Elephant in the Room: DOJ's Glaring Omissions

SHOW US THE LIST! Release the names!

DOJ conveniently ignores that our names are on the TSDB list.

/

The Department of Justice is the world's largest law firm. There are more than 10,000 lawyers at the DOJ. Every Attorney at the DOJ has sworn an oath to "protect and defend the U.S. Constitution." Their first responsibility is to protect American’s Constitutional Rights, yet their goal in this case is to protect the FBI - that's called a "Conflict of Interest."

/

DOJ lawyers working this case:

-Brian M. Boynton

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

-Anthony J. Coppolino

Deputy Branch Director

-Marcia Berman

Assistant Branch Director

-Madeline M. McMahon

Trial Attorney

/

DOJ has filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) our case.

The Hate Speech from DOJ is repugnant and disturbing. DOJ states that our claims are "fantastical" (mentioned 5 times), "conspiracy theories" (3 times), "essentially fictitious" (once), and "implausible," (6 times).

/

Yet DOJ never says - "We checked and your names are not on the TSDB list." This debate is easily resolved - SHOW US THE LIST.

Elephant in the Room - Glaring Omissions by DOJ:

1. DOJ refuses to admit or deny that Plaintiff's names are on the TSDB list. We call that a "confession of guilt." SHOW US THE LIST.

2. DOJ never addresses that it is unconstitutional to have non-terrorists U.S. citizens on a terrorist list. It does not matter if we are being "fantastical" (we are not) - it is still unconstitutional. It is still a violation of the Privacy Act. This is a plausible, factual allegation.

3. DOJ never addresses that HSPD-6 only allows for the inclusion of "Known or appropriately-suspected terrorists." Another "confession of guilt."

4. DOJ never mentions that these Government Executives, have a sworn duty to protect the Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiffs, including privacy.

We sent Cease & Desist letters in 2019, and again as a Mandamus letter - so they cannot claim they didn't know. This is a plausible, factual allegation.

5. DOJ never mentions the violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) prohibition on arbitrary government action contained in 5 USC § 706, because the HSPD-6 only contemplates the listing of "Known & appropriately-suspected terrorists." No other names are allowed on the list. This is a plausible, factual allegation.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section706&num=0&edition=prelim

/

6. DOJ never mentions that these Government Executives at DOJ, FBI, and DHS (Defendants) - failed to correct the deficiencies that were identified in several government audits. The Inspector General audits stated that the Privacy Act was being violated, that their own rules were not followed, and there was no meaningful redress procedure for persons on the list. This is a plausible, factual allegation.

These government executives knew about it, and with gross negligence - they deliberately ignored it. This is one reason that we are suing them as personal Defendants.

/

Some of the many false statements made by DOJ:

1. "But these conclusory statements — which are grounded in broad-based conspiracy theories — do not plausibly connect Defendants to any medical conditions Plaintiffs may have." (Page 17 of MTD)

However, Plaintiff Dr Len Ber was diagnosed with Havana Syndrome by Dr Michael Hoffer - the same medical doctor that diagnosed hundreds of CIA, State Dept, & FBI personnel. Yet DOJ claims this is "not plausible"... The CIA & State Dept have begun compensating victims of Havana Syndrome up to $200,000, yet the DOJ claims it is "not plausible." This is a plausible, factual allegation.

/

Obviously, the DOJ attorneys did not look at our pictures of microwave burns. Is that how you define, "not plausible?" These are plausible, factual allegations.

https://www.targetedjustice.com/microwave-burns1.html

/

Further, the MK-Ultra Lawsuit in Canada was recently allowed to proceed, with Attorney General Garland as a Defendant. The CIA’s request for immunity was denied. It proves DOJ knows our claims are not “fantastical,” since their boss is a Defendant.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-court-of-appeal-mk-ultra-1.6796756

/

2. DOJ claims our Privacy Act claims should be dismissed for "failure to state a claim". However, we thoroughly stated a claim - the FBI is distributing Plaintiff's names on a secret blacklist, to over 18,000 corporations, foreign governments, and government agencies, under the guise of anti-terrorism. This is a violation of our Constitutional rights, and a violation of our privacy. It is also government defamation on a daily basis. It is a federal crime for the DOJ, FBI, and DHS to withhold our records from a Privacy Act request, or claim that our names are not held in government records. Merely being on this secret list, causes irreparable harm. SHOW US THE LIST.

