DOCSLIB.ORG

United States of America Before the Federal Trade Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States of America Before the Federal Trade Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 11 21 2014 BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) PUBLIC ) LabMD, Inc., ) Docket No. 9357 a corporation, ) Respondent. ) ) ___________________________________ ) COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO RICHARD WALLACE Complaint Counsel respectfully moves for leave to issue subpoenas to Respondent’s witness Richard Wallace, seeking evidence concerning his anticipated testimony, including evidence regarding the alleged misconduct by Complaint Counsel and Mr. Wallace’s alleged falsification of evidence. This discovery is appropriate at this time to facilitate the efficient examination of Mr. Wallace. Complaint Counsel did not have any reason to take discovery regarding Mr. Wallace’s anticipated testimony during discovery or at any point prior to the attorney proffer on June 12, 2014. Complaint Counsel met and conferred with counsel for Respondent on this motion, but was unable to reach agreement. See Meet and Confer Statement (attached as Exhibit A). The requested subpoenas are necessary to allow Complaint Counsel to prepare for the cross-examination of Mr. Wallace and would serve the interests of justice and facilitate the disposition of this case on the merits. BACKGROUND The 1718 File, a LabMD document containing the sensitive personal information of thousands of consumers, was found on a peer-to-peer network by Tiversa Holding Corporation PUBLIC (“Tiversa”). During discovery in this action, Robert Boback testified, in his deposition as Tiversa’s Rule 3.33 designee, that the 1718 File had been found at four IP addresses, none of which were LabMD. CX0703 (Boback, Tiversa Designee, Dep. at 50-53). These four IP addresses were listed in a document, CX0019, produced to Complaint Counsel. Mr. Boback testified that Tiversa created CX0019 in the regular course of business. CX0703 (Boback, Tiversa Designee, Dep. at 50-51). No question about the authenticity of CX0019 or Mr. Wallace’s role in generating the document was raised by either party during fact discovery, or at any point prior to the June 12, 2014 evidentiary hearing.1 Respondent’s Final Witness List states only that Mr. Wallace will testify about “Tiversa’s communications with” the FTC and “facts relating to” the 1718 File but provides no detail about the nature of those “communications” or “facts.” Resp’t Final Witness List (Apr. 9, 2014) (attached as Exhibit B) at 4-5. Neither party deposed Mr. Wallace.2 On May 27, 2014, Respondent issued a trial subpoena to Mr. Wallace to testify at the evidentiary hearing in this matter. During the evidentiary hearing on May 30, 2014, counsel for 1 See, e.g., JX0001 (Joint Stipulations of Fact, Law, and Authenticity) at 4 (stipulating to authenticity of all Complaint Counsel exhibits other than CX0451); Compl., LabMD, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, Docket No. 1:14-cv-00810-WSD (N.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2014) (not alleging proffered misconduct or fabrication of CX0019); Resp’t LabMD’s Pre-Trial Brief (May 9, 2014) at 5 n.4 (not raising Mr. Wallace or fabrication of CX0019); RX533 (Expert Report of Adam Fisk) at 23-24 (proposing reasons why 1718 File might be found at San Diego IP address). 2 Respondent issued a deposition subpoena to Richard Wallace, an employee of Tiversa, on January 30, 2014 and, in consultation with counsel for Tiversa, scheduled his deposition for March 4, 2014. See 2014 email correspondence between J. Shaw and W. Sherman regarding Wallace Deposition (attached as Exhibit C) at 4. However, on February 26, 2014, counsel for Tiversa notified the parties that Mr. Wallace would be unable to attend due to an unexpected medical issue. See id. at 3-4. Respondent contacted counsel for Tiversa on April 3, 2014 to arrange Mr. Wallace’s deposition after close of discovery, but was informed that Mr. Wallace was no longer a Tiversa employee. See Ex. C at 1. The parties later learned that Tiversa discharged Mr. Wallace for cause on February 28, 2014. RX541 (Boback, Dep. at 101). Thereafter, the parties did not depose Mr. Wallace. See Trial Tr. at 1227. 