Bitcoin Forum

This is a thread regarding missing COVID Payments. In Texas they first denied everyone as often as possible, then went on to refuse to add people to PUA/DUA, and would not conduct Wage Investigations for Contractors, if you weren't on a Payroll you weren't getting in. So that cut out all PUA/DUA claims almost

When they did finally begin doing this, they were still refusing to pay rent. So my Wife and I contacted the World Health Organization to tell them we couldn't even do laundry for 5 months on the CDC declaration, and were living on $400 per month in Food Stamps, when we should have been provided the money we were owed, and been able to support our own Economy. So this actually damages many others, and has caused us Financial Harm apart from just the missing payments, so we are also asking for Damages. Some people may be Dead or have gone through COVID when they should have been being paid under DUA/PUA. I will get links and expand on everything in later posts.

After they finally started Paying Rents, they only paid for 3 households in the first month. And I waited 4 months for an appeal to be heard, which was ruled in my favor 04-15-21 and I have yet to be paid for, and fir the past 4 months have been on the phone with TWC Agents who all had no idea what they were doing one person to the next, they were very different in their ideas of how it should work. I spend months on the phone with these people.

I then filed Federal Suit in the Federal Claims Court because my Wife hadn't gotten a dime, and all my money was going to the Landlord when there was money set aside for rent. I had to get them to use it.

A week after I filed it, States started ending Benefits and they upped the Fraud Investigations, my Wife had no ID (at least not acceptible to ID.me, who escalated to the State, who ignored her and instead investigated her like a tagged animal) so it took 6 months for her to get a dime.

It seems that Texas Attorney General Employees and ID.me met either near Harry Heins, or a similar place in Florida, and decided they want to play "The Game". Ending Benefits was done to push Black Females into Strip Clubs and others sex work. They then opened a call center in Florida, and are spying on Black Females Playlists, along with FirstNet and AT&T. They are interested in:

1. Fucking your Wife. Giving you a Job or otherwise getting you out of the way, but under their system of payment or friendship or business, etc, and they are interested in giving Meth or Cocaine to Women and Buying them Clothes, etc. Generally being Sugar Daddies, but in a Stalker way, like Predator and Prey using Data. Government Rape.

2. They then are interested in Gaming People. They want to treat Black Women like Trash, and there may be a few people taking Slaves in all of this. But they want Babies Mommas, and they want to generally be Players. They are interested in Gaming people.

3. They are doing this on a Racial level, this is partially coming out of Colombia since the FARC have come out of the Jungle. I was going to Colombia in 2018, and watched this start to change. The State Department seems to have made moves to integrate into Colombia, and then has Women living like maids at their houses, living there for free when they are gone, bit like a kind of servant and sexual thing when they visit. This is being translated here through IDme and they used it to identify women that they could target for this in the Black Community in America.

What we are doing is getting everyone their COVID money,
Getting everyone Punitive Awards and Damages,
Getting into the issues in the Texas HUD and Continuum of Care System,
And filing ECPA claims, as even Investigations are Private and it's $200,000 per Violation.

I will post links and expand on everything in following posts.


We are creating a Valve. The Government owes these people money and Housing.

We will also get into Mandamus and Quo Warranto in this thread.

Metu Neter translates to something like "the Nectar", but is Mother Nature, and actually from Egyptian to Greek would be Logos. In Egyptian Heiroglyphs, Mother Nature is the Logos, like Jesus is the Word, the Way, the Truth, and the Light. Metu Neter, the Heiroglyphic Language, is too.

If we look at the phrase "Que Cera, Cera" we can make an Analysis of the meaning of Kadmos, the Wax Heiroglyph, etc. And really no one Detail is Defining this for us, but instead we are gaining a part of a Puzzle from each detail.

So, if we start with the Heiroglyphic Letter T, the Wax Loaf. We can see this as associated with Sarcophagus coverings, the Pharaoh is the Chief Beekeeper, etc, and we can see the Wax Headcone a from the Summer Feast as exemplary of the Letter T, the Loaf, the Headcones are the Loafs. So now if we look at the meaning of the Heiroglyphic T, we see it means "Give!", as in Free, as in to Give someone Soap just so they can be clean, or to Free a Slave. We then can see the story of the Cobbler and the Elves making him shoes, as exemplary of the "Give!" Concept, he gives them simple clothing for themselves and they are Free, gone forever to live their lives. We can then see the story of Hercules as the Story of Iron Age Government emerging, and his Sheild Kadmos as Ancient Rites related to the Great God's of Samothrace, Kadmilos. This being Rites related everything from Kings and Queens and Astrology, to Plant Life like Basil being Royal and Heirloom Fruits and Veggies being developed. These were Rites being passed down, another example being the Color Purple, Crimson and Blue coming from Tyrian Conch shells, Stained Glass Windows, Bells, etc, etc.

If we now look at "Que Cera, Cera" as a Phrase, Cera is T, Cera = T, that is the same concept, Free, Give!, The Elves, "Cera, Cera", that's all the same thing. So Que literally means "What", Cera literally means "Wax". Que Cera, Cera, is "What Will be, Will be". So Que = What, Cera = Will be; Cera, Cera = Will be, Will be.

So Que = What, Cera = Will be,
Que Cera = What Will be
Que Cera, Cera = What Will be, Will be

Saying it twice verifies it, it is able to define and amplify itself by being said 2x, What Will be, Will be. And we are able to glean a lot from this. Que Cera, Cera can also be compared to Carpe Diem, Seize the Day. Cera being the denomination, like Diem is a Day, Cera is Will be, a Denomination if Fate, rather than Time. And Que Cera is almost a statement of Prophecy or Foresight, "What Will be", but "Que Cera, Cera" is an acknowledgement of Fate, or the Fates. Shai to the Egyptians.

This is Hebrew Creation Magic, to bring a Humunculus to life:
אֶמֶת

And to kill it you change it to:

מוות

The Wax Heiroglyph is also very well preserved in the Eloquent Peasant, which is a Que Cera, Cera story, told directly in Heiroglyphs. It is written with the Wax to say "Give!", in Heiroglyphs.

To the Roman Plebians it was a God called the Free Father.
*h₁leudʰero
('belonging to the people', hence 'free')


42 U.S. Code§ 1994.Peonage abolished
(No Slavery or forced Servitude for Debts)

Garvey v. United States, 4 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1925)
(False Fraud Accusations used Racially)

United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)
(False Fraud Accusations used Racially)

28 U.S. Code§ 1357.Injuries under Federal laws
(Tort, etc)

28 U.S. Code§ 1366.Construction of references to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress
(Chevron, Rules of Construction, etc)

Hegar v. Tex. BLC, Inc., NO. 01-18-00554-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 18, 2020)
(Taxes and Declaratory Constitutional Relief)

Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F. Supp. 344 (N.D. Tex. 1994)
(Cruel Homeless Punishment)

JONES v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 04-55324 (9th Cir. 2006)
(Cruel Homeless Punishment)

This help you understand when they Government has crossed the $200,000 line.

https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/disclosures-third-parties

U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Here’s how you know
The United States Department of Justice
You are here
Home » About DOJ » Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties » Overview of The Privacy Act of 1974 (2020 Edition)
SHARE
MENU
OVERVIEW OF THE PRIVACY ACT: 2020 EDITION
CONDITIONS OF DISCLOSURE TO THIRD PARTIES
The general rule under the Privacy Act is that an agency cannot disclose a record contained in a system of records unless the individual to whom the record pertains gives prior written consent to the disclosure.  There are twelve exceptions to this general rule.

 

A. The “No Disclosure without Consent” Rule
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains [subject to 12 exceptions].”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).

Comment:

Under the Privacy Act’s disclosure provision, agencies generally are prohibited from disclosing records by any means of communication – written, oral, electronic, or mechanical – without the written consent of the individual, subject to twelve exceptions.

Federal officials handling personal information are “bound by the Privacy Act not to disclose any personal information and to take certain precautions to keep personal information confidential.”  Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 715 F.3d 631, 650 (7th Cir. 2013); see also, e.g., Navy, Navy Exch., Naval Training Station, Naval Hosp. v. FLRA, 975 F.2d 348, 350 (7th Cir. 1992) (noting that “Privacy Act generally prohibits the federal government from disclosing personal information about an individual without the individual’s consent”).

A “disclosure” can be by any means of communication – written, oral, electronic, or mechanical.  See OMB 1975  Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,953, https://www.​justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75; Bartel v. FAA, 725 F.2d 1403, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (concluding that “an absolute policy of limiting the Act’s coverage to information physically retrieved from a record would make little sense in terms of its underlying purpose” and that Privacy Act “forbids nonconsensual disclosure of records “by any means of communication”); see also, e.g., Speaker v. HHS Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1382 n.11 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Numerous courts have held that the Privacy Act protects against improper oral disclosures.”); Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 423 F.3d 512, 517-19 (5th Cir. 2005) (rejecting argument that “the [Privacy Act] only protects against the disclosure of a physical document that is contained in a system of records,” and holding that “damaging information . . . taken from a protected record and inserted into a new document, which was then disclosed without the plaintiff’s consent,” violated subsection (b) because “the new document is also a protected record”); Orekoya v. Mooney, 330 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2003) (“The Privacy Act prohibits more than dissemination of records themselves, but also ‘nonconsensual disclosure of any information that has been retrieved from a protected record’” (quoting Bartel v. FAA, 725 F.2d at 1408)); Boyd v. United States, 932 F. Supp. 2d 830, 835 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (“[w]hile the term ‘disclosure’ is not defined by the statute, it has been interpreted broadly”); Cloonan v. Holder, 768 F. Supp. 2d. 154, 163 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Bartel, 725 F.2d at 1408); Chang v. Navy, 314 F. Supp. 2d 35, 41 n.2 (D.D.C. 2004) (citing Bartel, 725 F.2d at 1408).

OMB guidelines, and some, but not all, courts have advised that disclosures can occur by either transferring a record or simply “granting access” to a record.

Further, a disclosure under the Privacy Act “may be either the transfer of a record or the granting of access to a record.”  OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28953 (July 9, 1975), https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75; see also Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256, 1268 (10th Cir. 2010) (interpreting disclosure under the Privacy Act “liberally to include not only the physical disclosure of the records, but also the accessing of private records”).  Regarding actionability, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has required that a record actually be retrieved.  Armstrong v. Geithner, 608 F.3d 854, 857 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Bartel, 725 F.2d at 1408, and holding that, to be actionable, “a disclosure generally must be the result of someone having actually retrieved the ‘record’ from that ‘system of records’; the disclosure of information is not ordinarily a violation ‘merely because the information happens to be contained in the records’”); Lambert v. United States, No. 3:15-CV-147-PLR-HBG, 2016 WL 632461, at *4-5 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 2016).  But see Atkins v. Mabus, No. 12CV1390-GPC, 2014 WL 2705204, at *4-8 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) (holding unauthorized access not actionable under Privacy Act, even though plaintiff’s declaration provided support for conclusion that defendant’s employees individually improperly accessed plaintiff’s private medical data); Cacho v. Chertoff, No. 06-00292(ESH), 2006 WL 3422548, at *5 (D.D.C. Nov. 28, 2006) (“[A] plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie claim under the Privacy Act simply by showing that the agency official who disclosed a protected record should never have accessed the record in the first place.”); Smith v. VA, No. CIV-06-865-R, 2007 WL 9711018 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 12, 2007) (dismissing claim of improper disclosure under subsection (b) in spite of evidence suggesting agency’s employee had unauthorized access to plaintiff’s personnel file, because agency had complied with all safeguards of Privacy Act, and had not acted intentionally or willfully to disclose, defined as “to ‘open up,’ ‘to expose to view,’ or ‘to make known, . . . especially to reveal in words’” (citations omitted)).

A disclosure of information from a non-record source does not violate the Privacy Act’s disclosure provision.

The disclosure of information “acquired from non-record sources – such as observation, office emails, discussions with co-workers and the ‘rumor mill’– does not violate the Privacy Act . . . even if the information disclosed is also contained in agency records.”  Lambert v. United States at *5 (quoting Cloonan, 768 F. Supp. 2d. at 164); Thompson v. BOP, No. 1:10-CV-00578-JOF, 2012 WL 13072105, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 20, 2012) (For “a disclosure to be covered by section 552a(b), there must have initially been a retrieval from the system of records which was at some point a source of the information.” (citations omitted)); Savage v. Geren, No. CV-08-S-2189-NE, 2010 WL 11519448, at *13 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 15, 2010) (“[T]he Privacy Act does not prohibit disclosure of information or knowledge obtained from other sources other than ‘records.’...In particular, it does not prevent federal employees or officials from talking – even gossiping – about anything of which they have non-record-based knowledge.” (citations omitted)).

For further discussion of the meaning of “disclosure” of records, see the “Definitions, Systems of Records and Disclosures under Subsection (b)” section above.

In one case in which a plaintiff sought relief for alleged wrongful disclosure of items seized during the execution of a search warrant, the court found, “Appellant has failed to show that evidence seized during a search conducted in a criminal investigation constitutes records that are “contained in a system of records” under the Privacy Act.  Matter of Search of 2122 21st Rd. N. Arlington, Virginia, No. 1:17-CR-00236, 2018 WL 534161, at *4 (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2018), aff’d sub nom. U.S. v. Search of 2122 21st Rd. N. Arlington, Virginia, 735 F. App’x 66 (4th Cir. 2018).  Id. at *4.

Plaintiffs maintain the burden of demonstrating that a disclosure by an agency occurred.

A plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that a “disclosure” by the agency has occurred.  See, e.g., Askew v. United States, 680 F.2d 1206, 1209-11 (8th Cir. 1982); Zerilli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705, 715-16 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Boyd v. United States, 932 F. Supp. 2d 830, 835 (S.D. Ohio 2013); cf. Hernandez v. Johnson, 514 F. App’x 492, 500 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding that “disclosure is not actionable because it identified [plaintiff] only by his first name and neither recipient knew who ‘Jaime’ was”); Luster v. Vilsack, 667 F.3d 1089, 1097-98 (10th Cir. 2011) (rejecting appellant’s contentions that “mere transmission of the documents to a fax machine at which unauthorized persons might have viewed the documents constitutes a prohibited disclosure” and that “the possibility that a record might be revealed to unauthorized readers by negligent or reckless transmission is sufficient to constitute a prohibited disclosure under the Act’”); Whyde v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 101 F. App’x 997, 1000 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he fact that [a company] somehow came into possession of documents that might have been included in plaintiff’s personnel file . . . gives rise only to a metaphysical doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.”); Brown v. Snow, 94 F. App’x 369, 372 (7th Cir. 2004) (ruling that district court grant of summary judgment was proper where no evidence was found that record was disclosed, and stating that “burden is on the plaintiff at the summary judgment stage to come forward with specific evidence”); Lennon v. Rubin, 166 F.3d 6, 10-11 (1st Cir. 1999) (where agency employee testified that, despite memorandum indicating otherwise, she had disclosed information only within agency, and where plaintiff responded that whether his file was reviewed by other individuals is question of fact he “want[ed] decided by a fact finder, ‘not an affidavit,’” finding such “arguments misapprehend [plaintiff’s] burden at the summary judgment stage”); Russell v. Potter, No. 3:08-CV-2272, 2011 WL 1375165, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2011) (holding that plaintiff cannot prove disclosure violation where “the only agency involved, the Postal Service, received rather than ‘disclosed’ the information in question”); Collins v. FBI, No. 10-cv-03470, 2011 WL 1627025, at *7 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2011) (dismissing claim and stating that plaintiff’s “conclusory allegations” of unlawful disclosure, “without identifying or describing who acted against Plaintiff or what the person did, is insufficient”); Roggio v. FBI, No. 08-4991, 2009 WL 2460780, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2009) (concluding that plaintiffs “fail[ed] to allege sufficient facts supporting that the FBI, as opposed to some other law enforcement body, disclosed [one plaintiff’s] rap sheet” on the Internet, where plaintiffs “base[d] their allegation on . . . the mere fact that [a particular Internet] posting contained some expunged information”), reconsideration denied, No. 08-4991, 2009 WL 2634631 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2009); Walia v. Chertoff, No. 06-cv-6587, 2008 WL 5246014, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2008) (concluding that plaintiff failed to make out prima facie case under subsection (b) of Privacy Act because plaintiff alleged merely that records were accessible to other individuals in office, rather than that they were actually disclosed); Buckles v. Indian Health Serv., 310 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1068 (D.N.D. 2004) (finding that plaintiffs failed to “prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that IHS disclosed protected information” where plaintiffs did not “have personal knowledge that [the memorandum was disclosed]” and witnesses at trial denied disclosing or receiving memorandum); Meldrum v. USPS, No. 5:97CV1482, slip op. at 11 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 21, 1999) (finding lack of evidence that disclosure occurred where plaintiff alleged that, among other things, file had been left in unsecured file cabinet), aff’d per curiam, No. 99-3397, 2000 WL 1477495, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 2000).  But cf. Speaker, 623 F.3d at 1386 (finding plaintiff’s complaint sufficient to survive summary judgment because he “need not prove his case on the pleadings” but rather “must merely provide enough factual material to raise a reasonable inference, and thus a plausible claim, that the [Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention] was the source of the disclosures”); Ciralsky v. CIA, 689 F. Supp. 2d 141, 156-57 (D.D.C. 2010) (concluding that plaintiff’s allegation of CIA disclosure to unidentified government officials, who were unrelated to handling of plaintiff’s case, was “not unacceptably vague” and need not include identities of alleged recipients for CIA to “understand Plaintiff’s charge”); Tolbert-Smith v. Chu, 714 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 2010) (ruling that plaintiff had stated claim for relief under Privacy Act where plaintiff “pled that a member of [agency] management placed records referring and relating to her disability on a server accessible by other federal employees and members of the public”).

Direct evidence that an agency disclosed a record is generally not required, but plaintiffs must produce more than mere speculation or conjecture.

Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove an unauthorized disclosure occurred, although courts generally require corroborating evidence, rather than mere speculation or conjecture.  Because “plaintiffs can rarely produce direct evidence that the government has disclosed confidential information obtained from their private records, requiring such evidence would eviscerate the protections of the Privacy Act.”  Speaker v. HHS Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, No. 1:09-CV-1137-WSD, 2012 WL 13071495, at * 20 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2012) (citing Doe v. USPS, 317 F.3d 339, 343 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Drennon-Gala v. Holder, No. 1:08-CV-3210-JEC, 2011 WL 1225784 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2011).

At least one court has held that there will be an “adverse inference” against an agency that destroys evidence in order to undermine the plaintiff’s ability to prove that a disclosure occurred.

One district court has concluded that when an agency destroys evidence in order to undermine the plaintiff’s ability to prove that a disclosure occurred, there will be an adverse inference against the agency.  See Beaven v. DOJ, No. 03-84, 2007 WL 1032301, at *17 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2007) (concluding that “whether by use of the adverse inference” or “by a preponderance of the evidence” standard, “officials who inspected the folder found evidence that an inmate had tampered with it,” and finding that “disclosure” occurred in violation of Privacy Act), aff’d in part, rev’d in part & remanded, on other grounds, 622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2010).

Many, but not all, courts have held that a disclosure does not occur if the disclosure is to a person who was already aware of the information.

