IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LARRY KLAYMAN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006

and

CHARLES AND MARY ANN STRANGE, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs,

v.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II,
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

and

ERIC HIMPTON HOLDER, JR.,
555 Fourth St. NW
Washington, DC 20530

and

KEITH B. ALEXANDER
Director of the National Security Agency,
9800 Savage Rd.
Fort Meade, MD 20755

and

LOWELL C. McADAM,
Chief Executive Officer of Verizon Communications
140 West Street
New York, NY 10007

and

Civil Action No.: 1:13-cv-00851
Judge Richard J. Leon
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 4 Filed 06/09/13 Page 1 of 24

ROGER VINSON,
Judge, U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530

and

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS,
140 West Street
New York, NY 10007

and

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Director of the National Security Agency,
9800 Savage Rd.
Fort Meade, MD 20755

and

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
Defendants.

CLASS ACTION AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor, and Plaintiffs
Charles and Mary Ann Strange (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this action on their own behalf
and on behalf of a class of persons defined below. Plaintiffs hereby sue Barack Hussein Obama,
Eric Holder, Keith B. Alexander, Lowell McAdam, Roger Vinson, Verizon Communications, the
U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and the National Security Agency (“NSA”), (collectively
“Defendants”), in their personal and official capacities, for violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights, Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of privacy, free speech and association, right to be free
of unreasonable searches and seizures, and due process rights, as well as certain common law
claims, for directly and proximately causing Plaintiffs mental and physical pain and suffering
and harm as a result of the below pled illegal and criminal acts. Plaintiffs and members of the
class pled below allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for violations of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution. This is also an action for violations of privacy, including intrusion upon
seclusion, freedom of expression and association, due process, and other illegal acts.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers,
users, and U.S. citizens who are customers and users of Defendant Verizon Communications
(“Verizon”).

2. This case challenges the legality of Defendants’ participation and conduct in a secret and
illegal government scheme to intercept and analyze vast quantities of domestic telephonic
communications. Specifically, on June 5, 2013, The Guardian posted a classified order from
the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court directing Verizon to turn over, “on an
ongoing daily basis,” the following tangible things: “All call detail records or “telephony
metadata” created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad;
or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.”

3. This would give the NSA over one hundred millions phone records on a daily basis. The
information would also include a list of all the people that Verizon customers call and who
called them; how long they spoke; and perhaps, where they were on a given day. Further,
there is nothing in the order requiring the government to destroy the records after a certain
amount of time nor is there any provisions limiting who can see and hear the data.

4. The order, issued and signed by Judge Roger Vinson, violates the U.S. Constitution and also
federal laws, including, but not limited to, the outrageous breach of privacy, freedom of
speech, freedom of association, and the due process rights of American citizens.

5. This surveillance program was authorized and ordered by the President and primarily
undertaken by the NSA and the other Defendants, intercepting and analyzing the
communication of hundreds of millions of Americans. Prior to this disclosure and revelation,
Plaintiffs and class members had no reasonable opportunity to discover the existence of the
surveillance program or the violation of the laws alleged herein.

6. Defendant Verizon maintains domestic telecommunications facilities over which hundreds of
millions of Americans’ telephone communications pass every day. They also manage some
of the largest databases in the world containing records of most or all communications made
through their myriad telecommunications services and operations.

7. Defendant Verizon has opened its key telecommunication databases to direct access by the
NSA and/or other government agencies, intercepting and disclosing to the government the
contents of its customers as well as detailed communication records over one hundred
million of its customers, including Plaintiffs and class members. On information and belief,
Defendant Verizon continues to assist the government in its secret surveillance of over one
hundred million of ordinary Americans citizens just on a daily basis.

8. Plaintiffs and members of the class are suing for declaratory relief, damages, and injunctive
relief to stop this illegal conduct and hold Defendants, individually and collectively,
responsible for their illegal collaboration in the surveillance program, which has violated the
law and damaged the fundamental freedoms of American citizens.