2 PUBLIC Mr. Wallace advised the Court that Mr. Wallace would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in response to any substantive questions if called to testify in this matter. Trial Tr. at 1243-45. Counsel for Mr. Wallace stated that Mr. Wallace was seeking immunity from the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (“Oversight Committee”) for testimony before that Committee. Trial Tr. at 1249. When Mr. Wallace appeared on June 12, 2014 and invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, Respondent’s counsel offered a proffer of Mr. Wallace’s expected testimony. He stated that Mr. Wallace would testify that the 1718 File had been found only at LabMD, and that an attorney for Complaint Counsel visited Tiversa’s offices in October 2013 and told him that “it’s got to be found somewhere else,” whereupon Mr. Wallace wrote down four IP addresses, creating CX0019. Trial Tr. at 1293, in camera. Complaint Counsel requested that Respondent submit an application under Rule 3.39 for immunity for his testimony in this proceeding. See, e.g., Trial Tr. at 1303. Respondent’s counsel responded that such an application would be premature while the Oversight Committee was considering a related request. See, e.g., Trial Tr. at 1280. However, in the weeks that followed, the Oversight Committee did not grant Mr. Wallace immunity for his testimony. On August 5, 2014, Complaint Counsel renewed its application for Respondent to be required to file a Rule 3.39 request. On August 22, 2014, the Court ordered that Respondent file such a request within five days of a decision of the Oversight Committee declining to grant immunity that would cover Mr. Wallace’s testimony in this proceeding, or by October 1, 2014, whichever occurred first. On October 1, 2014, Respondent filed a motion under Rule 3.39(b) requesting an order requiring Mr. Wallace to testify in person in this proceeding and granting immunity to Mr. 3 PUBLIC Wallace with regard to such testimony. On October 9, 2014, the Court issued an Order requesting approval by the Attorney General for the issuance of an order requiring Mr. Wallace to testify and granting immunity. Following the request of immunity, both parties learned that Tiversa has alleged in its Pennsylvania state court complaint that Mr. Wallace sold his stock in Tiversa for over $250,000 at the same time he was making his accusations that Tiversa had engaged in improper conduct. See Verified Complaint filed in Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (attached as Exhibit D). Both parties also learned that Tiversa has at least two e-mails in its possession that it claims demonstrate the falsity of Mr. Wallace’s claim that he fabricated CX0019. On November 14, 2014, the Department of Justice approved the request for immunity for Mr. Wallace. ARGUMENT There is good cause for the Court to grant Complaint Counsel’s request for leave to issue subpoenas to Mr. Wallace, which will allow Complaint Counsel to prepare for Mr. Wallace’s testimony and facilitate the proceedings in this case.3 First, Complaint Counsel could not have reasonably anticipated the substance of Mr. Wallace’s expected testimony during discovery or at any point prior to the June 12, 2014 evidentiary hearing, or that he would testify contrary to any information given in the deposition of Tiversa’s Rule 3.33(c) designee. Second, this motion is not premature and is designed to expedite cross-examination of Mr. Wallace immediately 3 Complaint Counsel is requesting this discovery to facilitate the cross-examination of Mr. Wallace, not to develop its rebuttal case. However, depending on the substance of Mr. Wallace’s testimony, Complaint Counsel may renew its request for additional discovery, pursuant to the Court’s July 23, 2014 order, to gather the evidence necessary to rebut Wallace’s expected testimony. 4 PUBLIC following his direct testimony, and will serve the interests of justice by allowing Complaint Counsel to conduct a meaningful cross-examination. This is especially important in this case given the fact that Mr. Wallace is expected to make allegations of serious misconduct by Complaint Counsel. Fairness to the parties as well as the interests of justice and judicial economy require permitting this discovery at this time. I. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO PERMIT THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY The Commission Rules of Practice provide the Court authority to permit additional discovery at this stage of the proceeding. Rule 3.21(c)(2) provides that “[t]he Administrative Law Judge may, upon a showing of good cause, grant a motion to extend any deadline or time specified in this scheduling order other than the date of the evidentiary hearing”; and Rule 3.41(b)(1) states that the Administrative Law Judge may “grant a reasonable recess at the end of a case-in-chief for the purpose of discovery deferred during the prehearing procedure if the Administrative Law Judge determines that such recess will materially expedite the ultimate disposition of the proceeding.” 16 C.F.R. §§ 3.21(c)(2), 3.41(b)(1). Furthermore, Rule 3.42(c) confers the Administrative Law Judge with the authority “to take all necessary action to avoid delay in the disposition of the proceedings,” which includes the power “[t]o issue subpoenas and orders requiring answer to questions,” and “to cause depositions to be taken.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.42(c), (c)(2)–(3). As discussed in Part III, infra, issuing the requested subpoenas at this stage will avoid delay in the disposition of the proceedings. In addition, because Mr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Legal Proceeding Against Two Notorious Conspiracy Theorists Over
    Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 1 of 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NATIONAL COALITION ON BLACK CIVIC PARTICIPATION, MARY WINTER, GENE STEINBERG, NANCY HART, SARAH WOLFF, KAREN SLAVEN, KATE KENNEDY, EDA DANIEL, and ANDREA SFERES, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-08668 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION -and- People of the STATE OF NEW YORK, by its attorney general, LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. JACOB WOHL, JACK BURKMAN, J.M. BURKMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, PROJECT 1599, MESSAGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and ROBERT MAHANIAN Defendants. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. All eligible voters have the right to vote unimpeded by deception or intimidation. The right to vote “in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights” and “any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964). 1 Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 102 Filed 05/19/21 Page 2 of 28 2. This case is about a targeted, discriminatory effort to infringe on the fundamental rights of New Yorkers—and others across the country—to vote in a safe, lawful manner. Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman, through Burkman’s lobbying firm, J.M. Burkman & Associates, and the purported organization Project 1599 (collectively “Wohl and Burkman”), concocted a racist campaign that trafficked in stereotypes and spread lies and deception all for their shared goal of intimidating voters and depressing voter turnout to disrupt a presidential election.
    [Show full text]
  • © Copyright 2020 Yunkang Yang
    © Copyright 2020 Yunkang Yang The Political Logic of the Radical Right Media Sphere in the United States Yunkang Yang A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2020 Reading Committee: W. Lance Bennett, Chair Matthew J. Powers Kirsten A. Foot Adrienne Russell Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Communication University of Washington Abstract The Political Logic of the Radical Right Media Sphere in the United States Yunkang Yang Chair of the Supervisory Committee: W. Lance Bennett Department of Communication Democracy in America is threatened by an increased level of false information circulating through online media networks. Previous research has found that radical right media such as Fox News and Breitbart are the principal incubators and distributors of online disinformation. In this dissertation, I draw attention to their political mobilizing logic and propose a new theoretical framework to analyze major radical right media in the U.S. Contrasted with the old partisan media literature that regarded radical right media as partisan news organizations, I argue that media outlets such as Fox News and Breitbart are better understood as hybrid network organizations. This means that many radical right media can function as partisan journalism producers, disinformation distributors, and in many cases political organizations at the same time. They not only provide partisan news reporting but also engage in a variety of political activities such as spreading disinformation, conducting opposition research, contacting voters, and campaigning and fundraising for politicians. In addition, many radical right media are also capable of forming emerging political organization networks that can mobilize resources, coordinate actions, and pursue tangible political goals at strategic moments in response to the changing political environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Mueller Subpoena of Trump True Or Not