Many, but not all, courts have held that a “disclosure” under the Privacy Act does not occur if the communication is to a person who is already aware of the information.  See, e.g., Hoffman v. Rubin, 193 F.3d 959, 966 (8th Cir. 1999) (finding no Privacy Act violation where agency disclosed same information in letter to journalist that plaintiff himself had previously provided to journalist; plaintiff “waiv[ed], in effect, his protection under the Privacy Act”); Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 134 (3d Cir. 1992) (dictum); Kline v. HHS, 927 F.2d 522, 524 (10th Cir. 1991); Hollis v. Army, 856 F.2d 1541, 1545 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Reyes v. DEA, 834 F.2d 1093, 1096 n.1 (1st Cir. 1987); Schowengerdt v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 823 F.2d 1328, 1341 (9th Cir. 1987); Pellerin v. VA, 790 F.2d 1553, 1556 (11th Cir. 1986); FDIC v. Dye, 642 F.2d 833, 836 (5th Cir. 1981); Ash v. United States, 608 F.2d 178, 179 (5th Cir. 1979); Mudd v. Army, No. 2:05-cv-137, 2007 WL 4358262, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2007) (finding no “disclosure” because by time agency posted statement on its web site, plaintiff had been quoted in newspaper saying he received letter of admonishment, another newspaper article had referred to letter, and plaintiff had testified before Congress regarding letter; also finding no “disclosure” of report because at time agency provided link to report on its web site, “the entire [report] had been the subject of a press release and news conference by a separate and independent agency . . . and had been released to the media by the same”); Schmidt v. VA, 218 F.R.D. 619, 630 (E.D. Wis. 2003) (“defin[ing] the term ‘disclose’ to mean the placing into the view of another information which was previously unknown”); Barry v. DOJ, 63 F. Supp. 2d 25, 26-28 (D.D.C. 1999); Sullivan v. USPS, 944 F. Supp. 191, 196 (W.D.N.Y. 1996); Loma Linda Cmty. Hosp. v. Shalala, 907 F. Supp. 1399, 1404-05 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (commenting that policy underlying Privacy Act protecting confidential information from disclosure not implicated by release of information health care provider had already received through patients’ California “Medi-Cal” cards); Viotti v. Air Force, 902 F. Supp. 1331, 1337 (D. Colo. 1995), aff’d, 153 F.3d 730 (10th Cir. 1998) (unpublished table decision); Abernethy v. IRS, 909 F. Supp. 1562, 1571 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff’d per curiam, No. 95-9489 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 1997); Kassel v. VA, 709 F. Supp. 1194, 1201 (D.N.H. 1989); Krowitz v. USDA, 641 F. Supp. 1536, 1545 (W.D. Mich. 1986), aff’d, 826 F.2d 1063 (6th Cir. 1987) (unpublished table decision); Owens v. MSPB, No. 3-83-0449-R, slip op. at 2-3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 1983) (mailing of agency decision affirming employee’s removal to his former attorney held not “disclosure” because “attorney was familiar with facts of [employee’s] claim” and “no new information was disclosed to him”); Golliher v. USPS, 3 Gov’t Disclosure Serv. ¶ 83,114, at 83,702 (N.D. Ohio June 10, 1982); King v. Califano, 471 F. Supp. 180, 181 (D.D.C. 1979); Harper v. United States, 423 F. Supp. 192, 197 (D.S.C. 1976); cf. Pippinger v. Rubin, 129 F.3d 519, 532-33 (10th Cir. 1997) (finding no evidence that disclosure “could possibly have had ‘an adverse effect’” on plaintiff where recipient “had been privy to every event described in [plaintiff’s] records at the time the event occurred”); Leighton v. CIA, 412 F. Supp. 2d 30, 39 (D.D.C. 2006) (citing Hollis and expressing doubt as to whether disclosure at issue “has presented any new information to those in the intelligence community”); Jones v. Runyon, 32 F. Supp. 2d 873, 876 (N.D. W. Va. 1998) (although finding disclosure to credit reporting service valid under routine use exception, concluding information disclosed was already in possession of recipient and other courts had held that Privacy Act is not violated in such cases), aff’d, 173 F.3d 850 (4th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table decision).

However, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit clarified that some disseminations of protected records to individuals with prior knowledge of their existence or contents are “disclosures” under the Privacy Act.  Pilon v. DOJ, 73 F.3d 1111, 1117-24 (D.C. Cir. 1996).  In Pilon, the D.C. Circuit held that the Justice Department’s transmission of a Privacy Act-protected record to a former employee of the agency constituted a “disclosure” under the Privacy Act, even though the recipient had come “into contact with the [record] in the course of his duties” while an employee.  Id.  The court’s “review of the Privacy Act’s purposes, legislative history, and integrated structure convince[d it] that Congress intended the term ‘disclose’ to apply in virtually all instances to an agency’s unauthorized transmission of a protected record, regardless of the recipient’s prior familiarity with it.”  Id. at 1124.

In an earlier case, Hollis v. Army, 856 F.2d 1541 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the D.C. Circuit had held that the release of a summary of individual child-support payments previously deducted from plaintiff’s salary and sent directly to his ex-wife, who had requested it for use in pending litigation, was not an unlawful disclosure under the Privacy Act as she already knew what had been remitted to her.  Id. at 1545.  In Pilon, the D.C. Circuit reconciled its opinion in Hollis by “declin[ing] to extend Hollis beyond the limited factual circumstances that gave rise to it,” 73 F.3d at 1112, 1124, and holding that:

[A]n agency’s unauthorized release of a protected record does constitute a disclosure under the Privacy Act except in those rare instances, like Hollis, where the record merely reflects information that the agency has previously, and lawfully, disseminated outside the agency to the recipient, who is fully able to reconstruct its material contents.

Id. at 1124; cf. Osborne v. USPS, No. 94-30353, slip op. at 2-4, 6-11 (N.D. Fla. May 18, 1995) (assuming without discussion that disclosure of plaintiff’s injury-compensation file to retired employee who had prepared file constituted “disclosure” for purposes of Privacy Act).

Courts are split over whether a disclosure occurs if the information disclosed is publicly available or was previously published.

Courts have also split over whether the disclosure of information that is readily accessible to the public constitutes a “disclosure” under the Privacy Act.  The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, along with several district courts, has concluded that there is no “disclosure” in the release of previously published or publicly available information under the Privacy Act, regardless of whether the particular persons who received the information were aware of the previous publication.  FDIC v. Dye, 642 F.2d at 836; Banks v. Butler, No. 5:08cv336, 2010 WL 4537902, at *6 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 23, 2010); Drennon-Gala v. Holder, No. 1:08-CV0321G, 2011 WL 1225784, at *8 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2011); Mudd v. Army, 2007 WL 4358262, at *5 (finding no “disclosure” where, inter alia, agency had posted statement on its web site, newspapers had referred to letter, plaintiff had testified before Congress regarding letter, and the entire report had been released to the press and in a news conference by another agency); Smith v. Cont’l Assurance Co., No. 91-C-0963, 1991 WL 164348, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 1991); King, 471 F. Supp. at 181; cf. Sierra Pac. Indus. v. USDA, No. 11-1250, 2012 WL 245973, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (finding that Privacy Act did not require sealing documents where “substance of the information . . . [was] already in the public record in one form or another”).

The Third, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, however, have held that the release of information that is “merely readily accessible to the public” does constitute a disclosure under subsection (b).  See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 134 (3d Cir. 1992) (holding that “[t]o define disclosure so narrowly as to exclude information that is readily accessible to the public would render superfluous the detailed statutory scheme of twelve exceptions to the prohibition on disclosure”); see also Gowan v. Air Force, 148 F.3d 1182, 1193 (10th Cir. 1998) (“adopt[ing] the Third Circuit’s reasoning [in Quinn] and hold[ing] that an agency may not defend a release of Privacy Act information simply by stating that the information is a matter of public record”); Scarborough v. Harvey, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1, 15-16 n.29 (D.D.C. 2007) (agreeing with Quinn and concluding that “the unqualified language of the Privacy Act,” which protects individual’s “criminal . . . history,” does not exclude information that is readily accessible to public); cf. Wright v. FBI, 241 F. App’x 367, 369 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that “issue of whether a Privacy Act claim can be based on a defendant’s disclosure of information previously disclosed to the public is a matter of first impression,” and directing district court to stay proceedings until plaintiff “obtains from the district court . . . an order defining the scope of his claims and, potentially, stating that court’s position on whether the Privacy Act applies to information previously disclosed to the public”); Pilon v. DOJ, 796 F. Supp. 7, 11-12 (D.D.C. 1992) (rejecting argument that information was already public and therefore could not violate Privacy Act where agency had republished statement that was previously publicly disavowed as false by agency).

Continued...
....

The D.C. Circuit’s opinions in Hollis and Pilon, both discussed above, provide some insight into its view of whether the release of information that is already available to the public constitutes a “disclosure” under the Privacy Act.  In Hollis, issued in 1988, the D.C. Circuit had recognized in dictum that other courts had held that the release of previously published material did not constitute a disclosure, and suggested that it might take that approach.  Hollis, 856 F.2d at 1545.  The court had held that a disclosure did not violate the Privacy Act because the recipient of the information already was aware of it, but that “

• ther courts have echoed the sentiment that when a release consists merely of information to which the general public already has access, or which the recipient of the release already knows, the Privacy Act is not violated.”  However, the D.C. Circuit’s subsequent holding in 1996 in Pilon appears to foreclose such a possibility.  In Pilon, the D.C. Circuit held that even under the narrow Hollis interpretation of “disclose,” the agency would not be entitled to summary judgment because it had “failed to adduce sufficient evidence that [the recipient of the record] remembered and could reconstruct the document’s material contents in detail at the time he received it.”  73 F.3d at 1124-26.  Nevertheless, the D.C. Circuit in Pilon noted that “[t]his case does not present the question of whether an agency may . . . release a document that has already been fully aired in the public domain through the press or some other means” but that “the Privacy Act approves those disclosures that are ‘required’ under the [FOIA] . . . and that under various FOIA exemptions, prior publication is a factor to be considered in determining whether a document properly is to be released.”  Id. at 1123 n.10; see also Barry v. DOJ, 63 F. Supp. 2d 25, 27-28 (D.D.C. 1999) (distinguishing Pilon and finding no disclosure where agency posted Inspector General report on Internet website, after report had already been fully released to media by Congress and had been discussed in public congressional hearing, even though some Internet users might encounter report for first time on website).  Furthermore, though, and consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s note in Pilon, one might argue that to say that no “disclosure” occurs for previously published or public information is at least somewhat inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S 749, 762-71 (1989), which held that a privacy interest can exist, under the FOIA, in publicly available – but “practically obscure” – information, such as a criminal history record.  Cf. Finley v. NEA, 795 F. Supp. 1457, 1468 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (alleged disclosure of publicly available information states claim for relief under Privacy Act; recognizing Reporters Comm.).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued contradictory unpublished decisions on the issue of whether release of publicly available information constitutes a disclosure.  Compare Lee v. Dearment, 966 F.2d 1442 (4th Cir. 1992) (unpublished table case) (upholding district court’s determination that “the Act does not prohibit disclosure of information which is already open to the public, or if the receiver already knew of it” (citing Hollis v. Army, 856 F.2d at 1545)), and Dye, 642 F.2d at 836, with Doe v. Herman, No. 297CV00043, 1999 WL 1000212, at *11 (W.D. Va. Oct. 29, 1999) (magistrate’s recommendation) (agreeing with Quinn v. Stone, 798 F.2d at 134, in dictum and concluding that discussion of social security numbers at public hearing did not free agency to disclose those numbers), adopted in pertinent part & rev’d in other part (W.D. Va. July 24, 2000), aff’d in part, rev’d in part & remanded, on other grounds sub nom. Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2002) (finding that plaintiff had not established “actual damages” from disclosure), aff’d, 540 U.S. 614 (2004).

The Ninth Circuit has applied the “single publication rule,” in which the court limits aggregate, unauthorized disclosures to only one cause of action, where an agency disclosed records on an agency web page.

On a related point, the Ninth Circuit held in a subsection (b) case that the “single publication rule” applies to postings on an agency’s web site such that “the aggregate communication can give rise to only one cause of action.”  See Oja v. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1130-33 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming summary judgment for Army Corps which had posted employees’ personal information on its public website).  However, the court also ruled that with regard to “the same private information at a different URL address [within the same Web site] . . . that disclosure constitutes a separate and distinct publication – one not foreclosed by the single publication rule – and [the agency] might be liable for a separate violation of the Privacy Act.”  Id. at 1133-34.

A public filing of records with a court during the course of litigation constitutes a disclosure.

The fact that “a court is not defined as an ‘agency’ or as a ‘person’ for purposes of [the Privacy Act],” (see Definitions, infra), indicates the Act was “not designed to interfere with access to information by the courts.”  120 Cong. Rec. 36,967 (1974), reprinted in Source Book at 958-59, https://www.justice.gov/opcl/​paoverview_sourcebook.  Even so, the public filing of records with a court, during the course of litigation, does constitute a subsection (b) disclosure.  See Laningham v. Navy, No. 83-3238, slip op. at 2-3 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 1984), summary judgment granted (D.D.C. Jan. 7, 1985), aff’d per curiam, 813 F.2d 1236 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Citizens Bureau of Investigation v. FBI, No. 78-60, slip op. at 2-3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 14, 1979).  Accordingly, any such public filing must be undertaken with written consent or in accordance with either the subsection (b)(3) routine use exception or the subsection (b)(11) court order exception, both discussed below.  See generally Krohn v. DOJ, No. 78-1536, slip op. at 3-11 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 1984) (finding violation of Privacy Act where agency’s disclosure of records as attachments to affidavit in FOIA lawsuit “did not fall within any of the exceptions listed in Section 552a”), reconsideration granted & vacated in nonpertinent part (D.D.C. Nov. 29, 1984) (discussed below).

The Privacy Act disclosure provision does not require heightened discovery requirements.

Often during the course of litigation, an agency will be asked to produce Privacy Act-protected information pursuant to a discovery request by an opposing party.  The Privacy Act “does not create a qualified discovery privilege” or “any other kind of privilege or bar that requires a party to show actual need as a prerequisite to invoking discovery,” and courts generally consider whether to allow discovery under “the usual discovery standards” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”  Laxalt v. McClatchy, 809 F.2d 885, 888 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see also Weahkee v. Norton, 621 F.2d 1080, 1082 (10th Cir. 1980); Garraway v. Ciufo, No. 117CV00533DADGSAPC, 2020 WL 1263562, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020); Pennsylvania v. Navient Corp., 348 F. Supp. 3d 394, 398 (M.D. Pa. 2018); Ala. & Gulf Coast Ry. v. United States, No. CA 10-0352, 2011 WL 1838882, at *3 (S.D. Ala. May 13, 2011); Golez v. Potter, No. 09-cv-965, 2011 WL 6002612, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011) (“The exceptions allowed in the Privacy Act of 1974 are not applicable here. . . . Accordingly, the Privacy Act . . . precludes the [agency] from complying with Plaintiff’s discovery request.”); Forrest v. United States, No. 95-3889, 1996 WL 171539, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 1996); Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 825 F. Supp. 1081, 1083 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1993); Clavir v. United States, 84 F.R.D. 612, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); cf. Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345, 360-62 (1982) (finding that Census Act confidentiality provisions create a privilege against disclosure of raw census data in discovery because they “embody explicit congressional intent to preclude all disclosure”).

Agencies may affirmatively disclose Privacy Act-protected records during litigation, so long as the disclosure is made in accordance with the Privacy Act’s disclosure provision

Although courts have unanimously held that the Privacy Act does not create a privilege against discovery, an agency can disclose Privacy Act-protected records if permitted by the Act.  The most appropriate method of disclosure in this situation may be pursuant to a subsection (b)(11) court order.  See generally Doe v. DiGenova, 779 F.2d 74 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Doe v. Stephens, 851 F.2d 1457 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (both discussed below under subsection (b)(11)).  Indeed, the courts that have rejected the Privacy Act as a discovery privilege have referenced subsection (b)(11)’s allowance for court-ordered disclosures.  See Laxalt, 809 F.2d at 888-89; Weahkee, 621 F.2d at 1082; Garraway v. Ciufo, No. 117CV00533DADGSAPC, 2020 WL 1263562, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020) (records that might otherwise be protected by the Act may still be discovered through litigation if ordered by a court); Lightsey v. Potter, No. 1:04-CV-3110-ODE, 2006 WL 8431955 (N.D. Ga. July 27, 2006); Hernandez v. United States, No. 97-3367, 1998 WL 230200, at *2-3 (E.D. La. May 6, 1998); Forrest, 1996 WL 171539, at *2; Ford Motor Co., 825 F. Supp. at 1082-83; Clavir, 84 F.R.D. at 614; cf. Alford v. Todco, No. CIV-88-731E, slip op. at 4-5 (W.D.N.Y. June 12, 1990) (ordering production of records and concluding that “[e]ven assuming the Privacy Act supplies a statutory privilege . . . the plaintiff has waived any such privilege by placing his physical condition at issue”); Tootle v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 468 So. 2d 237, 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (recognizing that privacy interests in that case “must give way to the function of the discovery of facts” and that subsection (b)(11) provides the mechanism for disclosure).

When an agency wishes to make an affirmative disclosure of information during litigation it may either rely on a routine use permitting such disclosure or seek a court order.  Because the Privacy Act does not constitute a statutory privilege, agencies need not worry about breaching or waiving such a privilege when disclosing information pursuant to subsections (b)(3) or (b)(11).  Cf. Mangino v. Army, No. 94-2067, 1994 WL 477260, at *5-6 (D. Kan. Aug. 24, 1994) (finding that disclosure to court was appropriate pursuant to agency routine use and stating that to extent Privacy Act created privilege, such privilege was waived by plaintiff when he placed his records at issue through litigation); Lemasters v. Thomson, No. 92 C 6158, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7513, at *3-8 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 1993) (same finding as in Mangino, despite fact that “court ha[d] not located” applicable routine use).  See also Vaughan v. Ky. Army Nat’l, No. 3:12-33, 2013 WL 1856418, at *4 (E.D. Ky. May 1, 2013) (finding that routine use disclosure to Department of Justice was appropriate for purposes of defending agency against claims pertaining to plaintiff’s records at issue in litigation).  For further discussions of disclosures during litigation, see “Conditions of Disclosure to Third Parties,” subsections “5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(3) - Routine Uses” and “5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11) - Court Order,” below.

Agencies are not prohibited from disclosing to an individual his own record in response to a “first party” access request pursuant to the Privacy Act’s access provisions.

By its own terms, subsection (b) does not prohibit an agency from releasing to an individual his own record, contained in a system of records retrieved by his name or personal identifier, in response to his “first-party” access request under subsection (d)(1).  Cf. Weatherspoon v. Provincetowne Master Owners Ass’n, No. 08-cv-02754, 2010 WL 936109, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 15, 2010) (finding that even though records were maintained by Veterans Administration (“VA”), where plaintiff had been ordered in discovery to produce her mental health records in her emotional distress suit, there would be no improper disclosure to an ‘unauthorized party’ because “the VA will disclose Plaintiff’s mental health records to her, so that she can transmit copies of them to defense counsel”).  However, as is discussed below under “Individual’s Right of Access,” the courts have split as to whether a disclosure occurs when the record is disclosed to the individual who is the subject of the record where the record is also about another individual and is “dually retrieved.”

Subsection (b) also explicitly authorizes disclosures made with the prior written consent of the individual.  See, e.g., Taylor v. Potter, No. 02-1552, 2004 WL 422664, at *1-2 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2004) (finding it to be “clear from the documents attached to Plaintiff’s complaint that she provided prior written consent . . . for her medical records to be disclosed”); Scherer v. Hill, No. 02-2043, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17872, at *6-8 (D. Kan. Sept. 17, 2002) (finding plaintiff’s argument that agency violated his privacy by sending photographs of his skin condition to United States Attorney rather than directly to him to be “frivolous,” as “[h]e specifically asked the ‘US Attorney and the Veterans Administration’ to produce the photographs” in his motion to compel, and “Privacy Act does not prohibit the consensual disclosure of photographs or documents by an agency”); cf. Stokes v. SSA, 292 F. Supp. 2d 178, 181 (D. Me. 2003);(finding that statement directed at subject of record “did not become the kind of ‘disclosure’ for which the Privacy Act requires written consent merely because [a third party] overheard it,” especially given that individual consented  to interview in third party’s presence and thereby, in accordance with the agency regulation, “affirmatively authorized [third party’s] presence during this discussion”; “The Privacy Act does not prevent an agency employee from discussing the contents of a protected record with the person to whom the record pertains.”).

Agencies cannot be held liable for disclosures that individuals make themselves.

Additionally, although it may seem self-evident, the fact pattern in one case caused a court to explicitly hold that an agency cannot be sued for disclosures that an individual makes himself.  Abernethy v. IRS, 909 F. Supp. 1562, 1571 (N.D. Ga. 1995) (describing that plaintiff had informed employees that he was being removed from his position as their supervisor and disclosed reason for his removal).

While “written consent” under the Privacy Act is not defined, courts have held that “implied consent” is not sufficient.