3. DOJ claims that, "Targeted Justice Has Not Established Organizational or Associational Standing." This is laughable. We have more than 4000 members. We receive donations from members every month and have a distribution of our newsletter that exceeds 80,000 page views each month. Our website is the largest and most popular site on the internet, that supports Targeted Individuals and Havana Syndrome. We have "organizational standing" because our members suffer similar injuries as those of the named plaintiffs. This is a plausible, factual allegation. DOJ misrepresents the truth when asserting - we don't have "organizational standing."

4. DOJ claims that, "Plaintiffs Have Not Plausibly Alleged That Defendants Violated the Constitution or the APA." What then, do you call placing a non-terrorist on a terrorist list, if not a violation of Constitutional rights and abuse of agency discretion? If our names are on the TSDB list, without a notification, without a means of removing them - then our Constitutional rights are violated. Plaintiff Calvert was informed by two Brazoria County Sheriff's Deputies that he was a "suspected terrorist." This is a plausible, factual allegation. And DOJ misrepresents the truth when stating otherwise.

5. DOJ stated, "The Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest Weigh Strongly Against Preliminary Relief." Another false statement. There is no equity to balance, because the FBI admits that Plaintiffs have "no known ties to terrorism," and they cannot be a risk to National Security. Defendants have no legitimate interest in maintaining a category on the terrorist list made up of non terrorists. The list is unclassified, so nothing is at stake - other than the exposure of corruption at the DOJ & FBI. There is no equity to balance. This is a plausible, factual allegation.

/

There's an easy way to solve this debate: SHOW US THE LIST. They never deny that the list exists. They never deny plaintiffs are on it. They know that 97% of the names on the TSDB - HAVE NO KNOWN TIES TO TERRORISM, and that is an unconstitutional deprivation of privacy, liberty and due process rights. Why do they insist on retaining the names on the list? This is a plausible, factual allegation.

/

Out of 8 billion people on this planet, we have 18 Plaintiffs making similar claims of attacks, whose only common element is the TSDB. That is mathematically impossible to be a random occurrence.

Mathematical conclusion: If your name is on the TSDB - you will be attacked.

/

In violation of FRCP Rule 11, the DOJ has made a number of false and misleading statements that will be brought to the Court's attention. If the DOJ hides information that is relevant to our case - that is also a violation of Federal law.

/

In the ElHady v. Kable trial of 2019, the DOJ repeatedly made false statements to Judge Anthony Trenga. DOJ was unable to provide any shred of evidence that Plaintiffs were "Known or Suspected Terrorists" (KST).

“There is no evidence, or contention, that any of these plaintiffs satisfy the definition of a known terrorist,” Trenga wrote in his Elhady v. Kable ruling. “None have been convicted, charged or indicted for any criminal offense related to terrorism, or otherwise.”

https://www.au.org/the-latest/church-and-state/articles/federal-watchlist-ruled/#

/

Finally - This is Important.

Mottley Rule:

In order to have federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s complaint must be a well-pleaded one. This means that the plaintiff's initial complaint must contain references to the federal question and the federal issue evoked. The federal question and issue cannot arise in an anticipated defense, it must be presented from the initial complaint. This requirement was established in Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, and as such it is often referred to as the "Mottley Rule."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federal_question_jurisdiction

Further, the court cannot simply dismiss a well-pled case, and must assume that the Plaintiff’s factual allegations are TRUE & CORRECT, when considering a Motion to Dismiss.

Russell v. Harris County 500 F.Supp. 577 (S.D.TX 2020) [Judge L. Rosenthal]

https://casetext.com/case/russell-v-harris-cnty-2

See Stratta v. Roe , 961 F.3d 340, 349 (5th Cir. 2020) (a court reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss "take[s] the well-pled factual allegations of the complaint as true and view[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."); Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc. , 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) ("[C]ourts must, as with any motion to dismiss for failure to plead a claim on which relief can be granted, accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true.").

/

*Includes opinions of Targeted Justice.

We are Representatives of the News Media as defined by 47 CFR § 0.466(a)(7).