    Mueller Subpoena Of Trump True Or Not Pandanaceous and ungrudging Tom sambas: which Shimon is anthracitic enough? Lefty jaculating thin. Multidirectional Ernst mizzles, his zoogeography hydrogenate wattle freakishly. Wang yi said trump or not true stories of mueller subpoena of trump true or not? Comey for the subpoena of mueller or not true conflicts of me. Wohl and state lawmaker to hear from her son of obstruction of australians off the year! First before he or gaetz: trump of mueller subpoena or not true conflicts of trump conducted himself from. Smith steps to impeachment prosecution of former special prosecutors must file. Article originally appeared to our free alm digital membership under oath represented people a voter suppression scheme, mueller subpoena of trump true or not above. He now due to close the president to report listed below record voter suppression charges over trump of or mueller not subpoena. Could create a subpoena of mueller or not true conflicts of immunity after his mandate was never mind. If so i knew and time and john bolton in joliet are powerful legal news of mueller subpoena or not true conflicts of. Presidency would lead to why director of constitutional superstructure of gay people who ironically, obstruction of volume of external sites claiming evidence from. White house around boston, mueller subpoena of trump true or not being cast doubt. The subpoena for more or working with top aides said that immigrants that broadcast, correct observing paint start amazon publisher services. The very different american revolution and citizens by mueller report explains to trump of or mueller not subpoena true conflicts of influence also could.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 12 Reasons Robert Mueller Is a Trump Hitman to Hide the Deep State’S Sins
    11/9/2017 Americans for Innovation: TOP 12 REASONS ROBERT MUELLER IS A TRUMP HITMAN TO HIDE THE DEEP STATE’S SINS More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In SEARCH by topic, keyword or phrase. Type in Custom Search box e.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering" Custom Search Friday, June 16, 2017 DEEP STATE Member SHADOW TOP 12 REASONS ROBERT MUELLER IS A TRUMP GOVERNMENT HITMAN TO HIDE THE DEEP STATE’S SINS POSTER Harvard | Yale | Stanford Sycophants PRESIDENT TRUMP AND OUR REPUBLIC ARE IN PERIL FROM DEEP Updated Oct. 29, 2017. STATE OPERATIVES LIKE ROBERT S. MUELLER CLICK HERE TO SEE COMBINED TIMELINE OF THE CONTRIBUTING WRITERS | OPINION | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | JUN. 16, 2016, UPDATED JUN. 26, 2017 | HIJACKING OF THE INTERNET PDF PAY-to-PLA Y NEW W ORLD ORDER This timeline shows how insiders sell access & manipulate politicians, police, intelligence, judges and media to keep their secrets Clintons, Obamas, Summers were paid in cash for outlandish speaking fees and Foundation donations. Sycophant judges, politicians, academics, bureaucrats and media were fed tips to mutual funds tied to insider stocks like Facebook. Risk of public exposure, blackmail, pedophilia, “snuff parties” (ritual child sexual abuse and murder) and Satanism have ensured silence among pay-to-play beneficiaries. The U.S. Patent Office is their toy box from which to steal new ideas. FIG. 1 – ROBERT S. MUELLER. The mainstream media portrays Mueller as a man of "impeccable integrity." This could not be more false. Mueller—along with Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Chandler, James Comey and Rod Rosenstein—turned his back on the Republic and the Rule of Law during his 12 years as FBI Director.
    [Show full text]
  • ROD WHEELER, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: : V
    Case 1:17-cv-05807 Document 1 Filed 08/01/17 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- X ROD WHEELER, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: : v. : : COMPLAINT TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC., FOX : NEWS NETWORK LLC, MALIA : ZIMMERMAN, in her individual and professional : Jury Trial Demanded capacities and ED BUTOWSKY, in his individual : and professional capacities, : : Defendants. : --------------------------------------------------------------X PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. On May 14, 2017, Mr. Wheeler received the following text message from Defendant Ed Butowsky: Deadline 2. The “president” referred to in this text message is President Donald Trump. The “article” – which was published by Fox News’s Malia Zimmerman less than 36 hours after this text message was sent – reported that a murdered Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) staffer, Seth Rich, was the source of the now infamous DNC emails leaked by WikiLeaks during the 2016 Presidential primaries. The motivation behind the article: establish that Seth Rich provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails to shift the blame from Russia and help put to bed 1 Case 1:17-cv-05807 Document 1 Filed 08/01/17 Page 2 of 33 speculation that President Trump colluded with Russia in an attempt to influence the outcome of the Presidential election. Incredibly, according to Butowsky, the President reviewed an article written by a Fox News journalist prior to its publication and sought to get the article published “immediately.” Indeed, just before Butowsky sent the text message above, he left a voicemail for Mr. Wheeler in which he said, “A couple minutes ago I got a note that we have the full, uh, attention of the White House, on this.