The Act does not define the “written consent” needed to permit disclosure under the Privacy Act.  Implied consent, however, is insufficient.  See Taylor v. Orr, No. 83-0389, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20334, at *6 n.6 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 1983) (addressing alternative argument, stating that:  “Implied consent is never enough” as the Act’s protections “would be seriously eroded if plaintiff’s written submission of [someone’s] name were construed as a voluntary written consent to the disclosure of her [medical] records to him”); cf. Milton v. DOJ, 783 F. Supp. 2d 55, 59 (D.D.C. 2011) (rejecting, in context of Freedom of Information Act claim, plaintiff’s argument that his privacy waiver to permit BOP to monitor his telephone calls impliedly extended to any party who accepted his calls; “[A] protected privacy interest can be waived only by the person whose interest is affected, . . . and [plaintiff] has not produced Privacy Act waivers from the individuals with whom he spoke on the telephone.”); Baitey v. VA, No. 8:CV89-706, slip op. at 5 (D. Neb. June 21, 1995) (concluding that “at a minimum, the phrase ‘written consent’ necessarily requires either (1) a medical authorization signed by [plaintiff] or (2) conduct which, coupled with the unsigned authorization, supplied the necessary written consent for the disclosure”).  But cf. Pellerin v. VA, 790 F.2d 1553, 1556 (11th Cir. 1986) (applying doctrine of “equitable estoppel” to bar individual from complaining of disclosure of his record to congressmen “when he requested their assistance in gathering such information”) (distinguished in Swenson v. USPS, 890 F.2d 1075, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 1989)); Del Fuoco v. O’Neill, No. 8:09-CV-1262, 2011 WL 601645, at *10 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2011) (Where regulation mandated that DOJ furnish plaintiff’s termination letter to MSPB, noting that it was plaintiff’s appeal to MSPB that triggered the disclosure, “which did not require Plaintiff’s consent, which is implied by virtue of his appeal.”); Jones v. Army Air Force Exchange Serv. (AAFES), No. 3:00-CV-0535, 2002 WL 32359949, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2002) (referring to plaintiff’s claim that AAFES disclosed protected information to congressional offices in violation of Privacy Act, and finding plaintiff to be “estopped from asserting such a claim because AAFES released the information pursuant to congressional office inquiries that were initiated at Plaintiff’s request”).

OMB guidelines suggest, and courts have generally approved of, written consent that states the general purposes for, or types of recipients to, which disclosures may be made; the scope of an agency’s permitted disclosures is then defined by the terms on which the individual provided written consent.

Continued...
....

The OMB 1975 Guidelines caution that “the consent provision was not intended to permit a blanket or open-ended consent clause, i.e., one which would permit the agency to disclose a record without limit,” and that, “[a]t a minimum, the consent clause should state the general purposes for, or types of recipients [to,] which disclosure may be made.”  40 Fed. Reg. at 28,954, https://www.justice.gov/​paoverview_omb-75.  See also Perry v. FBI, 759 F.2d 1271, 1276 (7th Cir. 1985) (upholding disclosure because release was “not so vague or general that it is questionable whether [plaintiff] knew what he was authorizing or whether the [agency] knew what documents it could lawfully release”), rev’d en banc on other grounds, 781 F.2d 1294 (7th Cir. 1986).

Courts generally have approved disclosures made with consent where the consent was broad enough to cover the disclosure. See Elnashar v. DOJ, 446 F.3d 792, 795 (8th Cir. 2006) (observing that plaintiff’s signed release “authoriz[ing] representatives of [human rights organization] to obtain and examine copies of all documents and records contained by the [FBI] . . . pertaining to [plaintiff]” constituted consent for FBI to disclose “that it had records which were responsive to the request for records and that records were contained in the ‘PENTBOMB’ investigation”); United States v. Rogers, No. 10-00088, 2010 WL 5441935, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 28, 2010) (concluding that “if defendant is willing to make a written request to the BOP for his own records and give written consent for their release to his defense counsel, the Court sees no reason why a[] [court] order is necessary”); Roberts v. DOT, No. 02-CV-4414, 2006 WL 842401, at *8, *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2006) (maintaining that plaintiff’s signed SF 171, which “explicitly stated that [plaintiff] ‘consent[ed] to the release of information about [his] ability and fitness for Federal employment,’” authorized disclosure of plaintiff’s medical records by agency who previously employed him to employing agency to assist in “assist determining whether the employee is capable of performing the duties of the new position”); Thomas v. VA, 467 F. Supp. 458, 460 n.4 (D. Conn. 1979) (holding consent was adequate because it was both agency- and record-specific); cf. Tarullo v. Def. Contract Audit Agency, 600 F. Supp. 2d 352, 360-61 (D. Conn. 2009) (concluding that “the forms themselves put the Plaintiff on notice that they (and hence their contents) would be disclosed . . . . Yet, the Plaintiff supplied his SSN.  As a result, he voluntarily disclosed his SSN.”); Wiley v. VA, 176 F. Supp. 2d 747, 751-56 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (concluding that plaintiff’s written release for employment application that broadly authorized employer to corroborate and obtain information about plaintiff’s background constituted valid consent under Privacy Act to authorize disclosure of all 466 pages of plaintiff’s VA claims file in connection with union grievance proceeding, even though release was signed eight years prior to disclosure”).

On the other hand, courts have found consent clauses with narrower terms than the eventual disclosure to be inadequate to authorize that disclosure.  See Schmidt v. Air Force, No. 06-3069, 2007 WL 2812148, at *8 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2007) (issuance of press release and posting of complete text of plaintiff’s reprimand on agency website was outside scope of plaintiff’s signed waiver, which was limited to “a press release announcing the conclusion of the case”); Fattahi v. ATF, 186 F. Supp. 2d 656, 660 (E.D. Va. 2002) (consent providing that information on application “may be disclosed to members of the public in order to verify the information on the application when such disclosure is not prohibited by law” was “a mere tautology:  plaintiff consented to no more than that ATF may disclose information except in cases where that disclosure is prohibited”); Doe v. Herman, No. 297CV00043, 1999 WL 1000212, at *9 (W.D. Va. Oct. 29, 1999) (magistrate’s recommendation) (rejecting argument that when plaintiffs provided their social security numbers for purpose of determining eligibility for and amount of benefits payable, they consented to use of those numbers as identifiers on multi-captioned hearing notices sent to numerous other individuals and companies as well as to publication of numbers in compilations of opinions), adopted in pertinent part & rev’d in other part, (W.D. Va. July 24, 2000), aff’d in part, rev’d in part & remanded, on other grounds sub nom.  Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2002), aff’d, 540 U.S. 614 (2004); AFGE v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 742 F. Supp. 450, 457 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (SF-86 “release form” held overbroad and contrary to subsection (b)); and Doe v. GSA, 544 F. Supp. 530, 539-41 (D. Md. 1982) (stating that authorization, which was neither record- nor entity-specific, was insufficient under GSA’s own internal interpretation of Privacy Act); cf. Taylor, No. 83-0389, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20334, at *6 n.6 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 1983) (addressing alternative argument, stating:  “It is not unreasonable to require that a written consent to disclosure address the issue of such disclosure and refer specifically to the records permitted to be disclosed.”).

One California district court has held that courts cannot create new disclosure exceptions based on state policy.

One district court has declined to “recognize a new exception to [subsection (b) of the Privacy Act] based on California public policy to protect persons investigating acts of child abuse.”  Stafford v. SSA, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2006).  In Stafford, a Social Security Administration (“SSA”) employee disclosed to California Child Protective Services “the precise diagnosis of mental illness on which the SSA had made its determination that [the suspected child abuser] was disabled and thus eligible for benefits.”  Id. at 1116.  The suspect brought a subsection (b)/(g)(1)(D) claim against the agency, and the agency argued that the court should recognize a new exception because “[t]he public interest in detecting and eradicating child abuse is so strong that under California state law, malicious acts or acts taken without probable cause by investigators such as [the Child Protective Services employee] are immunized.”  Id. at 1121.  The court explained that “Congress enacted the Privacy Act as a limitation on the sharing of private information among government agencies to further what it determined was an important public policy” and stated that “[t]he Court cannot create an exception to a federal statute based on state policy.”  Id.

 

B. Twelve Exceptions to the “No Disclosure without Consent” Rule
As discussed in detail above, the general rule under the Privacy Act is that, without an individual’s written consent, records about that individual maintained in a system of records cannot be disclosed.  There are, however, a number of exceptions to that general rule, or conditions under which information can be disclosed without consent.  Of the twelve exceptions discussed in this section, the most significant and frequently litigated exceptions are the “need to know” exception, disclosures required under FOIA, and the “routine use” exception.  The twelve exceptions are discussed here in turn.

Other than disclosures under subsection (b)(2) of the Privacy Act (see “Conditions of Disclosure to Third Parties, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(2) - Required FOIA Disclosure” discussion, below), disclosures under the following exceptions are permissive, not mandatory.  See OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,953, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75.


1. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(1) - Need to Know within Agency
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains unless the disclosure would be –

(1) 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.”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(1).

Comment:

The “need to know” disclosure exception authorizes intra-agency disclosures.

The “need to know” exception authorizes the intra-agency disclosure of a record for necessary, official purposes.  See OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. 28,948, 28,950-01, 28,954 (July 9, 1975), https://www.justice.gov/pa​overview_omb-75.  The Privacy Act’s legislative history indicates an intent “to give the term ‘agency’ its broadest statutory meaning,” and to permit “need to know” disclosures between components of large agencies.  See 120 Cong. Rec. 36,967 (1974), reprinted in Source Book at 958, https://www.​justice.gov/opcl/paoverview_sourcebook (recognizing propriety of “need to know” disclosures between DOJ components); see also Dick v. Holder, 67 F. Supp. 3d 167, 177-178 (D.D.C. 2014) (stating that “552a(b)(1) does not authorize disclosure outside the ‘agency,’ which this Court has defined broadly to include sharing between component agencies underneath the umbrella of the [Department], not just the specific agency that originally held the information, such as the FBI in this instance”); Sussman v. Marshals Serv., 808 F. Supp. 2d 192, 196-204 (D.D.C. 2011) (recognizing that “[a]lthough the [Marshals Service] and FBI may themselves be considered agencies, they are also components of DOJ, which is itself an agency,” under the statutory meaning of the term, and that disclosures between them “qualify as intra-agency disclosures”); Lora v. DOJ, No. 00-3072, slip op. at 14-15 (D.D.C. Apr. 9, 2004) (finding plaintiff’s argument that Privacy Act violation occurred when INS, then component of DOJ, released documents to DOJ prosecutor to be without merit); Walker v. Ashcroft, No. 99-2385, slip op. at 18-20 & n.6 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 2001) (alternative holding) (finding that disclosures from FBI field office to FBI headquarters, and from FBI to DOJ prosecutors, were “proper under the ‘need to know’ exception”; “FBI employees and federal prosecutors are considered employees of the same agency, namely the Department of Justice.”), summary affirmance granted, No. 01-5222, 2002 WL 335530 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2002); cf. Lennon v. Rubin, 166 F.3d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 1999) (finding that district court correctly granted summary judgment to agency where plaintiff alleged discrimination because, despite memorandum indicating intent to distribute information to task force that included individuals from outside agency, agency employee testified that she only gave information to member who was agency employee, and recipient employee declared that she had never given information to other task force members); Freeman v. EPA, No. 02-0387, 2004 WL 2451409, at *4-5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2004) (finding that disclosure of plaintiffs’ drug testing schedules and results by EPA OIG to an EPA-hired DOD investigator did not violate Privacy Act because “according to the OMB 1975 Guidelines, an agency that hires a member of another agency to serve in a temporary task force or similar, cross-designated function can share otherwise protected information with that hired person and still satisfy exception (b)(1)”); OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,954, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75 (“Movement of records between personnel of different agencies may in some instances be viewed as intra-agency disclosures if that movement is in connection with an inter-agency support agreement”).

Courts generally focus on whether the agency employee receiving the information had a need for the record in the performance of the employee’s duties.

It is the employee receiving the information - not the employee making the disclosure - who must have the “need to know.”  So long as “the persons to whom disclosure is made are employees of the agency that maintains the records” and “those employees have a need for access,” disclosure under this subsection “is not limited to the employees responsible for maintaining the records.”  See, e.g., Coburn v. Potter, 329 F. App’x 644, 646 (7th Cir. 2009); Cacho v. Chertoff, No. 06-00292, 2006 WL 3422548, *4-7 (D.D.C. Nov. 28, 2006) (finding plaintiff’s argument alleging improper access of information irrelevant to (b)(1) analysis; “What matters then is the ‘need to know’ of the agency official who received the disclosure, not the authority of the agency official who made the disclosure.”); Gill v. DOD, 92 M.S.P.R. 23, 31-32 (2002) (finding disclosure to EEO counselor of other employees’ records appeared to fall within (b)(1) exception, where appellant provided records at request of EEO counselor who was investigating appellant’s claim that she was disparately treated).

Some courts have found the “need to know” disclosure exception to apply to contractors who serve the function of agency employees.

Continued...
....

Although subsection (b)(1) permits disclosure only to “those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record,” some courts have upheld disclosures to contractors who serve the function of agency employees.  See Mount v. USPS, 79 F.3d at 532-34 (concluding disclosure of plaintiff’s medical files to “a physician under contract with the USPS” who had “responsibilities for making employment and/or disciplinary decisions regarding plaintiff” had some basis in need to know exception); Gard v. Dep’t of Educ., 789 F. Supp. 2d 96, 110 (D.D.C. 2011) (finding permissible intra-agency disclosure to “‘occupational medicine consultant’ under contract with” agency for purposes of evaluating employee’s risk to coworkers); Ciralsky v. CIA, 689 F. Supp. 2d 141, 155 (D.D.C. 2010) (finding permissible intra-agency disclosures to private contractors hired to investigate certain allegations, including plaintiff’s); Sutera v. TSA, 708 F. Supp. 2d 304, 318 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding permissible intra-agency disclosure where medical sample was sent to outside laboratory because “[f]or testing purposes a private laboratory is necessarily treated as part of the agency”); Coakley v. DOT, No. 93-1420, 1994 WL 16953072, at *1-2 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 1994) (holding that independent contractor serving as EEO investigator for employee’s EEO complaint “must be considered an employee of DOT for Privacy Act purposes” and that DOT’s disclosure to that contractor “in connection with an official agency investigation . . . must be considered an intra-agency communication under the Act”); Hulett v. Navy, No. TH 85-310-C, slip op. at 3-4 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 26, 1987) (discussing disclosure of medical and personnel records to contractor/psychiatrist for purpose of assisting him in performing “fitness for duty” examination), aff’d, 866 F.2d 432 (7th Cir. 1988) (unpublished table decision); cf. Gill v. DOD, 92 M.S.P.R. at 32 n.7 (noting that EEO counselor to whom disclosure was made “was employed by a contractor, rather than directly by the agency [and] . . . was performing an administrative function for which the agency was responsible,” and stating further that “t is clear that, for particular purposes, the Privacy Act provides that any government contractor and any employee of such contractor shall be considered an employee of an agency” (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552a(m))).  Another court, however, has held to the contrary on facts nearly identical to those in Hulett.  Taylor v. Orr, No. 83-0389, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20334, at *7-10 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 1983).

Courts generally have found intra-agency disclosures regarding personnel or employment matters as authorized disclosures under the “need to know” disclosure exception.

The cases are replete with examples of proper intra-agency “need to know” disclosures.  By far the most frequent “need to know” disclosure that the courts have deemed appropriate is for the purpose of investigating alleged employee misconduct or making disciplinary determinations.  See, e.g., Pippinger v. Rubin, 129 F.3d 519, 529-31 (10th Cir. 1997) (discussing supervisor’s disclosure of identity of person being investigated to staff members assisting in investigation, and to agency attorney defending agency’s actions in related MSPB proceeding against another individual); Mount v. USPS, 79 F.3d 531, 533-34 (6th Cir. 1996) (discussing disclosure of information in plaintiff’s medical records to other employees “with responsibilities for making employment and/or disciplinary decisions regarding plaintiff”; “In light of the questions surrounding plaintiff’s mental stability, each had at least an arguable need to access the information in plaintiff’s medical records.”); Covert v. Harrington, 876 F.2d 751, 753-54 (9th Cir. 1989) (discussing disclosure of security questionnaires to Inspector General for purpose of detecting fraud); Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 354-55 (9th Cir. 1988) (discussing disclosure of letter suspending doctor’s clinical privileges to participants in peer-review proceeding); Lukos v. IRS, No. 86-1100, 1987 WL 36354, at *1-2 (6th Cir. Feb. 12, 1987) (discussing disclosure of employee’s arrest record to supervisor for purpose of evaluating his conduct and to effect discipline); Howard v. Marsh, 785 F.2d 645, 647-49 (8th Cir. 1986) (discussing disclosure of employee’s personnel records to agency attorney and personnel specialist for purpose of preparing response to discrimination complaint); Hernandez v. Alexander, 671 F.2d 402, 410 (10th Cir. 1982) (discussing disclosure of employee’s EEO files to personnel advisors for purpose of determining whether personnel action should be taken against employee); Grogan v. IRS, 3 Gov’t Disclosure Serv. (P-H) ¶ 82,385, at 82,977-78 (4th Cir. Mar. 22, 1982) (discussing disclosure of questionable income tax returns prepared by professional tax preparer while he was IRS employee to IRS examiners for purpose of alerting them to possible irregularities);  Code v. Esper, 285 F. Supp. 3d 58, 70-71 (D.D.C. 2017) (concluding that Army investigative unit did not violate Privacy Act by disclosing investigative report finding plaintiff committed certain crimes to Defense Finance and Accounting Service for purposes of official debt collecting duties), rev’d and remanded on other grounds sub nom. Code v. McCarthy, 959 F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 2020); Lewis v. SSA, No. 9:14-CV-31, 2015 WL 9664967, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2015) (discussing disclosure of report containing allegations about plaintiff by SSA employee who had duty “to ‘report threats and harassment against the agency’” to DHS), adopted by 2016 WL 81577 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 1, 2016); Drennon-Gala v. Holder, No. 1:08-CV-321G, 2011 WL 1225784, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2011) (discussing disclosure of plaintiff’s workers compensation file to agency officials investigating allegations “directly related to misconduct involving [plaintiff’s] worker’s compensation claim”); Doe v. DOJ, 660 F. Supp. 2d 31, 45-46 (D.D.C. 2009) (discussing disclosure of plaintiff AUSA’s mental state to DOJ security personnel, who “needed . . . to assess his trustworthiness and make related personnel decisions about his eligibility for security clearance,” to acting U.S. Attorney and division chief, who “[a]s plaintiff’s supervisors . . . were responsible for ensuring that the [office] was operating safely,” and to EOUSA attorney, who was “entitled to access the records because he represented DOJ in various pending disciplinary matters against plaintiff at the time” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gamble v. Army, 567 F. Supp. 2d 150, 156 (D.D.C. 2008) (discussing disclosure to plaintiff’s commanding officer of past allegations of sexual misconduct by plaintiff in context of investigation of new allegations of same); Roberts v. DOJ, 366 F. Supp. 2d 13, 26-28 (D.D.C. 2005) (finding disclosure of results of investigation by OPR to FBI was “expressly permitted” because FBI referred matter to OPR for investigation and because FBI had duty to respond to plaintiff’s complaints; dismissing claim because “OPR was entitled to share information regarding the results of its investigation” with agency that was subject of its investigation); Buckles v. Indian Health Serv., 305 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1111 (D.N.D. 2004) (finding disclosure of employees’ medical records by employer’s health facility to risk management team – due to concerns that employees were illegally receiving prescription drugs – was proper because it conformed with facility’s protocol to discuss issues of potential wrongdoing with upper management); Abernethy v. IRS, 909 F. Supp. 1562, 1570-71 (N.D. Ga. 1995) (“[Investigatory] panel’s review of Plaintiff’s performance appraisals was not a violation of the Privacy Act because the members had a need to know the contents of the appraisals.”); (finding that member of panel that recommended that plaintiff be removed from management in response to EEO informal class complaint “had a need to know the contents of the [EEO] complaint file”), aff’d per curiam, No. 95-9489, 108 F.3d 343 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 1997) (unpublished table decision); Harry v. USPS, 867 F. Supp. 1199, 1206 (M.D. Pa. 1994) (discussing disclosure from one internal subdivision of Postal Service to another – the Inspection Service (Inspector General) – which was conducting investigation), aff’d sub nom. Harry v. USPS, 60 F.3d 815 (3d Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision).

