted to and approved by the FISC before publication; (h) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require the FISC to convene a Grand Jury for purposes of identifying and recommending the prosecution of all individuals and members of the press responsible for causing the disclosure and or publication of unmasked names of U.S. persons and the information obtained from “queries of data…using U.S. person identifiers” without the prior approval of the FISC; (i) A declaratory judgment that FISA is unconstitutional and violates Amendments First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth for failure to require the FISC to provide to a “masked” U.S. person notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the name of a “masked” U.S. person is unmasked; (j) A declaratory judgment that the withholding of the “Comey Memo” leaked to The New York Times violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights implemented under 5 U.S.C. § 552; (k) An Order that the Defendants produce, by a date certain, a copy of the “Comey Memo” leaked to The New York Times; (l) An Order enjoining the Defendants and the other members of the U.S. Intelligence Community from making applications for warrants under the FISA unless or until Congress enacts law consistent with paragraphs 210(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i), supra; (m) An Order awarding to Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action pursuant to statutes; and (n) An Order granting to Plaintiffs all further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. Footnote 17. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 503 and 541, the President is vested with sole Power to appoint an Attorney General and a U.S. Attorney, and thro

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    )
    EMANUEL MCCRAY, Individually and on ) CIVIL NO:__________________________
    Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )
    Plaintiffs,)
    )
    vs. )
    ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
    JUSTICE, ) UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL
    ) STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
    FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, )
    )
    JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, ) DIGITAL LINKS
    In His Official Capacity As Attorney General of )
    the United States, ) Main Complaint:
    ) https://tinyurl.com/FISAFOIACOMPLAINT
    ROD JAY ROSENSTEIN, In His Official )
    Part 1/5. Exhibit 1, pages 1-45:
    Capacity As Deputy Attorney General of the ) https://tinyurl.com/Exhibit1pages1-45
    United States, )
    ) Part 2/5. Exhibit 1, pages 46-102:
    CHRISTOPHER ASHER WRAY, In His ) https://tinyurl.com/Pages-46-102
    Official Capacity As Director of the Federal )
    Bureau of Investigation, and ) Part 3/5. Exhibit 1, pages 103-141:
    https://tinyurl.com/Exhibit1pages103-141
    )
    ROBERT SWAN MUELLER III, In His ) Part 4/5. Exhibit 1, pages 142-182:
    Official Capacity As Special Counsel to the ) https://tinyurl.com/Exhibit1pages142-182
    Deputy Attorney General of the United States, )
    Defendants.) Part 5/5. Exhibit 1, pages 183-239:
    ) https://tinyurl.com/Exhibit1pages183-239
    )
    )

    Contact me at: fisalawsuit@outlook.com


    Follow me at: https://twitter.com/trumpgenius2

    You might also like