    [Show full text]
  • Weekly Lobbying Articles December 28, 2017
    Weekly Lobbying Articles December 28, 2017 Talking Points Memo December 28, 2017 GOP Lobbyist Who Held Fundraiser For Rick Gates Calls Judge ‘Stalin-esque’ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/burkman-judge-gate-stalinesque A federal judge’s evident annoyance that Rick Gates participated, via a pretaped video statement, in a fundraiser last week did not stop the organizer of the fundraiser from taking a swing at the judge. “The actions by this judge to curtail First Amendment free speech rights are nothing short of Stalin- esque,” GOP lobbyist Jack Burkman, who is known for inserting himself in conservative causes célèbres, said in a statement Thursday. “I stand by what I said that night and my inalienable right to be able to say it.” U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson had ordered Gates to explain how the video appearance is not a violation of the gag order she had placed on his case. Gates, a former Trump campaign aide, defended taping the video in a court filing Wednesday and indicated he would like to film more videos for future fundraisers for his legal defense fund. Gates — along with his longtime business partner, former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort — is facing charges of tax evasion, money laundering and failure to disclose foreign lobbying. Both men have pleaded not guilty, as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. Burkman held a fundraiser for Gates’ legal defense fund last week at a Holiday Inn in Virginia, just outside of Washington. Gates, in his video statement, thanked the attendees for supporting his “cause” and Burkman for “ensuring supporters from across the United States hear our message.” Burkman, meanwhile bashed the prosecutors as being “very unfair,” according to press reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Detroit Builds Cooperatively
    Spring Home Guide PRIDESOURCE.COM Helping the Elder LGBTQ Community PAGE 6 Cinetopia’s LGBTQ Movie Lineup PAGE 20 Pop Artist Marina on Finding Herself Detroit Builds PAGE 20 MAY 2, 2019 Cooperatively VOL. 2718 | FREE Cover photo: Andrew Potter VOL. 2718 • MAY 2, 2019 • ISSUE 1109 PRIDE SOURCE MEDIA GROUP 20222 Farmington Rd., Livonia, Michigan 48152 Phone 734.293.7200 PUBLISHERS Susan Horowitz & Jan Stevenson EDITORIAL Editor in Chief Susan Horowitz, 734.293.7200 x 102 12 [email protected] Entertainment Editor Chris Azzopardi, 734.293.7200 x 106 [email protected] Feature News Editor Kate Opalewski, 734.293.7200 x 108 [email protected] Editorial Assistant Eve Kucharski, 734.293.7200 x 105 [email protected] 26 20 News & Feature Writers Emell Derra Adolphus, Michelle Brown, Ellen Knoppow, Jason Michael, Drew Howard, Jonathan Thurston CREATIVE Webmaster & MIS Director Kevin Bryant, [email protected] Columnists Charles Alexander, Michelle E. Brown, Mikey Rox, D’Anne Witkowski, Gwendolyn Ann Smith Cartoonists Paul Berg Contributing Photographers Andrew Potter, Andrew Cohen 28 22 ADVERTISING & SALES Director of Sales NEWS OPINION Jan Stevenson, 734.293.7200 x 101 6 HRC, SAGE Partnered to Form Long-Term Care 10 Parting Glances [email protected] Equality Index for LGBTQ Elders 10 As in a Mirror Sales Representatives 9 10th Annual Cheers to HELP Friday, May 10 Ann Cox, 734.293.7200 x 103 11 Creep of the Week: Jacob Wohl and Jack [email protected] 12 Legilsation Introduced to Ban Conversion Burkman
    [Show full text]
  • It's Perfectly Normal Tops List of Most Challenged Books