Similarly, where an employee has a “need to know” certain information for personnel or employment determinations, the courts have found disclosure appropriate.  Tran v. Treasury, 351 F. Supp. 3d 130, 138-140 (D.D.C. 2019) (discussing disclosure of performance appraisal to managers who were considering plaintiff’s detail request), aff’d 798 F. App’x. 649, 649-650 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“As to the need for the record, every employee who accessed Tran’s performance appraisal needed to know whether Tran had the requisite skillset for a detail, in order to perform properly his or her duty to evaluate Tran as a prospective detailee.  Tran’s performance appraisal contained information relevant to that inquiry.”); Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F. Supp. 3d 28, 37 (D.D.C. 2017) (noting no allegation that disclosure occurred “for any reason unrelated to the agency’s security check and suitability determination”); Sutera v. TSA, 708 F. Supp. 2d at 318 (concluding, despite plaintiff’s assertion that agency’s “statement that he failed a drug test violated the Privacy Act,” that “[TSA Disciplinary Review Board] officials, the Medical Review Officer, and the deciding official are all agency employees responsible for making employment decisions regarding plaintiff” and “[t]heir communications are within the Privacy Act’s ‘need-to-know’ exception”); Thompson v. State, 400 F. Supp. 2d 1, 20 (D.D.C. 2005) (finding disclosure of investigative report to agency’s Office of Civil Rights to determine “whether plaintiff’s supervisor was promoting plaintiff’s career to the detriment of the office and other employees because of a romantic relationship” was “relevant to the agency’s compliance with EEO regulations”); Hanna v. Herman, 121 F. Supp. 2d 113, 123-24 (D.D.C. 2000) (finding disclosure of information about plaintiff’s demotion to supervisor in another office of agency was covered by “need to know” exception), summary affirmance granted sub nom. Hanna v. Chao, No. 00-5433 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 11, 2001); Magee v. USPS, 903 F. Supp. 1022, 1029 (W.D. La. 1995) (discussing disclosure of employee’s medical report following fitness-for-duty examination to Postmaster of Post Office where employee worked to determine whether employee could perform essential functions of job and to Postmaster’s supervisor who was to review Postmaster’s decision), aff’d per curiam, 79 F.3d 1145 (5th Cir. 1996).

Courts generally have found intra-agency disclosures of records for national security purposes to be authorized disclosures under the “need to know” disclosure exception.

The courts also have concluded that an agency employee has a “need to know” information that could affect national security.  See, e.g., Bigelow v. DOD, 217 F.3d 875, 876-78 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (describing review of plaintiff’s personnel file by immediate supervisor in connection with supervisor’s “continuing duty to make sure that [plaintiff] was worthy of trust” because of “a need to examine the file in view of the doubts that had been raised in his mind about [plaintiff] and [plaintiff’s] access to the country’s top secrets”); Britt v. Naval Investigative Serv., 886 F.2d 544, 549 n.2 (3d Cir. 1989) (noting propriety of disclosure of investigative report to commanding officer “since the Reserves might need to reevaluate Britt’s access to sensitive information or the level of responsibility he was accorded”); Williams v. Reilly, 743 F. Supp. 168, 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (discussing employee’s admission of drug use disclosed by Naval Investigative Service to plaintiff’s employer, Defense Logistics Agency, for purposes of revoking employee’s security clearance).

Courts generally have found intra-agency disclosures of records to perform administrative duties to be authorized disclosures under the “need to know” disclosure exception.

Disclosure has been deemed appropriate where an employee has a “need to know” information to perform an administrative duty.  See Hudson v. Reno, 130 F.3d 1193, 1206-07 (6th Cir. 1997) (discussing disclosure of plaintiff’s performance evaluation to individual who typed it originally, for retyping), abrogated on other grounds by Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 532 U.S. 843 (2001); Cornelius v. McHugh, No. 3:14-cv-00234, 2015 WL 4231877, at *4-6 (D.S.C. July 13, 2015) (discussing disclosure of background check information related to plaintiff’s job duties to agency employees who needed information for performance of their duties); Middlebrooks v. Mabus, No. 1:11cv46, 2011 WL 4478686, at *6-7 (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2011) (discussing disclosure to “small group of senior employees” who were “required ‘to perform their job of legal oversight for the agency’” and “determine proper compliance with disclosure regulations”); Shayesteh v. Raty, No. 02:05-CV-85TC, 2007 WL 2317435, at *4-5 (D. Utah Aug. 7, 2007) (finding that disclosure to law enforcement officer within agency fit within need to know exception because “record clearly shows that the purpose for the disclosures in this instance was to pursue forfeiture of funds . . . a task which is clearly within [employees’] duties as federal law enforcement officers”); Schmidt v. VA, 218 F.R.D. 619, 631 (E.D. Wis. 2003) (“VA personnel need to have access to the entire [social security number] of persons accessible through the [Computerized Patient Records System] to avoid misidentification.”).

Courts generally have found intra-agency disclosures of records to provide medical treatment or assess medical expenses as authorized disclosures under the “need to know” disclosure exception.

Courts also have allowed disclosure under the “need to know” exception where the information is needed to provide medical treatment or expenses for medical treatment.  McKinley v. United States, No. 3:14-CV-01931, 2015 WL 4663206, at *8 (D. Or. Aug. 5, 2015) (“The information contained in McKinley’s treatment, counseling, and psychotherapy notes was collected in an effort to provide her medical treatment, and the records were disclosed to other VA health professionals for that same purpose.”); Marquez v. Johnson, No. 11-cv-545, 2012 WL 6618238, at *11 (D. Colo. Dec. 19, 2012) (finding that disclosure by plaintiff’s supervisor to staff that plaintiff was out on leave due to “cancer scare” was based on their need for information in performance of their duties), aff’d, 545 Fed. App’x 735, 740 (10th Cir. 2013) (“[Plaintiff] did not allege [that leave information] was revealed to the entire staff . . . . Nor does [plaintiff] dispute [agency’s] position that the disclosure was necessary to an investigator regarding [plaintiff’s] claim for medical and therapy expenses.”); Khalfani v. VA, No. 94-CV-5720, 1999 WL 138247, at *7-8 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 1999) (discussing disclosure of plaintiff’s medical records within VA so that his supervisor could document his request for medical leave and determine level of work he could perform).

Courts generally have found that intra-agency disclosures to employees that do not have a need for the record in the performance of their duties are outside the scope of the “need to know” disclosure exception.

On the other hand, intra-agency disclosures to recipients who do not need the information to perform their duties are improper.  See, e.g., Parks v. IRS, 618 F.2d 677, 680-81 & n.1 (10th Cir. 1980) (holding plaintiffs had viable claim for disclosure of names of employees who did not purchase savings bonds for solicitation purposes); Dick v. Holder, 67 F. Supp. 3d at 177-178 (finding “need to know” exception did not authorize “Be on the Lookout” alert to law enforcement officers outside DOJ or within agency “without any showing of why each employee needed to receive the information”); Carlson v. GSA, No. 04-C-7937, 2006 WL 3409150, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2006) (explaining that supervisor’s e-mail to employees providing reasons for plaintiff’s termination does not fall within need to know exception because supervisor “encouraged [employees] to share [the e-mail] without restriction” and “express[ed] his personal satisfaction with [employee’s] termination”); MacDonald v. VA, No. 87-544-CIV-T-15A, slip op. at 8-9 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 1989) (holding disclosure of counseling memorandum in “callous attempt to discredit and injure” employee is improper); Koch v. United States, No. 78-273T, slip op. at 1-2 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 30, 1982) (holding letter of termination posted in agency’s entrance hallway is improper); Smigelsky v. USPS, No. 79-110-RE, slip op. at 3-4 (D. Or. Oct. 1, 1982) (holding that publication of employees’ reasons for taking sick leave is improper); Fitzpatrick v. IRS, 1 Gov’t Disclosure Serv. (P-H) ¶ 80,232, at 80,580 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 22, 1980) (holding disclosure of fact that employee’s absence was due to “mental problems” is improper; “quelling rumors and gossip [and] satisfying curiosity is not to be equated with a need to know”), aff’d in part, vacated & remanded in part, on other grounds, 665 F.2d 327 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Walia v. Napolitano, 986 F. Supp. 2d 169, 187 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding that plaintiff “adequately allege[d] that the disclosure regarding his EEO complaint was not on a ‘need to know’ basis for the employees to perform their duties”); Bigelow v. DOD, 217 F.3d 875, 879 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Tatel, J., dissenting) (interpreting DOD regulations to find that supervisor did not have official need to review personnel security file of individual he supervised); Boyd v. Snow, 335 F. Supp. 2d 28, 38-39 (D.D.C. 2004) (denying summary judgment where there are “serious questions” as to whether plaintiff’s rebuttal statement to her performance evaluation was disclosed to certain personnel in plaintiff’s office pursuant to “need to know”); Vargas v. Reno, No. 99-2725, slip op. at 3, 12-13 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2000) (denying summary judgment where insufficient evidence that disclosure of plaintiff’s file to Inspector General agent investigating another employee was based on agent’s “need to know”); cf. Berry v. Henderson, No. 99-283-P-C, 2000 WL 761896, at *1, 3 (D. Me. May 8, 2000) (finding that agency’s examination of personnel and medical records within its possession in connection with its defense in Title VII case did not satisfy subsection (b)(1)).

 

2. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(2) - Required FOIA Disclosure
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains unless the disclosure would be –

. . .

(2) required under section 552 of this title [the Freedom of Information Act].”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(2)

Comment:

As a function of the required FOIA disclosure exception, the Privacy Act never prohibits a disclosure that the FOIA requires.

The Privacy Act never prohibits a disclosure that the Freedom of Information Act actually requires.  See News-Press v. DHS, 489 F.3d 1173, 1189 (11th Cir. 2007) (“The net effect of the interaction between the two statutes is that where the FOIA requires disclosure, the Privacy Act will not stand in its way, but where the FOIA would permit withholding under an exemption, the Privacy Act makes such withholding mandatory upon the agency.”); Greentree v. U.S. Customs Serv., 674 F.2d 74, 79 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (stating subsection (b)(2) “represents a Congressional mandate that the Privacy Act not be used as a barrier to FOIA access”).  See also Burwell v. EOUSA, 210 F. Supp. 3d 33, 36 (D.D.C. 2016) (“Privacy Act specifically exempts from its nondisclosure provisions documents that are otherwise required to be disclosed under the FOIA, see 5 U.S.C. §552a(b)(2), and EOUSA processed plaintiff’s request under the FOIA.”); Sikes v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1372 n.14 (S.D. Ga. 2013) (finding that because FOIA required disclosure of list of names of individuals invited to ceremony at which Navy officer was sworn in as Chief of Naval Operations, Privacy Act did not bar disclosure); Woods v. DOJ, 968 F. Supp. 2d 115, 120-21 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that “defendant properly considered plaintiff’s request in light of the FOIA, [and thus] any issue arising under the Privacy Act is essentially moot”); Plunkett v.  DOJ, 924 F. Supp. 2d 289, 306-07 (D.D.C. 2013) (“[T]he Privacy Act does not bar disclosure of documents that are otherwise required to be disclosed under the FOIA . . . and defendant properly reviewed and released responsive records under the FOIA.”).

Thus, if an agency is in receipt of a FOIA request for information about an individual that is contained in a system of records and that is not properly withholdable under any FOIA exemption, then it follows that the agency is “required under Section 552 of this title” to disclose the information to the FOIA requester.  This would be a required subsection (b)(2) disclosure.  However, if a FOIA exemption – typically, Exemption 6 (personnel and medical files) or Exemption 7(C) (law enforcement information that could be an invasion of personal privacy) – applies to a Privacy Act-protected record, the Privacy Act prohibits an agency from making a “discretionary” FOIA release because that disclosure would not be “required” by the FOIA within the meaning of subsection (b)(2).  See, e.g., DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 502 (1994); Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 715 F.3d 631, 651 (7th Cir. 2013); Navy v. FLRA, 975 F.2d 348, 354-56 (7th Cir. 1992); Andrews v. VA, 838 F.2d 418, 422-24 & n.8 (10th Cir. 1988); Roble v. DOJ, 311 F. Supp. 3d 161, 163-64 (D.D.C. 2018); Ecological Rights Found. v. FEMA, No. 16-cv-05254, slip op. at 14-16 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017); Jett v. FBI, 139 Akmal v. United States, No. C12-1499, 2014 WL 906231, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 7, 2014); Robbins v. HHS, No. 1:95-cv-3258, slip op. at 2-9 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 13, 1996), aff’d, 120 F.3d 275 (unpublished table decision) (11th Cir. July 8, 1997); Kassel v. VA, 709 F. Supp. 1194, 1199-1200 (D.N.H. 1989); Howard v. Marsh, 654 F. Supp. 853, 855-56 (E.D. Mo. 1986), aff’d, 855 F.2d 855 (8th Cir. 1988) (unpublished table decision); Fla. Med. Ass’n v. HEW, 479 F. Supp. 1291, 1305-07 (M.D. Fla. 1979), vacated, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (M.D. Fla. 2013); Providence Journal Co. v. FBI, 460 F. Supp. 762, 767 (D.R.I. 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 602 F.2d 1010 (1st Cir. 1979); Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. DOJ, 405 F. Supp. 8, 10 (E.D. Pa. 1975); see also OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,954, https://www.justice.gov/paover​view_omb-75.

After DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, the FOIA is less likely to require disclosure of Privacy Act-protected records.

In DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 762-75 (1989), the Supreme Court significantly expanded the breadth of FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).  The Court ruled that a privacy interest may exist in publicly available information – such as the criminal history records there at issue – where the information is “practically obscure.”  Id. at 764-71.  Even more significantly, the Court held that the identity of the FOIA requester, and any socially useful purpose for which the request was made, are not to be considered in evaluating whether the “public interest” would be served by disclosure.  Id. at 771-75.  The Court determined that the magnitude of the public interest side of the balancing process can be assessed only by reference to whether disclosure of the requested records directly advances the “core purpose” of the FOIA – to shed light on the operations and activities of the government.  Id. at 774-75.

In light of Reporters Comm., personal information of the sort protected by the Privacy Act is less likely to be “required” to be disclosed under the FOIA, within the meaning of subsection (b)(2).  Specifically, where an agency determines that the only “public interest” that would be furthered by a disclosure is a nonqualifying one under Reporters Comm. (even where it believes that disclosure would be in furtherance of good public policy generally), it may not balance in favor of disclosure under the FOIA and therefore disclosure will be prohibited under the Privacy Act – unless authorized by another Privacy Act exception or by written consent.  See, e.g., DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. at 497-502 (declining to “import the policy considerations that are made explicit in the Labor Statute into the FOIA Exemption 6 balancing analysis” and, following the principles of Reporters Comm., holding that home addresses of bargaining unit employees are covered by FOIA Exemption 6 and thus that Privacy Act “prohibits their release to the unions”); Schwarz v. INTERPOL, 48 F.3d 1232 , at 1-2 & n.2 (10th Cir. Feb. 28, 1995) (balancing under Reporters Comm. and holding that individual clearly has protected privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of his whereabouts to third parties; disclosure of this information would not “contribute anything to the public’s understanding of the operations or activities of the government”; and thus any information was exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7(C) and does not fall within Privacy Act exception (b)(2)); FLRA v. Commerce, 962 F.2d 1055, 1059 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (asserting that Privacy Act prohibits disclosure of identities of individuals who received outstanding or commendable personnel evaluations, as such information falls within FOIA Exemption 6); Doe v. Veneman, 230 F. Supp. 2d 739, 748-52 (W.D. Tex. 2002) (finding that in reverse FOIA lawsuit where information regarding government program for protection of livestock using livestock-protection collars already had been released, no personally identifying information about particular ranchers and farmers participating in program “could shed any further light on the workings of the [program],” that information thus was protected by FOIA Exemption 6, and disclosure was prohibited by Privacy Act), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, on other grounds, 380 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2004); Fort Hall Landowners Alliance, Inc. v. BIA, No. CV-99-00052-E-BLW, slip op. at 7-14 (D. Idaho Mar. 17, 2000) (finding document that “contains only names and addresses . . . does not provide information shedding light on how the BIA is performing its duties,” and that “[h]aving determined that disclosure of the information is not required by FOIA . . . the Privacy Act prohibits disclosure of the information”); Burke v. DOJ, No. 96-1739, 1999 WL 1032814, at *3-5 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 1999) (stating that “Privacy Act prohibits the FBI from disclosing information about a living third party without a written privacy waiver, unless FOIA requires disclosure,” and upholding FBI’s refusal to confirm or deny existence of investigative records related to third parties in response to FOIA request) (emphasis in original); see also FOIA Update, Vol. X, No. 2, at 3, http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_X_2/page3.html.  As a result of Reporters Comm., agencies depend more on the subsection (b)(3) routine use exception to make compatible disclosures of records that are no longer required by the FOIA to be disclosed.  See, e.g., USDA v. FLRA, 876 F.2d 50, 51 (8th Cir. 1989); see also FLRA v. Treasury, 884 F.2d 1446, 1450 & n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

Continued...
....

Note that President Barack Obama’s FOIA policy on openness in government, see Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject:  Freedom of Information Act (Jan. 21, 2009), https://www.​justice.gov/paoverview_agfoia, is inapplicable to information covered by the Privacy Act that also falls under one or more of the FOIA exemptions.  See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Off. of Info. Pol’y, OIP Guidance: President Obama’s FOIA Memorandum and Attorney General Holder’s FOIA Guidelines (April 17, 2009), https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2009-creating-new-era-open-government (“For information falling within Exemptions 6 and 7(C), if the information is also protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, it is not possible to make a discretionary release, as the Privacy Act contains a prohibition on disclosure of information not ‘required’ to be released under the FOIA.”).

The D.C. Circuit has held that the required FOIA disclosure exception cannot be invoked unless an agency actually has a FOIA request in hand; not all courts agree.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit significantly limited the utility of subsection (b)(2) as a defense by holding that subsection (b)(2) cannot be invoked unless an agency actually has a FOIA request in hand.  Bartel v. FAA, 725 F.2d 1403, 1411-13 (D.C. Cir. 1984); see also Chang v. Navy, 314 F. Supp. 2d 35, 41-42 (D.D.C. 2004) (citing Bartel, and noting that defendant agency conceded that it “had no FOIA request in hand”).  In one case prior to Bartel, it similarly had been held that subsection (b)(2) was not available as a defense for the disclosure of information in the absence of a FOIA request.  Zeller v. United States, 467 F. Supp. 487, 503 (E.D.N.Y. 1979) (finding subsection (b)(2) inapplicable to the “voluntary re-release” of a prior press release (that had been made prior to the effective date of the Privacy Act) as “nothing in the FOIA appears to require such information to be released in the absence of a request therefor”).

Other courts have not followed the rule in Bartel, however, and do not require agencies to have a FOIA request in hand to raise a (b)(2) defense.  See Cochran v. United States, 770 F.2d 949, 957-58 & n.14 (11th Cir. 1985) (applying subsection (b)(2) – in absence of written FOIA request – because requested records would not be withholdable under any FOIA exemption); Jafari v. Navy, 728 F.2d 247, 249-50 (4th Cir. 1984) (same); Russo v. United States, 576 F. Supp. 2d 662, 671-72 (D.N.J. 2008) (alternative holding) (expressing reluctance to follow Bartel because subsection (b)(2)’s conditional language of “would be” rather than “is” “casts serious doubt upon Plaintiff’s argument that the exception only applies where the agency is faced with a written FOIA request”); Mudd v. Army, No. 2:05-cv-137, 2007 WL 4358262, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2007) (agreeing with agency that “under the circumstances of this case, the balance of plaintiff’s privacy against the public’s right to disclosure weighs in favor of public disclosure, and that the FOIA exception was applicable even without a formal FOIA request”).