THE PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Larry Klayman is an individual and an attorney who is a subscriber and user of
Verizon Wireless at all material times. In fact, on information and belief, Plaintiff Larry
Klayman has been a subscriber and user of Verizon Wireless for many years. Plaintiff Larry
Klayman resided in the District of Columbia (“D.C”) for over twenty years and continues to
conduct business in Washington, D.C. as the Chairman and General Counsel of Freedom
Watch and otherwise. Plaintiff Larry Klayman is a public advocate and has filed lawsuits
against President Obama and has been highly critical of the Obama administration as a
whole. On information and belief, Defendants have accessed the records pertaining to
Plaintiff Larry Klayman pursuant to the Order issued by Defendant Vinson in addition to
accessing his telephone conversations.

10. Plaintiffs Charles and Mary Ann Strange are the parents of Michael Strange, a member of
Navy SEAL Team VI who was killed when the helicopter he was in was attacked and shot
down by terrorist Taliban jihadists in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011. On information and
belief, Defendants have accessed Plaintiffs Charles and Mary Ann Strange’s phone records
particularly since these Plaintiffs have been vocal about their criticism of President Obama as
commander-in-chief, his administration, and the U.S. military regarding the circumstances
surrounding the shoot down of their son’s helicopter in Afghanistan, which resulted in the
death of their son and other Navy Seal Team VI members and special operation forces.
Plaintiffs Charles and Mary Ann Strange have substantial connections with Washington,
D.C., as they hold press conferences in Washington, D.C. and lobby in Washington, D.C. as
an advocate for their son and to obtain justice for him, as well as to change the policies and
orders of President Obama and the U.S. military’s acts and practices, which contributed to
their son’s death.

11. Defendant Barack Hussein Obama (“Obama”) is the President of the United States and
currently resides in Washington, D.C.

12. Defendant Eric Holder (“Holder”) is the Attorney General of the United States and conducts
his duties as the Attorney General in Washington, D.C.

13. The National Security Agency (“NSA”) is an intelligence agency of the U.S. Department of
Defense and conduct its duties in Washington, D.C.

14. Defendant Keith B. Alexander (“Alexander”) is the Director of the National Security
Agency. He is also the commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, where he is responsible for
planning, coordinating, and conducting operations of computer networks. He is also at the
command for U.S. National Security Information system protection responsibilities. He
conducts his duties for the National Security Agency in Washington, D.C.

15. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is a U.S. federal executive department responsible
for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice, and its headquarters is located in
Washington, D.C., where it conducts most of its activities and business.

16. Defendant Lowell C. McAdam (“McAdam”) is the Chief Executive Officer of Verizon
Communications.

17. Defendant Roger Vinson (“Vinson”) is a judge to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court.

18. Defendant Verizon Communications (“Verizon”) is an American broadband and
telecommunications company. Defendant Verizon is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in New York. Defendant Verizon, at all material times, conducted
business in Washington, D.C., including maintaining business offices in D.C., advertising in
D.C., and conducting lobbying activities in D.C. Defendant is a telecommunication carrier,
and offers electronic communications service(s) to the public and remote commuting
service(s). Defendant Verizon is responsible, along with the other Defendants, for the illegal
acts alleged herein and Defendant Verizon and the other Defendants proximately caused the
injuries to Plaintiffs and class members herein alleged.

19. All of these Defendants, each and every one of them, jointly and severally, acted in concert
to violate the constitutional privacy rights, free speech, freedom of association, due process
and other legal rights of Plaintiffs and all other American citizens similarly situated who are
members of the classes pled herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331
(Federal Question Jurisdiction).

21. Jurisdiction and venue are proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, which states in pertinent part,
“[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” At issue here is the unconstitutional
violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.

22. Supplemental jurisdiction is also proper under 28 U.S.C. §1367, which states in pertinent
part, ” . . .in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district
courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims
in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

23. Plaintiffs are informed, believes and thereon alleges that, based on the places of business of
the Defendants and/or on the national reach of Defendants, a substantial part of the events
giving rise to the claims herein alleged occurred in this district and that Defendants and/or
agents of Defendants may be found in this district.

STANDING

[…]

If the complaint does not load up I also attached it as a PDF file below. VERY UNUSUAL!

[ipaper docId=146930457 access_key=key-2jkwi4bk3pn570cqdqoq height=600 width=600 /]

Comments

comments