    ISSN 0028-9485 May 2006 Vol. LV No. 3 www.ala.org/nif One of the most frequently challenged authors of the past decade has two books on the American Library Association’s (ALA) list of the most frequently challenged books of 2005. Robie H. Harris’s It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health heads the list, while It’s So Amazing! A Book about Eggs, Sperm, Birth, Babies, and Families rounds out the top ten. Both books drew complaints for sexual content. The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom received a total of 405 challenges last year. A challenge is defined as a formal, written complaint, filed with a library or school request‑ ing that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness. The majority of It’s Perfectly challenges are reported by public libraries, schools and school libraries. According to Judith F. Krug, director of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, the Normal tops number of challenges reflects only incidents reported, and for each reported, four or five list of most likely remain unreported. The “Ten Most Challenged Books of 2005” reflect a range of themes. The books are: challenged l It’s Perfectly Normal for homosexuality, nudity, sex education, religious viewpoint, books abortion and being unsuited to age group; l Forever, by Judy Blume, for sexual content and offensive language; l The Catcher in the Rye, by J. D. Salinger, for sexual content, offensive language and being unsuited to age group; l The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier, for sexual content and offensive language; l Whale Talk, by Chris Crutcher, for racism and offensive language; l Detour for Emmy, by Marilyn Reynolds, for sexual content; l What My Mother Doesn’t Know, by Sonya Sones, for sexual content and being unsuited to age group; (continued on page 119) Published by the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee, Kenton L.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacob Wohl Warrant Recalled
    Jacob Wohl Warrant Recalled fagotsLorrie iscourteously. eightfold and Christ misdescribes remains osculatory: emblematically she masculinizing as unsmiling Eliotther torpedos eliminating bestirred simperingly too and unremorsefully.unbrotherly? Tamas albumenises his blousons kotow mayhap, but spleenful Maurits never eloign so Download Jacob Wohl Warrant Recalled pdf. Download Jacob Wohl Warrant Recalled doc. Selling a Beinglarge to released jacob warrant on accusations recalled fossil,that would a buy appreciate a felony arrest your warrantsearch termsissued of sweeping conspiracy new theories york city against Puttingthe court. her Nato with troops democratic during presidential a dubious claimfrontrunner that was and claimed said anthony to a scandalous fauci sexually story assaulted as the real her life. inalmost june. on Analyse you? Weirdour partners statement use clarifying of seven neithernortheastern she became states movea felony to allwarrant over thewas uploaded. taken into Short different ongoingperiod of and free jared on economics, retake new he lockdowns will try again could later be terminatedthe last month. his. KeyMade is upto, thewohl brothers, recalled whonorth could is be year,an online full house advertising access space to the to charges. play. Extramarital Ring of that affair said began wohl andwarrant technology recalled such facts a here phone to thenumber that allegationsbrothers? Found against handwritten the real reason? note from Made the aware first us of for allegations the court againstat the man! mueller, Known why to does be the is clearedabuse of allegationsabuse, i love so you the getwebsite. the weeks. Reported Issued a one, for thewohl sticky warrant class declaration to smear campaignsaid neither against he also sex hit assault the arizona warrantresident recalledlater terminated lobbed bogus his teenage sex abuse? years Uihleinsbefore the plan posting to add of.