However, because the D.C. Circuit is the jurisdiction of “universal venue” under the Privacy Act -- i.e., any Privacy Act lawsuit for wrongful disclosure could be filed within that judicial circuit -- see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5) -- its holding in Bartel is of paramount importance.  See FOIA Update, Vol. V, No. 3, at 2, http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_V_3/page2.htm (discussing Bartel).  Note also, though, that the Bartel decision left open the possibility that certain types of information “traditionally released by an agency to the public” might properly be disclosed even in the absence of an actual FOIA request.  725 F.2d at 1413 (dictum).  Reacting to Bartel, OMB issued guidance indicating that records that have “traditionally” been considered to be in the public domain, and those that are required to be disclosed to the public – such as names and office telephone numbers of agency employees – can be released without waiting for an actual FOIA request.  Memorandum from Robert P. Bedell, Deputy Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, for the Senior Agency Officials for Information Resource Management, Privacy Act Guidance – Update (May 24, 1985) [hereinafter OMB Bedell Memo], https://www.justice.gov/pa​overview​_omb-85 (“Records which have traditionally been considered to be in the public domain and are required to be disclosed to the public, such as many of the final orders and opinions of quasi-judicial agencies, press releases, etc. may be released under this provision without waiting for a specific Freedom of Information Act request”); see also OMB Call Detail Guidance, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-87-cd (applying Bartel to “call detail” programs); OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,954, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75.

The District Court for the District of Columbia twice has applied this public domain aspect of Bartel.  In Tripp v. DOD, 193 F. Supp. 2d 229, 236 (D.D.C. 2002), the D.C. District Court held that “the names, titles, salaries, and salary-levels of public employees are information generally in the public domain” and thus that they are not prohibited from disclosure under subsection (b)(2).  In Chang v. Navy, 314 F. Supp. 2d at 42, the District Court found that the Privacy Act was not violated where the Navy disclosed information to the media about plaintiff’s nonjudicial punishment, because the information was “releasable” under the FOIA, and the Navy had asserted that it “traditionally releases information that would be releasable under the FOIA to the press without a formal FOIA request,” and was able to point to a Navy regulation to that effect.  Id; see also Russo, 576 F. Supp. 2d at 670-73 (D.N.J. 2008) (alternative holding) (concluding disclosure of active duty military status did not violate Privacy Act because “duty status is the sort of public-domain information traditionally released to the public in the absence of a FOIA request”).

For further analysis of the interplay between the FOIA and the Privacy Act, see “Individual’s Right of Access” section below, particularly the “FOIA/Privacy Act Interface Examples: Access” subsection.

 

3. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(3) - Routine Uses
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains unless the disclosure would be --
. . .
(3) for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of this section and described under subsection (e)(4)(D).”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(3).

Cross-references:

Subsection (a)(7) defines the term “routine use” to mean “with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.”

Subsection (e)(4)(D) requires Federal Register publication of “each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use.”

Comment:

The routine use disclosure exception is broad and was designed to allow disclosures other than intra-agency disclosures.

The routine use exception, because of its potential breadth, is one of the most controversial provisions in the Act.  See Privacy Commission Report, at 517-18, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_ppsc.  The trend in recent cases is toward a narrower construction of the exception.  The White House directed the OMB to issue additional guidance regarding the routine use exception in an executive memorandum on privacy sent to the heads of executive departments and agencies in 1998.  Memorandum on Privacy and Personal Information in Federal Records, 34 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 870 (May 14, 1998), https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_pmppifr.  See also U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Off. of Info. Pol’y, President Issues Privacy Act-Related Memorandum to All Federal Agencies, in FOIA Update, Vol. XIX, No. 2, at 1, https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-president-issues-privacy-act-related-memorandum-all-federal-agencies (providing summary of executive memorandum).

The routine use exception “was developed to permit other than intra-agency disclosures”; therefore “t is not necessary . . . to include intra-agency transfers in the portion of the system notice covering routine uses.”  OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 56,742 (Dec. 4, 1975), https://www.justice.​gov/paoverview_omb-75-supp.  But see O’Donnell v. DOD, No. 04-00101, 2006 WL 166531, at *8 n.8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2006) (on motion to dismiss, disagreeing with plaintiff that “routine use” should be defined as “the disclosure of a record outside of [DOD]” and explaining that “the ‘routine use’ exception specifically states that disclosure is allowed ‘for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of [the Act]’”); cf. Shayesteh v. Raty, No. 02:05-CV-85TC, 2007 WL 2317435, at *5 (D. Utah Aug. 7, 2007) (concluding that disclosures were proper under subsection (b)(1) and explaining that purpose of disclosures was compatible with purpose of collection under subsection (b)(3)).

The routine use disclosure exception requires an agency to: (1) publish the routine use to provide constructive notice; and (2) disclose records only when compatible with the purpose for which the record was collected; some courts also have required agencies to provide actual notice in accordance with subsection (e)(3)(C).

An agency must meet two requirements for a proper routine use disclosure under this exception:  (1) an agency must publish the routine use in the Federal Register to provide constructive notice; and (2) the disclosure of the record must be compatible with the purpose for which the record was collected.  See, e.g., Britt v. Naval Investigative Serv., 886 F.2d 544, 547-50 (3d Cir. 1989); Brunotte v. Johnson, 892 F. Supp. 2d 199, 207 (D.D.C. 2012); Shannon v. Gen. Elec. Co., 812 F. Supp. 308, 316 (N.D.N.Y. 1993).

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has added a third requirement for this exception, which the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit subsequently adopted:  actual notice at the time the information is collected from the individual of the purpose(s) for which the information will be used.  See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3)(C); Covert v. Harrington, 876 F.2d 751, 754-56 (9th Cir. 1989) (discussed below); USPS v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 9 F.3d 138, 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

 

a. Federal Register Constructive Notice

Before relying on the routine use disclosure exception, an agency must publish in the Federal Register each routine use, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use.

The notice requirement of the routine use exception “is intended to serve as a caution to agencies to think out in advance what uses [they] will make of information.”  120 Cong. Rec. 40,881 (1974), reprinted in Source Book at 987, https://www.justice.gov/opcl/paoverview_sourcebook.  Indeed, a routine use could be deemed facially invalid if it fails to satisfy subsection (e)(4)(D), and specify “the categories of users and the purpose of such use.”  See Britt, 886 F.2d at 547-48 (dictum) (suggesting that routine use, 50 Fed. Reg. 22,802-03 (May 29, 1985) (permitting disclosure to “federal regulatory agencies with investigative units” is overbroad because it “does not provide adequate notice to individuals as to what information concerning them will be released and the purposes of such release); cf. Krohn v. DOJ, No. 78-1536, slip op. at 4-7 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 1984) (“[T]o qualify as a ‘routine use,’ the agency must . . . publish in the Federal Register . . . ‘each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use.’”), reconsideration granted & vacated in non-pertinent part, (D.D.C. Nov. 29, 1984) (discussed below).

The scope of the routine use disclosure exception is limited to the published terms of the claimed routine use.

It is well settled that the “scope of [a] routine use[ ] is confined by the published definition.”  Doe v. Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Fla., 768 F.2d 1229, 1231 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Parks v. IRS, 618 F.2d 677, 681-82 (10th Cir. 1980); Tran v. Treasury, 351 F. Supp. 3d 130, 137 (D.D.C. 2019); Local 2047, AFGE v. Def. Gen. Supply Ctr., 423 F. Supp. 481, 484-86 (E.D. Va. 1976), aff’d, 573 F.2d 184 (4th Cir. 1978).  In other words, a particular disclosure is unauthorized if it does not fall within the clear terms of the routine use.  See, e.g., Swenson v. USPS, 890 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that, consistent with Federal Register notice, “[d]isclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual”); Tijerina v. Walters, 821 F.2d 789, 798 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (VA’s unsolicited letter notifying state board of bar examiners of possible fraud did not qualify for Privacy Act’s routine use exception because the published routine use only permitted disclosure based upon official request of state agency and no such request was made); Doe v. DiGenova, 779 F.2d 74, 86 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (holding routine use exception inapplicable to VA psychiatric report because published routine use allowed referral of records to law enforcement officials only when records themselves indicated violation of law, and record itself did not “indicate[ ] . . . a potential violation of law”); Tran, 351 F. Supp. 3d at 137 (holding that routine use allowing disclosure to “a Federal . . . agency . . .[of] information relevant or necessary to hiring or retaining an employee . . . or other benefit” did not permit intra-agency disclosure of plaintiff’s performance evaluation in connection with plaintiff’s detail request); Shearson v. DHS, No. 1:06 CV 1478, 2012 WL 398444, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2012) (finding, where published routine use required agency first to be “aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of” law and individual alleged that she had no criminal record, plaintiff “fairly alleges that defendants did not meet the ‘routine use’ exception because the disclosing agency could not have been aware of any wrongful behavior”); Cooper v. FAA, No. 3:07-cv-01383, slip op. at 14-15 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2008) (concluding that “when DOT-OIG sent the name, social security number, date of birth and gender of approximately 45,000 pilots to SSA-OIG, it was not because those records indicated a violation or potential violation of the law,” as required by language of DOT routine use), rev’d on other grounds, 596 F.3d 538 (9th Cir. 2010), rev’d on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 3025 (2012); Bechhoefer v. DOJ, 179 F. Supp. 2d 93, 101-02 (W.D.N.Y. 2001) (finding, that where letter was collected by agency due to its initial interest in investigating plaintiff’s allegations of illegal drug activity by local law enforcement agency and was disclosed to that agency’s investigator, whose interest was in investigating possible unlawful, non-drug-related activity by plaintiff himself, such disclosure was not proper pursuant to routine use providing for disclosure to state and local law enforcement because “it is difficult to see how [the] disclosure could be said to have been compatible with the purpose for which the letter was collected”), aff’d on other grounds, 312 F.3d 563 (2002), cert. denied sub nom. Bechhoefer v. DEA, 539 U.S. 514 (2003); Kvech v. Holder, No. 10-cv-545, 2011 WL 4369452, at *3-4 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2011) (ruling that dismissal was not warranted where “record does not contain any evidence regarding precisely what information was disclosed . . . and the extent to which the disclosures fell inside or outside the confines of” the routine use); Pontecorvo v. FBI, No. 00-1511, slip op. at 13-15 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2001) (denying agency summary judgment and ordering discovery to determine whether agency “overstepped [the] explicit restrictions” contained in its routine use); Vargas v. Reno, No. 99-2725, slip op. at 3, 12-13 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2000) (stating that routine use exception did not apply to disclosure of plaintiff’s record to DOJ Inspector General agent conducting investigation of another employee because record was “‘owned’ by the Office of Personnel Management”; “The mere existence of an investigation at a facility is not sufficient to allow an investigating agent access to the records of every employee who is employed at that facility.”); Greene v. VA, No. C-76-461-S, slip op. at 3-6 (M.D.N.C. July 3, 1978) (holding routine use exception inapplicable to VA’s disclosure of medical evaluation to state licensing bureau because routine use permitted disclosure only to facilitate VA decision); see also Covert v. Harrington, 667 F. Supp. 730, 736-39 (E.D. Wash. 1987), aff’d on other grounds, 876 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1989).

When interpreting a claimed routine use, courts have generally deferred to agency interpretation.

An agency’s construction of its routine use should be entitled to deference.  See Air Force v. FLRA, 104 F.3d 1396, 1402 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (according great deference to OPM’s interpretation of its routine use); FLRA v. Treasury, 884 F.2d 1446, 1455-56 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (“For purposes of determining the scope of OPM’s routine use notice . . . an official OPM interpretation would be entitled to great deference.”); Makowski v. United States, 27 F. Supp. 3d 901, 912 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (deferring to, and finding reasonable, agencies’ interpretation and application of Enhanced Border Security Act because Court found statute ambiguous as to what it required FBI to do upon receiving plaintiff’s fingerprints, thus finding publication requirement of FBI’s routine use exception to have been met); Radack v. DOJ, 402 F. Supp. 2d 99, 106 n.7 (D.D.C. 2005) (“The court must grant ‘great deference’ to agency interpretations of routine uses.”); cf. Stafford, 437 F. Supp. 2d at 1119 (relying on SSA regulations for proposition that “SSA generally would consider a use to be compatible if it relates to determining eligibility for needs-based income maintenance . . . or related medical benefits for low-income people” and concluding that SSA’s disclosure of child abuse suspect’s “precise medical diagnosis to [California Child Protective Services] . . . was not compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected”).  But see NLRB v. USPS, 790 F. Supp. 31, 33 (D.D.C. 1992) (rejecting Postal Service’s interpretation of its own routine use).

 

b. Compatibility

The term “compatible” is not defined in the Privacy Act, and agencies must assess, on a case-by-case basis, when a disclosure is compatible in accordance with the routine use disclosure exception.

The precise meaning of the term “compatible” is uncertain and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.  According to OMB, the “compatibility” concept encompasses (1) functionally equivalent uses and (2) other uses that are necessary and proper.  OMB Call Detail Guidance, 52 Fed. Reg. at 12,993, https://www.justice.​gov/paoverview_omb-87-cd.

In Britt, an early, leading case on “compatibility,” the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the Naval Investigative Service’s gratuitous disclosure of records, describing a then-pending criminal investigation of a Marine Corps reservist, to that individual’s civilian employer (the Immigration and Naturalization Service) was not “compatible” with the “case-specific purpose for collecting” such records.  886 F.2d at 547-50.  Holding that the employment/suitability purpose for disclosure was incompatible with the criminal law enforcement purpose for collection, the Third Circuit deemed significant that “[t]here is nothing in the record suggesting that the [Immigration and Naturalization Service] was conducting its own criminal investigation of the same activity or any other activity” by the subject and that the records at issue concerned “merely a preliminary investigation with no inculpatory findings.”  Id. at 549-50.  Employing especially broad language, the Third Circuit pointedly condemned the agency’s equating of “compatibility” with mere “relevance” to the recipient entity, observing that “[t]here must be a more concrete relationship or similarity, some meaningful degree of convergence, between the disclosing agency’s purpose in gathering the information and in its disclosure.”  Id. (citing Covert, 876 F.2d at 755 (dictum)); see also Chichakli v. Tillerson, 882 F.3d 229, 233-34 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (holding that purpose of collection of plaintiff’s identifying information by State Department and Office of Foreign Assets Control was to investigate whether to designate plaintiff for economic sanctions and implement sanctions, which was “precisely aligned” with purpose of disclosure – to implement sanctions by making information public); Townsend v. United States, 236 F. Supp. 3d 280, 318 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Mazaleski v. Truesdale, 562 F.2d 701, 713 n.31 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (dictum); Ames v. DHS 153 F. Supp. 3d 342, 347 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing Britt and finding that DHS OIG had prepared report on plaintiff to determine whether plaintiff had committed misconduct in national security position, and its purpose in disclosing report to plaintiff’s new agency was precisely same, to prevent misconduct by plaintiff at another national security agency), aff’d 861 F.3d 238 (D.C. Cir. 2017); accord Swenson, 890 F.2d at 1078; cf. Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 139 (3d Cir. 1992) (Nygaard, J., dissenting) (concluding that disclosure was authorized by routine use because disclosure was compatible with one of purposes for collection, even if not compatible with main purpose for collection).  

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit interpreted the term “compatibility” in considering a routine use that provided for disclosure to labor organizations as part of the collective bargaining process.  The court stated that “common usage” of the word would require simply that “a proposed disclosure would not actually frustrate the purposes for which the information was gathered.”  USPS, 9 F.3d at 144.  The D.C. Circuit recognized the “far tighter nexus” required by the Third and Ninth Circuits in Britt and Swenson, which is consistent with the legislative history, but stated:

Whatever the merit of the decisions of prior courts that have held …that a finding of a substantial similarity of purpose might be appropriate in the non-labor law context in order to effectuate congressional intent, the compatibility requirement imposed by section 552a(a)(7) cannot be understood to prevent an agency from disclosing to a union information as part of the collective bargaining process.

Id. at 145.  In a concurring opinion, Judge Williams agreed with the disposition of the case, but noted that he did not share the “belief that the meaning of ‘compatible’ . . . may depend on the identity of the entity to which information is being disclosed.”  Id. at 147 n.1 (Williams, J., concurring).  Rather, seeing “no conflict between the purposes for which the information was collected and those for which it will be disclosed,” he found the disclosure to be compatible without further inquiry.  Id. at 146-47.  But cf. Pontecorvo v. FBI, No. 00-1511, slip op. at 10-11 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2001) (recognizing the D.C. Circuit’s holding in USPS case, but finding “the test articulated by the Third and Ninth circuits to be controlling” in the non-labor law context).

OMB guidelines, and some courts, have found that routine use disclosures to law enforcement agencies in the context of investigations or prosecutions, or when the record indicates a possible violation of law, are “compatible” disclosures under the routine use disclosure exception.

Two examples of “compatible” routine uses frequently occur in the law enforcement context.  First, in the context of investigations or prosecutions, law enforcement agencies routinely may share law enforcement records with one another.  See OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,955, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75 (“Records in law enforcement systems may also be disclosed for law enforcement purposes when that disclosure has properly been established as a ‘routine use’; e.g., . . . transfer by a law enforcement agency of protective intelligence information to the Secret Service.”); see also, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 534 (2018) (requiring Attorney General to exchange criminal records with “authorized officials of the Federal Government . . . , the States . . . , Indian tribes, cities, and penal and other institutions”).

Second, agencies routinely may disclose to law enforcement agencies for purposes of investigation or prosecution any records indicating a possible violation of law (regardless of the purpose for collection) if the head of the law enforcement agency specifically requests the record in writing from the agency that maintains the record.  See OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,953, 28,955, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_​omb-75 (remarks of Congressman Moorhead); 120 Cong. Rec. 36,967, 40,884 (1974), reprinted in Source Book at 957-58, 995, https://www.justice.gov/​opcl/paoverview_sourcebook; see also, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 535(b) (2018) (requiring agencies of executive branch to report expeditiously to U.S. Attorney General “[a]ny information, allegation, matter, or complaint” relating to crimes involving government officers and employees).

These compatible use disclosures to law enforcement agencies have been criticized on the ground that they circumvent the more restrictive requirements of subsection (b)(7).  See Privacy Commission Report, at 517-18, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_ppsc; see also Britt, 886 F.2d at 548 n.1 (dictum); Covert, 667 F. Supp. at 739, 742 (dictum).  They never have been challenged successfully on that basis, however.  Indeed, courts routinely have upheld disclosures made pursuant to such routine uses.  See, e.g., Bansal v. Pavlock, 352 F. App’x 611, 613-14 (3d Cir. 2009) (upholding disclosure of detainee’s recorded telephone conversations by Marshals Service to government case agent, who disclosed recording to interpreter, who disclosed recording to second interpreter); Weinberger v. Grimes, No. 07-6461, 2009 WL 331632, at *8 (6th Cir. Feb. 10, 2009) (stating that BOP routine use “includes disclosure to federal law enforcement agencies for ‘court-related purposes’ including ‘civil court actions’”); Shearson v. Holder, 865 F. Supp. 2d 850, 870 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (ruling that FBI “dissemination of watchlist information to CBP officers to facilitate their border security responsibilities” fell within published routine use to agencies “engaged in terrorist screening”); Ray v. DHS, No. H-07-2967, 2008 WL 3263550, at *12-13 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2008) (discussing disclosure by OIG of results of investigation concerning plaintiff’s SF 85P to U.S. Attorney’s Office was proper because it was covered by published routine use); Freeman v. EPA, No. 02-0387, 2004 WL 2451409, at *6-7 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2004) (concluding that “disclosure [by DOD investigator hired by EPA] of the plaintiff’s records concerning drug testing schedules and test results to AUSA . . . for the purposes of [AUSA’s] investigation of potentially criminal activity is a disclosure that is ‘compatible with the purpose for which [those records were] collected’”); Nwangoro v. Army, 952 F. Supp. 394, 398 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (finding disclosure by Military Police of financial records obtained in ongoing criminal investigation to foreign customs officials likewise involved in investigation of possible infractions of foreign tax and customs laws was “permitted by the ‘routine use’ exception and d[id] not constitute a violation of the Privacy Act”); Little v. FBI, 793 F. Supp. 652, 655 (D. Md. 1992) (finding that disclosure did not violate Privacy Act prohibition because it was made pursuant to routine use that allows disclosure of personnel matters to other government agencies when directly related to enforcement function of recipient agency), aff’d on other grounds, 1 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 1993).

Continued...
....

The courts have found, however, that a disclosure does not fall within a compatible routine use if the agency is not sharing with a law enforcement agency in the context of an investigation or prosecution, there is no possible violation of law, or the law enforcement agency head has not specifically requested the record in writing.  For example, a disclosure is not compatible if it is made to agencies other than the appropriate ones.  See Dick v. Holder, 67 F. Supp. 3d 167, 179 (D.D.C. 2014) (holding that FBI’s disclosure of information to law enforcement agencies was not compatible with routine use because information “was not disseminated just to ‘appropriate Federal, State, or local agenc[ies]’”).

Similarly, disclosures are not compatible with a routine use if the record does not reveal a potential violation of law.  In Covert, 667 F. Supp. at 736-39, the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington held that a routine use permitting the Department of Energy’s Inspector General to disclose to the DOJ relevant records when “a record” indicates a potential violation of law did not permit the disclosure of personnel security questionnaires submitted by the plaintiffs because such questionnaires, on their face, did not reveal potential violations of law.  The court rejected the agency’s argument that disclosure was proper because each questionnaire was disclosed as part of a prosecutive report that (when viewed as a whole) did reveal a potential violation of law.  Id. at 736-37.  Further, the court found that the Inspector General’s disclosure of the questionnaires to the DOJ (for a criminal fraud prosecution) was not compatible with the purpose for which they originally were collected by the Department of Energy (for a security-clearance eligibility determination), notwithstanding the fact that the Inspector General subsequently acquired the questionnaires – on an intra-agency “need to know” basis pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(1) – for the purpose of a fraud investigation.  Id. at 737-39.

On cross-appeals, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on other grounds.  Covert, 876 F.2d at 754-56.  The panel majority held that the Department of Energy’s failure to provide actual notice of the routine use on the questionnaires at the time of original collection, under subsection (e)(3)(C), precluded the Department of Energy from later invoking that routine use under subsection (b)(3).  Id. at 755-56; see also Puerta v. HHS, No. 99-55497, 2000 WL 863974, at *1-2 (9th Cir. June 28, 2000) (following Covert but finding that agency had provided notice of routine use on form used to collect information), aff’g No. EDCV 94-0148, slip op. at 7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 1999); USPS, 9 F.3d at 146 (citing Covert with approval and remanding case for factual determination as to whether subsection (e)(3)(C) notice was given); Stafford, 437 F. Supp. 2d at 1119-20 (adhering to Covert and finding that SSA notified plaintiff of potential uses “on three occasions when collecting her information,” even though these notifications were non-specific references to the Federal Register); Pontecorvo, No. 00-1511, slip op. at 12 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2001) (stating that agency must comply with subsection (e)(3)(C) “in order to substantiate an exception for ‘routine use’”).  Prior to Covert, no other court had required actual notice.  See the additional discussion under “5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3) - Notice Requirements,” below.

Since Krohn v. DOJ, agencies have narrowed the scope of their routine use disclosures during legal proceedings, disclosing only records “arguably relevant to the litigation.”

Although initially agencies published broad routine uses, they have been narrowed since the District Court for the District of Columbia issued its decision in Krohn v. DOJ, No. 78-1536, slip op. at 4-7 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 1984).  In Krohn, the court invalidated an FBI routine use allowing for “dissemination [of records] during appropriate legal proceedings,” finding that such a routine use was impermissibly “vague” and was “capable of being construed so broadly as to encompass all legal proceedings.”  In response to Krohn, OMB issued guidance to agencies in which it suggested a model routine use – employing a “relevant and necessary to the litigation” standard – to permit the public filing of protected records with a court.  OMB Bedell Memo, https://www.justice​.gov/paoverview_omb-85.  Many agencies, including the DOJ, have adopted “post-Krohn” routine uses designed to authorize the public filing of relevant records in court.  See, e.g., 66 Fed. Reg. 36,593, 36,594 (July 12, 2001) (routine use [number 7] applicable to records in DOJ’s “Civil Division Case File System”); 63 Fed. Reg. 8,666, 8,667-68 (Feb. 20, 1998) (routine uses [letters “o” and “p”] applicable to records in U.S. Attorney’s Office’s “Civil Case Files”).

The “post-Krohn” routine uses, such as the ones cited above that employ an “arguably relevant to the litigation” standard, have withstood challenges in the courts.  See, e.g., Jackson v. FBI, No. 02-C-3957, 2007 WL 2492069, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2007) (allowing U.S. Attorney’s filing in court of plaintiff’s unsuccessful application for FBI employment during pendency of plaintiff’s Title VII suit because application was “at the very heart of his civil suit”); Russell v. GSA, 935 F. Supp. 1142, 1145-46 (D. Colo. 1996) (finding disclosure in public pleadings of information regarding investigation of plaintiff was permissible under routine use providing for disclosure in proceeding before court where agency is party and records are determined “to be arguably relevant to the litigation”); Osborne v. USPS, No. 94-30353, slip op. at 6-9 (N.D. Fla. May 18, 1995) (holding on alternative ground that disclosure of plaintiff’s injury-compensation file to retired employee who had prepared file and who had been subpoenaed by plaintiff and was expecting to be deposed on matters documented in file was proper pursuant to routine use providing for disclosures “incident to litigation” and “in a proceeding before a court” because “deposition was a proceeding before [the] Court”); Sheptin v. DOJ, No. 91-2806, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6221, at *6-7 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 1992) (finding no wrongful disclosure where agency routine uses permit use of presentence report during course of habeas proceeding).  Such challenges could arise from an argument that the routine use does not satisfy the “compatibility” requirement of subsection (a)(7) of the Act, cf. Britt, 886 F.2d at 547-50 (holding mere “relevance” to recipient entity is improper standard for “compatible” routine use disclosure).

Courts generally have held that routine use disclosures to further an investigation or enabled the receiving or disclosing agency to fulfill its mission are “compatible” disclosures under the routine use disclosure exception.

The courts generally have found that disclosing information is pursuant to a compatible routine use when the information furthered an investigation or enabled either agency to fulfill its mission.  See, e.g., Taylor v. United States, 106 F.3d 833, 836-37 (8th Cir. 1997) (finding routine use exception applied to disclosure of federal taxpayer information collected for purpose of federal tax administration to state tax officials for purpose of state tax administration), aff’g Taylor v. IRS, 186 B.R. 441, 446-47, 453-54 (N.D. Iowa 1995); Alphin v. FAA, No. 89-2405, 1990 WL 52830, at *1 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 1990) (finding routine use exception applied to disclosure of enforcement investigation final report to subject’s customers); Hastings v. Judicial Conference of the United States, 770 F.2d 1093, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (finding routine use exception applied to disclosure of criminal investigative records to judicial committee investigating judge); United States v. Miller, 643 F.2d 713, 715 (10th Cir. 1981) (determining that records submitted by individual to parole officer became part of DOJ files and DOJ’s use in criminal investigation constitutes routine use); Lugo v. DOJ, 214 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.D.C. 2016) (finding “directly on point” routine use providing “a record relating to a person held in custody . . . after . . . conviction . . . may be disseminated” to a state parole authority”), aff’d Lugo v. DOJ, 2018 WL 1896491 (D.C. Cir. 2018); Lewis v. SSA, 2015 WL 9664967 (E.D. Tex. 2015) (finding routine use permitted disclosure to law enforcement agency out of concern for safety of SSA employees); Makowski v. United States, 27 F. Supp. 3d 901, 909-912 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (determining that FBI’s disclosure of fingerprints of foreign-born U.S. citizen’s fingerprints upon arrest to DHS pursuant to the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 is “compatible with the published purposes for which the FBI collected [the fingerprint data]” and its routine use that “permits disclosures ‘[t]o such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute or treaty’”); Middlebrooks v. Mabus, No. 1:11cv46, 2011 WL 4478686, at *7 (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2011) (finding disclosure of personnel records about plaintiff, a nurse, to state nursing board, HHS, and other healthcare reporting entities fell within routine use); Alexander v. FBI, 691 F. Supp. 2d 182, 191 (D.D.C. 2010) (finding routine use exception applied to disclosure of individuals’ background reports to White House to determine trustworthiness for granting White House access), aff’d, 456 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Lucido v. Mueller, No. 08-15269, 2009 WL 3190368, at *5-6 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2009) (finding routine use exception applied to FBI’s disclosure of plaintiff’s arrest and indictment on white-collar crimes to financial self-regulatory body where disclosure was required by federal law), aff’d, 427 F. App’x 497 (6th Cir. 2011); Contursi v. USPS, No. 98CV112, slip op. at 2-3 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 1999) (discussing disclosure to county agency in response to its request in connection with investigation of employee), aff’d, 238 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision); Jones v. Runyon, 32 F. Supp. 2d 873, 876 (N.D. W. Va. 1998) (discussing disclosure to credit reporting service of information about plaintiff when requesting employment reports in course of routine investigation of possible workers’ compensation fraud), aff’d, 173 F.3d 850 (4th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table decision); Choe v. Smith, No. C-87-1764R, slip op. at 10-11 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 20, 1989) (discussing INS’s disclosure to its informant during investigation “to elicit information required by the Service to carry out its functions and statutory mandates”), aff’d, 935 F.2d 274 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision); Kimberlin v. DOJ, 605 F. Supp. 79, 82-83 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (discussing BOP’s disclosure of prisoner’s commissary account record to probation officer), aff’d, 788 F.2d 434 (7th Cir. 1986); Burley v. DEA, 443 F. Supp. 619, 623-24 (M.D. Tenn. 1977) (analyzing transmittal of DEA records to state pharmacy board); Harper v. United States, 423 F. Supp. 192, 198-99 (D.S.C. 1976) (analyzing IRS’s disclosure of plaintiff’s identity to other targets of investigation); but cf. Sussman v. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1122-23 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (vacating grant of summary judgment to Marshals Service because plaintiff’s allegations that agents were “‘yelling and screaming [their allegations and theories in an effort to intimidate]’ suggests disclosures went beyond what was ‘necessary to obtain information or cooperation’” within terms of published routine use).

Courts have generally held that routine use disclosures to process an individual’s application for a benefit, program participation, or a position are “compatible” disclosures under the routine use disclosure exception.

Similarly, the courts have concluded that where an individual is applying for a benefit, program, or position, an agency may disclose information during the application process as a compatible routine use.  Puerta v. HHS, No. 99-55497, 2000 WL 863974, at *1-2 (9th Cir. June 28, 2000) (finding routine use exception permitted disclosure of plaintiff’s grant proposal to qualified expert who was member of peer review group for evaluation of proposal), aff’g No. EDCV 94-0148, slip op. at 7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 1999); Budik v. United States, 949 F.Supp.2d 14, 29 (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2013) (holding that disclosure of plaintiff’s military performance assessment form for medical personnel by United States Army was compatible with use for which it was collected, “namely to ‘manage credentials and privileges of health care providers in the Military Health System’”), aff’d, 2013 WL 6222903 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 19, 2013); Reed v. Navy, 910 F. Supp. 2d 32, 42-43 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding disclosures made in process of investigating allegations against plaintiff and his truthfulness about those allegations for purpose of assessing plaintiff’s fitness for duty as police officer fell within defendant’s “requesting information” routine use, whereby records may be disclosed to federal, state, and local authorities if necessary to evaluate plaintiff’s fitness for duty); Doe v. DOJ, 660 F. Supp. 2d 31, 47-48 (D.D.C. 2009) (discussing disclosure of information regarding employee’s mental state, collected for purpose of coordinating his reasonable accommodation request, to state unemployment commission and to contractor to determine employee’s eligibility for benefits); Benham v. Rice, No. 0301127, 2005 WL 691871, at *5-6 (D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2005) (discussing disclosure of agency employee’s transfer request to AUSA, who had represented agency in prior discrimination suit brought by employee against agency, so that AUSA “could attempt to settle the pending litigation with [the employee]”); Fattahi v. ATF, 186 F. Supp. 2d 656, 661-64 (E.D. Va. 2002) (discussing disclosure of fact that plaintiff had applied for federal firearms license to condominium association’s counsel for purposes of determining whether firearms dealer could operate out of plaintiff’s specific residential unit), aff’d, 328 F.3d 176, 181 (4th Cir. 2003) (agreeing with district court “that ATF’s routine use must be given ‘a practical reading’ such that disclosures are in accordance with the routine use when they are ‘reasonably necessary to verify pertinent information, [and] not just [when] verification cannot conceivably be obtained by any other means’”); Mumme v. Labor, 150 F. Supp. 2d 162, 174 (D. Me. 2001) (disclosure to agency’s examining physician from investigation file detailing possible health care fraud by former government worker who was being examined regarding continuing eligibility for disability benefits), aff’d, No. 01-2256 (1st Cir. June 12, 2002); Blazy v. Tenet, 979 F. Supp. 10, 26 (D.D.C. 1997) (discussing CIA’s disclosure of information about employee to FBI while FBI was investigating employee’s application for FBI employment), summary affirmance granted, No. 97-5330, 1998 WL 315583 (D.C. Cir. May 12, 1998); Magee v. USPS, 903 F. Supp. 1022, 1029 (W.D. La. 1995) (discussing disclosure of employee’s medical records to clinical psychologist hired by agency to perform fitness-for-duty examination on employee), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1145 (5th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision); McNeill v. IRS, No. 93-2204, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2372, at *6 (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 1995) (discussing disclosure of IRS personnel records to prospective federal agency employer); but cf. Brunotte v. Johnson, 892 F. Supp. 2d 199, 207 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding “unclear on the current record” whether disclosure to prospective employer of plaintiff’s prior “alleged travel reimbursement infractions” to “see if [p]laintiff had perpetrated another fraud by submitting false employment application information” was “compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected”).

Courts have generally held that routine use disclosures to other parties in litigation are “compatible” disclosures under the routine use exception.

The courts also have determined that disclosure to other parties in litigation constitutes a compatible routine use.  Burnett v. DOJ, 213 F. App’x 526, 528 (9th Cir. 2006) (applying routine use exception to disclosure to criminal defendant, against whom plaintiff was to testify, of prior ruling that plaintiff was not credible); Pippinger v. Rubin, 129 F.3d 519, 531-32 (10th Cir. 1997) (finding routine use exception applied to disclosure of plaintiff’s personnel information to MSPB in deposition testimony in another individual’s related MSPB proceeding, and to other individual, his attorney, and court reporter in conjunction with MSPB proceeding); Mount v. USPS, 79 F.3d 531, 534 (6th Cir. 1996) (finding routine use exception applied to disclosure of plaintiff’s medical information to union official representing him in administrative action in which his mental health was central issue); (ElHelbawy v. Holder, 2015 WL 5676987 (D. Colo. 2015) (concluding that agency was authorized to disclose information from plaintiff’s discrimination claim based on routine use permitting disclosure of information “to another federal agency, to a court, or to a party in litigation before a court or in an administrative proceeding being conducted by a federal agency when the government is a party to the judicial or administrative proceeding”); Feathers v. United States, 2015 WL 5263056 (N.D. Calif. 2015) (finding that routine use provided records may be used in proceedings involving federal securities laws in which SEC is party permitted disclosure in SEC case alleging violations of federal securities laws); Mandel v. OPM, 244 F. Supp. 2d 146, 152 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (alternative holding) (discussing disclosure of information about plaintiff – including summary of charges, supporting information, and copy of OPM’s investigation – to his former supervisors in connection with their testimony at plaintiff’s MSPB hearing following determination that plaintiff was unsuitable for federal employment due to prior employment record and failure to disclose history), aff’d on other grounds, 79 F. App’x 479 (2d Cir. 2003); Lachenmyer v. Frank, No. 88-2414, slip op. at 4 (C.D. Ill. July 16, 1990) (holding disclosure of investigative report to persons at arbitration hearing is proper under routine use permitting disclosure of “record relating to a case or matter” in “hearing in accordance with the procedures governing such proceeding or hearing”).

The Act’s legislative history recognizes the “compatibility” of a routine use invoked to publicly file records in court.  See 120 Cong. Rec. at 40,884, reprinted in Source Book at 858, 995, https://www.justice.gov/opcl/pao​verview_sourcebook (routine use appropriate where Justice Department “presents evidence [(tax information from IRS)] against the individual” in court).

Courts have generally held that routine use disclosures to Congress are “compatible” disclosures under the routine use disclosure exception.

Disclosures to Congress also have been deemed compatible routine uses by the courts.  See Gowan v. Air Force, 148 F.3d 1182, 1187, 1194 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating disclosure of information regarding individual to Members of Congress in response to inquiries made pursuant to individual’s letters requesting assistance was compatible and thus “would likely be protected under the routine use exception”); Feldman v. CIA, 797 F. Supp. 2d 29, 38-39 (D.D.C. 2011) (finding disclosure to Congressional oversight committee complies with statutory reporting requirements); Chang v. Navy, 314 F. Supp. 2d 35, 45-46 (D.D.C. 2004) (discussing disclosure to Members of Congress for purposes of responding to constituent inquiries where, if constituent is other than record subject, only information releasable under FOIA could be disclosed); Harry v. USPS, 867 F. Supp. 1199, 1206-07 (M.D. Pa. 1994) (discussing disclosure of documents regarding individual’s employment history, including details of settlement agreement, in response to congressional inquiries “made at the prompting of that individual”), aff’d sub nom. Harry v. USPS, Marvin T. Runyon, 60 F.3d 815 (3d Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision).

 

c. Actual Notice

The Ninth and D.C. Circuits also require that an agency give actual notice to an individual at the time the information is collected in accordance with the notice requirements of subsection (e)(3)(C).  Covert, 876 F.2d at 754-756; USPS v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 9 F.3d at 140; accord Puerta v. HHS, No. 99-55497, 2000 WL 863974, at *1-2 (9th Cir. June 28, 2000), aff’g No. EDCV 94-0148, slip op. at 7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 1999); cf. Stafford v. SSA, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1119-20 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (adhering to Covert and finding that SSA notified plaintiff of potential uses “on three occasions when collecting her information”; explaining that notice need not “anticipate and list every single potential permutation of a routine use in order to invoke this exception”; and stating, “The Court is not persuaded that Congress intended to place such an impractical burden on federal agencies, which would in effect severely curtail the very exception that Congress sought to carve out in the interest of practicality.”).  The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit cited this aspect of Covert with approval and remanded a case for determination of whether (e)(3)(C) notice was provided, stating that “[a]lthough the statute itself does not provide, in so many terms, that an agency’s failure to provide employees with actual notice of its routine uses would prevent a disclosure from qualifying as a ‘routine use,’ that conclusion seems implicit in the structure and purpose of the Act.”  USPS v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 9 F.3d at 146;  see also Minshew v. Donley, 911 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1073 (D. Nev. 2012) (“While a report to a non-federal employer falls within a routine use, Air Force has failed to respond to [plaintiff’s] argument that OPM did not inform [plaintiff] on the form which OPM used to collect the information, or on a separate form provided to [plaintiff], that [plaintiff’s] federal employer may make unsolicited disclosures to private employers regarding the circumstances surrounding [plaintiff’s] separation from federal employment.”).  But cf. Thompson v. State, 400 F. Supp. 2d 1, 16-17 (D.D.C. 2005) (discussed below under Agency Requirements, “5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3) - Inform Individuals when Asking to Collect Information”).

 

d. Additional Routine Use Matters

Some, but not all, courts of appeals have required agencies to invoke the routine use disclosure exception to disclose certain records to unions.

Four courts have required an agency to invoke a routine use to permit disclosure to unions of names of employees on the theory that refusal to so disclose was an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act.  See NLRB v. USPS, No. 92-2358, 1994 WL 47743, at *3-4 (4th Cir. Feb. 16, 1994); NLRB v. USPS, 888 F.2d 1568, 1572-73 (11th Cir. 1989); NLRB v. USPS, 841 F.2d 141, 144-45 & n.3 (6th Cir. 1988); NLRB v. USPS, 790 F. Supp. 31, 33 (D.D.C. 1992); see also USPS v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 9 F.3d at 141-46 (holding that “if the Postal Service could disclose the information under [its routine use] then it must disclose that information, because in the absence of a Privacy Act defense the arbitrator’s award must be enforced,” but remanding case for determination as to whether proper (e)(3)(C) notice was given before requiring invocation of routine use); FLRA v. Navy, 966 F.2d 747, 761-65 (3d Cir. 1992) (alternative holding) (en banc) (holding that release to union of home addresses of bargaining unit employees pursuant to routine use was required under Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act).  But cf. NLRB v. USPS, 660 F.3d 65, 70-72 (1st Cir. 2011) (ruling that USPS routine use for disclosure “[a]s required by applicable law . . . to a labor organization” did not require automatic disclosure of aptitude tests to union because National Labor Relations Act did not require that disclosure, but instead NLRB was required to balance “the interests of the Union in the information against the privacy interests of the employees”).