    [Show full text]
  • For Congress
    CHABOT FOR CONGRESS November 17,2017 Federal Election Commission h Office of Complaints Examination and Legal Administration ATTN: Kathrj'n Ross, Paralegal § 999 E Street, NW i Washington, D.C. 20436 RE: MUR NO. 7272 Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Congressman Steve Chabot and Cliabot for Congress as its Treasurer (referred to collectively as "we") in response to MUR NO. 7272. We have the unenviable, if not impossible, task of proving not only a negative, but also proving a negative about which no actual information or evidence has been produced by the complainant, J. Whitfield Larrabee. Despite the lack of evidence provided in Mr. Larrabee's complaint (the "Complaint"), we have been able to uncover, contrary to Mr. Larrabee's allegations, that the contribution to Chabot for Congress in question was made at a time during which the contributor (Edward Kutler) did not represent Ukrainian interests. As detailed below, this evidence vitiates the entire Complaint as it relates to Congressman Steve Chabot and his campaign, Chabot for Congress. In MUR NO. 7272, Mr. Larrabee charges 24 different parties for their involvement in a vaguely-defined intemational conspiracy to "corrupt[] the 2014 primary and general elections, the deliberations of the United States Senate and the deliberations of the United States House of Representatives.'" As evidence of this conspiracy, Mr. Larrabee cites fees received by numerous registered lobbyists from several Ukrainian interests, including (as it pertains to this response) the European Centre For a Modem Ukraine ("ECFMU"). Mr. Larrabee did not name Congressman Chabot nor his campaign as a party to the Complaint, nor did he provide any evidence that either were a party to this alleged conspiracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Temporary Restraining Order
    Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 38 Filed 10/28/20 Page 1 of 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------X NATIONAL COALITION ON BLACK CIVIC : PARTICIPATION, et al. : : Plaintiffs, : 20 Civ. 8668 (VM) : - against - : DECISION AND ORDER : JACOB WOHL, et al. : : Defendants. : -----------------------------------X VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge. Plaintiffs National Coalition on Black Civic Participation (“NCBCP”), Mary Winter, Gene Steinberg, Nancy Hart, Sarah Wolff, Karen Slaven, Kate Kennedy, Eda Daniel, and Andrea Sferes (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Jacob Wohl (“Wohl”), Jack Burkman (“Burkman”), J.M. Burkman & Associates, LLC (“J.M. Burkman & Associates”), Project 1599, and John and Jane Does 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants sent robocalls containing false information intended to scare recipients from voting by mail in violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b), and Section 2 of the Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 U.S.C. §1985(3). Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them from sending such robocalls (the “Motion”). (See “Proposed Order,” 1 Case 1:20-cv-08668-VM Document 38 Filed 10/28/20 Page 2 of 66 Dkt. No. 12; “Plaintiffs’ Memorandum,” Dkt. No. 13; “Ramsey Decl.,” Dkt. No. 14; “Winter Decl.,” Dkt. No. 15; “Steinberg Decl.,” Dkt. No. 16; “Hart Decl.,” Dkt. No. 17; “Wolff Decl.,” Dkt. No. 18; “Slaven Decl.,” Dkt. No. 19; “Kennedy Decl.,” Dkt. No. 20; “Daniel Decl.,” Dkt. No. 21; “Sferes Decl.,” Dkt.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:20-Cv-08668 Document 1 Filed 10/16/20 Page 1 of 23
    Case 1:20-cv-08668 Document 1 Filed 10/16/20 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NATIONAL COALITION ON BLACK CIVIC PARTICIPATION, MARY WINTER, GENE STEINBERG, NANCY HART, SARAH WOLFF, KAREN SLAVEN, KATE Civil Action No. 20-cv-8668 KENNEDY, EDA DANIEL, and ANDREA SFERES, COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, v. JACOB WOHL, JACK BURKMAN, J.M. BURKMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, PROJECT 1599, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants. Plaintiffs, for their Complaint against Defendants, allege as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiffs seek to protect their right to vote safely and without fear. Defendants sent robocalls to Plaintiffs and other voters for the purpose of intimidating them, or attempting to intimidate them, from voting by mail. Defendants sent an as-yet-unknown number of robocalls to multiple states and used false information to scare recipients that they will experience negative consequences if they choose to vote by mail. Voters were told, “Stay home safe and beware of vote by mail.” Voters deceived by these messages face a harmful choice: expose yourself and your family to increased risk of contracting COVID-19 by voting in person, or do not vote. 2. This is an action pursuant to Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. § 10307(b)) and Section 2 of the Ku Klux Klan Act (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)) to secure relief for the unlawful infringement of voting rights secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United Case 1:20-cv-08668 Document 1 Filed 10/16/20 Page 2 of 23 States.
    [Show full text]