In addition, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Air Force v. FLRA, granted enforcement of a Federal Labor Relations Authority decision requiring the Air Force to disclose to a union a disciplinary letter that was issued to a bargaining unit employee’s supervisor.  104 F.3d 1396, 1399, 1401-02 (D.C. Cir. 1997).  The court held that the Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute required disclosure of the letter; that because the “Union’s request f[ell] within the Act’s ‘routine use’ exception, the Privacy Act d[id] not bar disclosure”; and that the union therefore was entitled to disclosure of the letter.  Id. at 1401-02.

The D.C. Circuit has held that the routine use disclosure exception does not permit disclosures solely based on a federal subpoena, as such disclosures are not permitted under the court order disclosure exception.

The D.C. Circuit concluded that a routine use for complying with a subpoena was inconsistent with the Privacy Act.  See Doe v. Stephens, 851 F.2d 1457, 1465-67 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (holding that a VA routine use – permitting disclosure of records “in order for the VA to respond to and comply with the issuance of a federal subpoena” – was invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act because it was inconsistent with the Privacy Act as interpreted in Doe v. DiGenova, 779 F.2d at 78-84, which had found that disclosures pursuant to subpoenas were not permitted by the subsection (b)(11) court-order exception).  But cf. Osborne v. USPS, No. 94-30353, slip op. at 6-9 (N.D. Fla. May 18, 1995) (holding on alternative ground that disclosure of plaintiff’s injury-compensation file to retired employee who had prepared file and who had been subpoenaed by plaintiff and was expecting to be deposed on matters documented in file was proper pursuant to routine use that “specifically contemplates that information may be released in response to relevant discovery and that any manner of response allowed by the rules of the forum may be employed”).

Notwithstanding the required FOIA disclosure and the consumer reporting agency disclosure exceptions, the Privacy Act disclosure provision does not provide for nonconsensual disclosures that are governed by other statutes, and agencies should rely on the routine use disclosure exception for such disclosures.

The Privacy Act does not provide for nonconsensual disclosures that are governed by other statutes except for the FOIA (subsection (b)(2)) and the Debt Collection Act (subsection (b)(12)).  See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 653 (2018) (establishing “Parent Locator Service” and requiring agencies to comply with requests from HHS for addresses and places of employment of absent parents “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law”).  Recognizing this difficulty, the OMB 1975 Guidelines advise that “disclosures, which are in effect congressionally mandated ‘routine uses,’” should be deemed “routine uses” under subsections (e)(11) and (e)(4)(D).  40 Fed. Reg. at 28,954, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75; cf. Zahedi v. DOJ, No. 10-694, 2011 WL 1872206, at *5-6 (D. Or. May 16, 2011) (holding that plaintiff’s claim for improper dissemination “fails both because the disclosure was authorized by [foreign-intelligence sharing] statute and because the dissemination falls within [agency’s] published routine uses”).

Continued...
....

4. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(4) - Bureau of the Census
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains unless the disclosure would be –

. . .

(4) to the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of Title 13.”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(4).

Comment:

For a discussion of this provision, see OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,954, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75.

 

5. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(5) - Statistical Research
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains unless the disclosure would be –

. . .

(5) to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable.”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(5).

Comment:

OMB guidelines suggest that the statistical research disclosure exception is intended to reduce the likelihood that agencies utilize statistical records to “reconstruct” individually identifiable records.

The term “statistical record” is defined in the Act as a record that is not used in making individual determinations.  5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(6).  One might question whether this exception to subsection (b) is anomalous, because the information to be released is arguably not a “record,” see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(4), or a “disclosure,” see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b), as it is not identifiable to any individual.  The OMB 1975 Guidelines, however, provide a plausible explanation, stating, “

• ne may infer from the legislative history and other portions of the Act that an objective of this provision is to reduce the possibility of matching and analysis of statistical records with other records to reconstruct individually identifiable records.” 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,954, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75.

 

6. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(6) - National Archives
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains unless the disclosure would be –

. . .

(6) to the National Archives and Records Administration as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value.”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(6).

Comment:

For a discussion of this provision, see OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,955, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75.

 

7. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(7) - Law Enforcement Request        
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records …except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless the disclosure would be—

…

(7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought.”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(7).

Comment:

The law enforcement request disclosure exception allows certain disclosures, upon written request, to another agency or instrumentality for civil or criminal law enforcement purposes.

This provision allows agencies to disclose records to federal law enforcement agencies and, “upon receipt of a written request, [to] disclose a record to another agency or unit of State or local government for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity.”  OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,955, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75.

A request for records under the subsection (b)(7) exception must be for civil or criminal law enforcement purposes.  See United States v. Collins, 596 F.2d 166, 169 (6th Cir. 1979) (holding, among other reasons, disclosure of reports authored by someone suspected of fraud satisfied criminal law enforcement activity disclosure condition); SEC v. Dimensional Entm’t Corp., 518 F. Supp. 773, 774-75, 777 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (finding disclosure was proper because SEC asked Parole Commission to release transcript in question for purpose of assisting SEC with its attempt to secure injunctive relief against defendant after SEC presented evidence that defendant will likely continue his unlawful activity).

While the head of the agency or instrumentality must generally make the written request for the law enforcement request disclosure exception, agencies may, when necessary, delegate this responsibility to officials no lower than the “section chief” level.

The request must be submitted in writing and generally must be from the head of the agency or instrumentality.  See Doe v. DiGenova, 779 F.2d 74, 85 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (concluding that VA’s disclosure of veteran’s medical records in response to federal grand jury subpoena was not authorized because federal grand jury subpoena is issued by federal prosecutors, not head of an agency); Doe v. Naval Air Station, 768 F.2d 1229, 1233 (11th Cir. 1985) (“[E]xemption (b)(7) requires a written request for disclosure by the head of the agency making such request to the agency which maintains the record.”); see also Reyes v. Supervisor of DEA, 834 F.2d 1093, 1095 (1st Cir. 1987) (noting the record lacked an indication that FBI, United States Probation Office, AUSA, and BOP made a written request for records); Stafford v. SSA, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (finding improper disclosure because head of local agency did not request disclosed information from SSA in writing).

Record-requesting authority may be delegated to lower-level agency officials when necessary, but not below the “section chief” level.  The Department of Justice has delegated record-requesting authority to the “head of a component or a United States Attorney, or either’s designee.”  28 C.F.R. § 6.40(c) (2014); cf. Lora v. INS, No. 2:02cv756, 2002 WL 32488472, at *2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2002) (applying subsection (b)(7) to disclosure of information from INS file upon request from Assistant United States Attorney), aff’d per curiam, 61 F. App’x 80 (4th Cir. 2003).

 

8. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(8) - Health or Safety of an Individual
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records…except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless the disclosure would be—

…

(8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual.”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(8).

Comment:

Under this exception, agencies may disclose records under emergency conditions that affect an individual’s health or safety.  See Schwarz v. INTERPOL, No. 94-4111, 1995 WL 94664, at *1 n.3 (10th Cir. Feb. 28, 1995) (finding unsubstantiated allegations alone do not constitute “showing of compelling circumstances”); Stafford v. SSA, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (holding that SSA did not satisfy health and safety exception because agency did not provide plaintiff requisite notice after disclosing that plaintiff received disability benefits to state child protective services to investigate possible child abuse); Schwarz v. Treasury, 131 F. Supp. 2d 142, 146-47 (D.D.C. 2000) (citing and agreeing with Schwarz v. INTERPOL), aff’d, No. 00-5453, 2001 WL 67463 (D.C. Cir. May 10, 2001); DePlanche v. Califano, 549 F. Supp. 685, 703-04 (W.D. Mich. 1982) (emphasizing emergency nature of exception to be used “where consent cannot be obtained because of time and distance and instant action is required” and noting that “this subsection was intended to apply only to such valid life and death situations as an airplane crash or epidemic”).

OMB guidelines, in apparent conflict with the text of the health or safety disclosure exception, states that the individual on whom the record pertains “need not necessarily be the individual whose health or safety is at peril.”

According to OMB 1975 Guidelines, the individual about whom records are disclosed “need not necessarily be the individual whose health or safety is at peril; e.g., release of dental records on several individuals in order to identify an individual who was injured in an accident.”  40 Fed. Reg. at 28,955, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75 (unsubstantiated allegations that fail to be “compelling circumstances” also fail to justify the release of records to an individual who requested disclosure but who is not the subject of the records).  This construction, while sensible as a policy matter, appears to conflict with the actual wording of subsection (b)(8), although the wording of this provision is not precise.

 

9. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9) – Congress
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records…except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless the disclosure would be—

…

(9) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee.”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9).

Comment:

The congressional disclosure exception does not authorize the disclosure of a record to an individual Member of Congress acting on his or her own behalf, or on behalf of a constituent.

This exception allows for disclosure of records to Congress but does not authorize the disclosure of a Privacy Act-protected record to an individual Member of Congress acting on his or her own behalf or on behalf of a constituent.  See OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,955, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75; OMB Supplementary Guidance, 40 Fed. Reg. at 56,742, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75-supp; see also Swenson v. USPS, 890 F.2d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 1989) (determining disclosure was improper when subject of records USPS disclosed to congressman did not request disclosure); Lee v. Dearment, No. 91-2175,1992 WL 119855, at *2 (4th Cir. June 3, 1992); cf. Chang v. Navy, 314 F. Supp. 2d 35, 45-47 (D.D.C. 2004) (discussing subsection (b)(9) and parties’ dispute as to whether disclosure was allowable because it involved committee inquiry or not allowable because it involved constituent inquiry, but ultimately finding disclosure was proper pursuant to routine use permitting disclosure to Members of Congress making inquiries on behalf of constituents).  See generally U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Off. of Info. Pol’y, OIP Guidance: Congressional Access Under FOIA, in FOIA Update, Vol. V, No. 1, at 3-4, http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_V_1/page3.htm (interpreting counterpart provision of FOIA).(interpreting counterpart provision of FOIA).

The Second Circuit has held that an agency may disclose records consistent with the congressional disclosure exception, even if the agency knew or reasonably should have known that the information would subsequently become public.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Devine v. United States, held that the unsolicited disclosure of an Inspector General letter to a congressional subcommittee chairman and member fell “squarely within the ambit of § 552a(b)(9),” and rejected the appellant’s argument that subsection (b)(9) should not apply if the government agency knew or should have known that the information would eventually be released to the public.  202 F.3d 547, 551-53 (2d Cir. 2000).

 

10. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(10) - Government Accountability Office
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records…except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless the disclosure would be—

…

(10) to the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the G[overnment] Account[ability] Office.”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(10).

 

11. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11) - Court Order
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records…except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless the disclosure would be—

…

(11) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11).

Comment:

The Privacy Act does not prohibit the disclosure of relevant records during discovery when disclosed consistent with the Privacy Act’s disclosure provision; agencies frequently utilize the court order disclosure exception during discovery.

Subsection (b)(11) permits a court of competent jurisdiction to order disclosure of Privacy Act protected information that would otherwise be prohibited from disclosure without prior written consent of the individual to whom the record pertains.

As a general proposition, the Privacy Act does not act as a shield against discovery of relevant records that are otherwise protected under the Privacy Act, and the records may become discoverable through litigation if ordered by a court.  Laxalt v. McClatchy, 809 F.2d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1987).  The essential point of this exception is that the Privacy Act “cannot be used to block the normal course of court proceedings, including court-ordered discovery.”  Clavir v. United States, 84 F.R.D. 612, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); see also, Garraway v. Ciufo, No. 1:17-cv-00533, 2020 WL 1263562 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020); Dawson v. Great Lakes Edu. Loan Services, Inc., No. 15-cv-475-JDP, 2018 WL 9539117 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 29, 2018); Adams v. Sotelo, No. 3:16-cv-02161, 2018 WL 30199288, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2018); Ayers v. Lee, No. 14cv542-BGS, 2017 WL 2472840, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jun. 8, 2017); Tidwell v. Brennan, No. 1:14-cv-553, 2015 WL 40922771 (S.D. Ohio July 6, 2015); United States v. Revland, No. 5:06–HC–2212, 2011 WL 7665381, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 30, 2011); Vinzant v. United States, No. 2:06-cv-10561, 2010 WL 2674609, at *7 (E.D. La. June 30, 2010) (stating that where defendant agency objected to disclosing Privacy Act records requested in discovery, “the ‘court order exception’ to the Privacy Act will preclude any future liability for disclosure, thereby alleviating the government’s concern and nullifying its objection”); SEC v. Gowrish, No. 09-05883 SI, 2010 WL 1929498, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2010); In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. Litig., No. 05-4182, 2007 WL 1959193, at *6 (E.D. La. June 27, 2007); Rogers v. England, 246 F.R.D. 1, 3 n.6 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 2007); B & H Towing, No. 6:05-cv-00233, 2006 WL 1728044, at *5 (S.D. W. Va. June 23, 2006); Martin v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 775, 780-82 (Cl. Ct. Mar. 17, 1983).

The court order disclosure exception does not, itself, confer federal jurisdiction or create a right of action to obtain a court order.

Nor does this exception confer federal jurisdiction or create a right of action to obtain a court order for the disclosure of records.  See Sheetz v. Marti, No. 10-10844, 2010 WL 2034775, at *1 (D. Mass. May 19, 2010) (stating that “in the absence of federal question jurisdiction . . . , diversity jurisdiction . . . , or some other statutory grant of jurisdiction, this court lacks authority to issue a subpoena” against federal agency for records plaintiff sought in connection with his divorce proceedings);  Haydon Bros. Contracting, Inc. v. SSA, No. 7:11-96, 2012 WL 38608, at *2-4 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 9, 2012) (stating that where plaintiff was seeking (b)(11) order to require agency to disclose third party’s records, “the Privacy Act permits disclosure of an individual’s records pursuant to a court order, it does not provide expressly for a private right of action to obtain such an order,” and “implying a civil remedy. . .is not consistent with the legislative scheme of the Privacy Act.”); see also Bryant v. SSA, No. 14CV5764, 2015 WL 6758094, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2015).

Relevant case law focuses on two aspects of the court order disclosure exception: what constitutes an “order of a court,” and what constitutes a court of “competent jurisdiction.”

This (b)(11) court order exception – like the subsection (b)(3) routine use exception – has generated a great deal of uncertainty due to its lack of guidance on what constitutes an “order of a court” and a “court of competent jurisdiction.”  Unfortunately, neither the Act’s legislative history nor the OMB 1975 Guidelines shed light on either of these meanings or illuminate whether there are specific requirements one must meet to rely on this exception.  The relevant case law below provides guidance on both prongs of this exception, however: 1) the meaning of “order of a court” and 2) when a court has “competent jurisdiction.”  See 120 Cong. Rec. at 36,959, reprinted in Source Book at 936, https://www.justice.gov/opcl/paoverview​_sourcebook; OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,955, https://www.​justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75.

 

a. Meaning of “Court Order”

i. Judge Approved

Courts have generally interpreted the court order disclosure exception to require the “order of a court” to be specifically approved by a judge.

To constitute a court order under subsection (b)(11), a judge must approve the order.  In Doe v. DiGenova, 779 F.2d 74, 77-85 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit decisively ruled that a subpoena routinely issued by a court clerk – such as a federal grand jury subpoena – is not a “court order” within the meaning of this exception because it is not “specifically approved” by a judge.  Cf. Ricoma v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., No. 5:12-CV-18, 2013 WL 1164499, at *1 n.2 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 20, 2013) (finding proposed subpoena deficient on other grounds and discussing request for subpoena to be signed by judge in accordance with subsection (b)(11)); Hoffman v. Astrue, No. 3:10-CV-00214, 2011 WL 195617, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 18, 2011) (ruling that agency need not comply with state court subpoena to disclose records because all 12 exceptions under Privacy Act are “inapposite”).

Prior to Doe v. DiGenova, the courts were split on this point.  Compare Bruce v. United States, 621 F.2d 914, 916 (8th Cir. 1980) (dictum) (finding subpoena is not court order), and Stiles v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 453 F. Supp. 798, 800 (N.D. Ga. 1978) (finding that Privacy Act will prevent disclosure of subpoenaed documents unless “the court specifically orders them produced pursuant to section 552a(b)(11)”), with Adams v. United States Lines, No. 80-0952, slip op. at 2-3 (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 1981) (finding subpoena is court order).  Cf. Moore v. USPS, 609 F. Supp. 681, 682 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (finding subpoena is court order where it is required to be approved by judge under state law).

Note that an agency cannot avoid the result in Doe v. DiGenova by relying on a routine use that seeks to authorize disclosure pursuant to a subpoena.  See Doe v. Stephens, 851 F.2d 1457, 1465-67 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (discussed in detail above under exception, “5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) - Routine Uses”).

 

ii. Standards for Issuance of a Court Order

Because the Privacy Act’s court order disclosure exception contains no standard that governs the issuance of a court order, courts have relied on a number of considerations, with varying degrees of clarity.

Under the Privacy Act’s subsection (b)(11) exception, there is no standard governing the issuance of a “court order.”  Unlike other federal privacy-related or confidentiality statutes, subsection (b)(11) contains no standard governing the issuance of an order authorizing the disclosure of otherwise protected Privacy Act information.  See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2 (2018) (listing “good cause” factors to be weighed by court in evaluating applications for orders permitting disclosure of records pertaining to substance abuse); 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2)(B) (prohibiting disclosure unless, inter alia, “information is furnished in compliance with a judicial order, or pursuant to any lawfully issued subpoena, upon condition that parents and the students are notified of all such orders or subpoenas in advance of the compliance therewith by the educational institution or agency”).

However, there are a number of considerations that the courts have used, with varying degrees of clarity, to assess whether a “court order” was issued.  These considerations include:

 

a) Qualified Discovery Privilege

The Privacy Act does not create heightened discovery requirements.

Some courts have held, for example, that because the Privacy Act does not itself create a qualified discovery “privilege,” a showing of “need” is not a prerequisite to initiating discovery of protected records.  See Laxalt v. McClatchy, 809 F.2d 885, 888-90 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see also Weahkee v. Norton, 621 F.2d 1080, 1082 (10th Cir. 1980) (noting that objection to discovery of protected records “does not state a claim of privilege”); CFPB v. Navient Corp., No. 3:17-CV-101, 2018 WL 3824367 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2018) (agreeing “with the numerous courts that have found that the Privacy Act does not create a qualified discovery privilege); Bowden-Walker v. Wal-Mart, No. 3:14-cv-917, 2015 WL 13450672 (S.D. Miss. July 22, 2015); Ala. & Gulf Coast Ry., LLC v. United States, No. CA 10-0352, 2011 WL 1838882, at *3-5 (S.D. Ala. May 13, 2011) (citing Laxalt in determining relevance of personnel files); Bosaw v. NTEU, 887 F. Supp. 1199, 1215-17 (S.D. Ind. 1995) (citing Laxalt with approval, although ultimately determining that court did not have jurisdiction to rule on merits of case); Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 825 F. Supp. 1081, 1083 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1993) (“[T]he Privacy Act does not establish a qualified discovery privilege that requires a party seeking disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11) to prove that its need for the information outweighs the privacy interest of the individual to whom the information relates.”); Clavir v. United States, 84 F.R.D. 612, 614 (“[It] has never been suggested that the Privacy Act was intended to serve as a limiting amendment to . . . the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); cf. Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345, 360-62 (1981) (holding that Census Act constitutes statutorily created discovery “privilege” because it precludes all disclosure of raw census data despite need demonstrated by litigant).

 

b) Relevance

The D.C. Circuit has held that the only test for discovery of records is a “relevance” standard, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Laxalt v. McClatchy establishes that the only test for discovery of Privacy Act-protected records is “relevance” under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  809 F.2d at 888-90; see also, e.g., Pa. v. Navient Corp., 348 F. Supp. 3d 394, 398 (M.D. Pa. 2018) (ordering production of all disputed records and requiring parties to resolve potential burden, scope and relevancy issues related to production of records); Ali v. Gilead Science, Inc., No. 18-cv-00677, 2018 WL 3629818, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2018) (citing Laxalt and noting that “the Privacy Act does not protect information from disclosure in litigation pursuant to a valid discovery request”); Ali v. eBay, Inc., No. 17-cv-06589, 2018 WL 3368389 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2018); Needham & Co., LLC, No. 15 Civ. 2487, 2017 WL 2779800, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2017); Meyer v. United States, No. 16-2411, 2017 WL 735750, at *4 (D. Kan. Feb. 24, 2017) (citing Laxalt and noting that requested information “is not only relevant to this action, it is potentially essential” and thereby, required to be disclosed, but parties were encouraged to address further privacy issues through protective order); Jackson v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Ill, No. CV 14–162, 2014 WL 12658918 (D. Mont. Dec. 19, 2014); Riascos-Hurtado v. United States, No. 09-CV-0003, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28008, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2011) (citing Laxalt and granting plaintiff’s motion to compel production of background investigation of former agency employee, which was “relevant to the action and may be relied upon by Plaintiffs in opposing the Government’s motion” to dismiss); Buechel v. United States, No. 08-132, 2010 WL 3310243, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010); R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. United States, No. 95-283, 2010 WL 2706282, at *6 (Fed. Cl. July 8, 2010); SEC v. Gowrish, No. C 09-05883, 2010 WL 1929498, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2010); Stiward v. United States, No. 05-1926, 2007 WL 2417382, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 24, 2007); Ezell v. Potter, No. 2:01 CV 637, 2006 WL 1094558, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 16, 2006); Hassan v. United States, No. C05-1066C, 2006 WL 681038, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 2006); Snyder v. United States, No. 02-0976, 2003 WL 21088123, at *2-3 (E.D. La. May 12, 2003); Lynn v. Radford, No. 99-71007, 2001 WL 514360, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 16, 2001); Anderson v. Cornejo, No. 97 C 7556, 2001 WL 219639, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2001); Hernandez v. United States, No. 97-3367, 1998 WL 230200, at *2-3 (E.D. La. May 6, 1998); Forrest v. United States, No. 95-3889, 1996 WL 171539, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 1996); Bosaw, 887 F. Supp. at 1216-17 (citing Laxalt with approval, although ultimately determining that court did not have jurisdiction to rule on merits of case); Ford Motor Co., 825 F. Supp. at 1083-84; Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp. v. Sullivan, 136 F.R.D. 42, 49 (N.D.N.Y. 1991); O’Neill v. Engels, 125 F.R.D. 518, 520 (S.D. Fla. 1989); Broderick v. Shad, 117 F.R.D. 306, 312 (D.D.C. 1987); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Issued to USPS, 535 F. Supp. 31, 33 (E.D. Tenn. 1981); Christy v. United States, 68 F.R.D. 375, 378 (N.D. Tex. 1975).

 

c) Balancing Need for Information and Potential Harm

Other courts have assessed court orders by balancing the potential harm to the affected party from disclosure without restrictions and the requesting party’s need for the record.

Courts have also assessed whether orders should be granted by balancing the potential harm to the affected party from disclosure without restrictions and the need of the requesting party for the particular information.  See Perry v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 734 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1984) (asserting that requests for court orders “should be evaluated by balancing the need for the disclosure against the potential harm to the subject of the disclosure”); Pearlstein v. BlackBerry Ltd., No. 19-mc-91091, 2019 WL 6117145 (D. Mass. Nov. 18, 2019) (concluding that compelling disclosure without notice, and without consideration of privacy interests of named individuals, ran afoul of privacy interests of individuals in nondisclosure of documents); Romeo v. Israel, No. 13-CV-61411, 2016 WL 3646858, at *2-6 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2016) (balancing need for disclosure of information with potential harm to subjects of disclosure and determining that information was relevant, but in order to protect interests of individuals in case, documents would be reviewed in camera and only produced what is relevant to matter); Abidor v. Johnson, No. 10-CV-4059, 2016 WL 3102017, at *7 (E.D. N.Y. June 2, 2016); Verrill v. Battelle Energy All., No. 4:12-cv-00628, 2013 WL 5816632, at *2 (D. Idaho Oct. 28, 2013) (finding that either standard of “relevancy” or standard “balancing the need for the disclosure against the potential harm to the subject of the disclosure” was met and that harm to third-parties is limited since request is “narrowly circumscribed to involve only their performance reviews and documents pertaining to any investigation surrounding their termination” and that protective order would ensure confidentiality of information); Hall v. Hous. Auth. of Cnty. of Marin, No. 12-04922, 2013 WL 5695813, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2013) (finding that plaintiffs’ need for information to support claim seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the U.S. Housing Act “outweighs any privacy interests, especially in light of the Protective Order and other steps, such as redaction, that can be taken to reduce privacy concerns”); Gutierrez v. Benavides, 292 F.R.D. 401, 404-06 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (finding that “in determining whether to grant a protective order, the court must balance the requesting party’s need for the information against the injury that might result if uncontrolled disclosure if compelled” and “[t]hrough this balancing process, courts should afford due weight to the affected party’s privacy interest”; and determining that personnel records of federal employees other than “‘records indicating official misconduct, abuse of power, or constitutional violations’ are to be protected from public disclosure”); Am. Modern Select Ins. Co. v. Sutherland, No. CV-12-S-1681, 2013 WL 1767827, at *2-3 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 18, 2013) (granting limited order for production of documents as plaintiff, an insurance company, “had a clear need for some of the documents in order to properly develop its arson defense,” which outweighed any potential harm to defendant, especially considering limited scope of order); United States v. Meyer, No. 2:11-cr-43, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94270, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2011) (granting order after “balanc[ing] the need for disclosure against the potential harm from disclosure”); In re Becker v. Becker, No. 09-70173, 2010 WL 3119903, at *4 (Bnkr. W.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2010) (ruling that although court was “authorized to order discovery of confidential records, it must balance the public interest in avoiding harm from disclosure against the benefits of providing relevant evidence”); Newman, No. 81-2480, slip op. at 3 (D.D.C. Sept. 13, 1982) (evaluating “legitimacy” of discovery requests and “need” for records as factors governing issuance of court order); cf. Hounshel v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, No. 4:11-CV-00635, 2013 WL 5375833, at *2 (D. Idaho Sept. 24, 2013) (finding that “[r]esolution of a privacy objection requires a balancing of the need for the information sought against the privacy right asserted” and granting limited order allowing plaintiff access to third-party mental health records of employees of defendant); Ibrahim v. DHS, No. 06-00545, 2013 WL 1703367, at 6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2013) (ordering disclosure under protective order and stating that “government may redact documents only to remove information relating to third parties who are private individuals and who are unrelated to plaintiff and her claims (relating to her challenge of being placed on government watch lists”).  But cf. FDK Am., Inc. v. United States, 973 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 1318 (Ct. Int’l Trade Apr. 4, 2014) (holding motion for protective order in abeyance pending plaintiff’s certification of identity of third party who had control of documents plaintiff sought; subsequent determination of whether third-party provides consent, or was located outside territorial jurisdiction of the court).

 

 iii. Limiting Discovery with Protective Order

Courts have held that a protective order limiting discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a proper procedural device for protecting records under the court order disclosure exception.

It is important to note that a protective order limiting discovery under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (based, if appropriate, upon a court’s careful in-camera inspection) is a proper procedural device for protecting particularly sensitive Privacy Act-protected records when subsection (b)(11) court orders are sought.  See Laxalt, 809 F.2d at 889-90; see also, e.g., Noble v. City of Fresno, No. 116CV01690DADBAM, 2017 WL 5665850, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2017) (stating that Defendant’s concerns could be assuaged by “tightly drawn” protective order specifying specific access and uses of information); Upstate Shredding, LLC v. Northeastern Ferrous, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-1015, 2016 WL 865299, at *16-17 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2016) (upholding protective order issued to protect Privacy Act information that was violated and awarding fees associated with filing motion to enforce protective order); Minshew v. Donley, No. 2:10-CV-01593, 2013 WL 12410940, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 19, 2013) (permitting “redaction of exhibits containing [p]laintiff’s personal identification including her address and social security number” in documents that were to be unsealed because “public interest in such information is outweighed by the privacy concerns in revealing information”); SEC v. Kovzan, No. 11-2017, 2013 WL 647300, at *5 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2013) (noting that Privacy Act was not intended to limit Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and stating “this court typically approves protective orders directing the release of information coming within the protections of the Privacy Act”); Nguyen v. Winter, 756 F. Supp. 2d 128, 129 (D.D.C. 2010) (stating that “[p]ersonnel files cannot be produced without a Privacy Act protective order”); Buechel v. United States, 2010 WL 3310243, at *3-4 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010) (issuing protective order to address defendant’s concern that “institutional safety militates against disclosure of information regarding exposure to MRSA within [Federal correctional institution]”); SEC v. Gowrish, 2010 WL 1929498, at *3 (ordering production of Privacy Act-protected documents, but fashioning protective order permitting redaction of information which if disclosed “may compromise any ongoing, unrelated criminal investigation,” while simultaneously requiring submission of unredacted copies for in-camera review); United States v. Chromatex, Inc., No. 91-1501, 2010 WL 2696759, at *10 (M.D. Pa. July 6, 2010) (ordering disclosure in camera to “allow the court to determine whether a protected order pursuant to the Privacy Act may properly be issued”); Sattar v. Gonzales, No. 07-cv-02698, 2009 WL 2207691, at *1-2 (D. Colo. July 20, 2009) (granting defendants’ motion for protective order where plaintiff sought discovery of documents that defendants claimed were protected by Act); Lopez v. Chula Vista Police Dep’t, No. 07 CV 01272, 2008 WL 8178681, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2008) (issuing (b)(11) protective order to govern disclosure of Privacy Act records concerning ongoing investigations that may reveal confidential informant and investigatory techniques and methods); In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. Litig., No. 05-4182, 2007 WL 1959193, at *6 (E.D. La. June 27, 2007) (ordering that subsection (b)(11) of Privacy Act allowed disclosure of materials containing “sensitive personal information” as long as they were designated as confidential pursuant to “Master Protective Order”); Boudreaux v. United States, No. 97-1592, 1999 WL 499911, at *1-2 (E.D. La. July 14, 1999) (recognizing relevancy of subsection (b)(11) to court’s resolution of dispute over motion to compel responses to production of documents subject to Privacy Act, but ordering in-camera review of documents so that legitimacy of agency objections may be determined “in the considered and cautious manner contemplated by the Privacy Act”); Gary v. United States, No. 3:97-cv-658, 1998 WL 834853, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 4, 1998) (finding that while third party’s personnel file may contain relevant information, disclosure of that file must be made pursuant to protective order); Bosaw, 887 F. Supp. at 1216-17 (citing Laxalt with approval, although ultimately determining that court did not have jurisdiction to rule on merits of case); Clymer v. Grzegorek, 515 F. Supp. 938, 942 (E.D. Va. 1981); cf. Brown v. Narvais, No. CIV-06-228-F, 2009 WL 2230774, at *3 (W.D. Okla. July 22, 2009) (recommending that parties agree to protective order to protect privacy interests of subject of information where plaintiff served subpoena on BOP seeking disclosure of Privacy Act-protected information); Forrest, 1996 WL 171539, at *2-3 (ordering parties to “explore the possibility of entering into a voluntary confidentiality agreement regarding protecting the privacy interests of those individuals affected by disclosure”); Loma Linda Cmty. Hosp. v. Shalala, 907 F. Supp. 1399, 1405 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (“Even if release of the data . . . had unexpectedly included information not already known to [the recipient], a confidentiality order could have been imposed to protect the privacy interests in issue.”); Williams v. McCausland, No. 90 Civ. 7563, 1992 WL 309826, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 1992) (directing parties to agree on and execute appropriate protective stipulation for information sought in discovery that, under Privacy Act’s subsection (b)(2) standard, would not be required to be disclosed under FOIA).  But cf. Jacobs v. Schiffer, 204 F.3d 259, 264-66 & n.5 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (recognizing superiority of First Amendment rights and observing that there is “critical distinction between disclosures in the attorney-client context and public disclosures,” and pointing to attorney’s “willingness to enter into a protective order” as relevant to balancing of “the employee’s interests in communication with the government’s interests in preventing communication” where information that employee wished to disclose to his private attorney was covered by Privacy Act).

In some instances, it even may be appropriate for a court to entirely deny discovery.  See, e.g., Farnsworth v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1546-48 (11th Cir. 1985) (affirming lower court’s holding that keeping study participants’ names private outweighs appellant’s discovery interests); In re Becker, 2010 WL 3119903, at *4 (noting that hardship to defendants’ privacy rights would be severe where plaintiff failed to establish relevance for requested disclosure); Weems v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. CIV-09-443, 2010 WL 2640114, at *2 (E.D. Okla. June 30, 2010); Oslund v. United States, 125 F.R.D. 110, 114-15 (D. Minn. 1989); cf. Padberg v. McGrath-McKenchnie, No. 00-3355, 2007 WL 2295402, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2007) (declining to decide “whether a court may ever order a government agency to disclose social security numbers despite the provisions of [the Social Security Act],” and refusing to order disclosure of social security numbers of class members who have not submitted claim forms pursuant to settlement agreement); Barnett v. Dillon, 890 F. Supp. 83, 88 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (declining to order disclosure of FBI investigative records protected by Privacy Act to arrestees despite their assertion that records were essential to proper prosecution and presentment of claims in their civil rights lawsuit).

In Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Army, No. 1:CV-90-1072, slip op. 1-3 & accompanying order (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 1991), aff’d, rev’d & remanded, on other grounds, 55 F.3d 827 (3d Cir. 1995), the district court, recognizing the “defendants’ initial reluctance to respond to plaintiffs’ [discovery] requests without a specific order of court [as] a reasonable precaution in light of the terms of the Privacy Act,” solved the dilemma by ordering the Army to respond to “all properly framed discovery requests in th[e] proceeding” and that to deem responses “made pursuant to an order of court.”  Id.; see also Long Island Sav. Bank v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 157, 159-160 (Fed. Cl. 2004) (concluding that “[t]he exception in the Privacy Act for actions taken under court order is satisfied here” because scheduling order “specifically incorporated [a provision of the local rules]” requiring parties to exchange “witness lists containing the addresses and telephone numbers of each witness”).

 

iv. Court Orders for Publicly Filing Protected Records with Courts

Agencies may affirmatively disclose Privacy Act-protected records during litigation, so long as the disclosure is made in accordance with the Privacy Act’s disclosure provision.

As noted above, the Act’s legislative history indicates that a court is not a “person” or “agency” within the meaning of subsection (b), and that the Act was “not designed to interfere with access to information by the courts.”  120 Cong. Rec. at 36,967, reprinted in Source Book at 958-59, https://www.justice.gov/opcl/paoverview_sourcebook.

However, when an agency publicly files protected records with a court during the course of litigation without consent of the subject of the records, by definition the disclosure constitutes a subsection (b) disclosure.  See Laningham v. Navy, No. 83-3238, slip op. at 2-3 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 1984), summary judgment granted (D.D.C. Jan. 7, 1985), aff’d per curiam, 813 F.2d 1236 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (concluding that because court had issued an order allowing the Navy to file documents, Navy had “grounds for believing its actions lawful” pursuant to section 552a(b)(11)).  Thus, such public filing is proper only if it is undertaken pursuant to:  (1) the subsection (b)(3) routine use exception (previously discussed), or (2) the subsection (b)(11) court order exception.

Where the routine use exception is unavailable, an agency should obtain a subsection (b)(11) court order permitting such public filing.  Cf. DiGenova, 779 F.2d at 85 n.20 (“This is not to say that a prosecutor, a defendant, or a civil litigant, cannot submit an in camera ex parte application for a [subsection (b)(11)] court order.”).  However, in light of Laningham, agencies should take care to apprise the court of the Privacy Act-related basis for seeking the order.  In Laningham, the district court ruled that the government’s nonconsensual disclosure of plaintiff’s “disability evaluation” records to the United States Claims Court was improper – even though such records were filed only after the agency’s motion for leave to file “out of time” was granted.  Id.  The court held that subsection (b)(11) applies only when “for compelling reasons, the court specifically orders that a document be disclosed,” and it rejected the agency’s argument that the exception applies whenever records happen to be filed with leave of court.  Id. at 4.

The Court of Veterans Appeals has issued a “standing order” that permits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to routinely file relevant records from veterans’ case files.

One unique solution to the problem of filing Privacy Act-protected records in court is illustrated by In re A Motion for a Standing Order, in which the Court of Veterans Appeals issued a “standing order” permitting the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to routinely file relevant records from veterans’ case files in all future proceedings with that court.  1 Vet. App. 555, 558-59 (Ct. Vet. App. 1990) (per curiam); cf. Perkins v. United States, No. 99-3031, 2001 WL 194928, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 2001) (order) (authorizing parties to seek admission into evidence at trial of any materials subject to the court’s stipulated protective order pursuant to subsection (b)(11)).

 
b. Meaning of “Competent Jurisdiction”

The D.C. Circuit has equated the term “competent jurisdiction” with “personal jurisdiction.”

One of the few Privacy Act decisions to mention this oft-overlooked “competent jurisdiction” requirement is Laxalt v. McClatchy.  809 F.2d at 890-91.  In that case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared to equate the term “competent jurisdiction” with “personal jurisdiction” and noted that the requests for discovery of the nonparty agency’s records “were within the jurisdiction of the District Court for the District of Columbia” as “[n]either party contends that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the FBI’s custodian of records.”  Id.

Of course, where an agency is a proper party in a federal case, the district court’s personal jurisdiction over the agency presumably exists, and thus, court-ordered discovery of the agency’s records is proper under subsection (b)(11).

However, where a party seeks discovery of a nonparty agency’s records pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum issued under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Laxalt suggests that the district court issuing the discovery order must have personal jurisdiction over the nonparty agency in order to be regarded as a court of “competent jurisdiction” within the meaning of subsection (b)(11).  See 809 F.2d at 890-91; cf. Mason v. S. Bend Cmty. Sch. Corp., 990 F. Supp. 1096, 1097-99 (N.D. Ind. 1997) (determining that SSA’s regulations “generally do not authorize the release of . . . records upon order of a court, even a federal court, in the absence of a special circumstance as defined by the statutes and regulations,” and thus, finding SSA not to be in contempt of court for failure to comply with prior order compelling SSA, a nonparty, to produce documents).  But cf. Lohrenz v. Donnelly, 187 F.R.D. 1, 8-9 (D.D.C. 1999) (finding that nonparty agency made requisite showing of good cause for court to enter protective order without discussing jurisdiction over nonparty agency).  The issue of whether personal jurisdiction exists in this situation is not always clear – particularly where the nonparty agency’s records are kept at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the district court that issued the discovery order.  Indeed, this very issue was apparently raised but not decided in Laxalt, 809 F.2d at 890-91 (finding it unnecessary to decide whether federal district court in Nevada would have had jurisdiction to order discovery of FBI records located in District of Columbia).

Some, but not all, courts have held that state courts lack “competent jurisdiction” when issuing state court orders for the disclosure of a nonparty federal agency’s records.

Likewise, the existence of “competent jurisdiction” is questionable whenever a state court orders the disclosure of a nonparty federal agency’s records because the doctrine of “sovereign immunity” will ordinarily preclude state court jurisdiction over a federal agency or official.  See, e.g., Boron Oil Co. v. Downie, 873 F.2d 67, 70-71 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding state court subpoena constitutes “action” against United States and thus sovereign immunity applied even though EPA was not party in suit); Bosaw, 887 F. Supp. at 1210-17 (finding state court lacked jurisdiction to order federal officers to produce documents because government did not explicitly waive its sovereign immunity and, because federal court’s jurisdiction in this case was derivative of state court’s jurisdiction, federal court was likewise barred from ordering officers to produce documents); Sharon Lease Oil Co. v. FERC, 691 F. Supp. 381, 383-85 (D.D.C. 1988) (holding state court subpoena quashed as state court lacked jurisdiction to compel nonparty federal official to testify or produce documents absent waiver of sovereign immunity); see also Moore v. Armour Pharm. Co., 129 F.R.D. 551, 555 (N.D. Ga. 1990) (citing additional cases on point); cf. Louisiana v. Sparks, 978 F.2d 226, 235 n.15 (5th Cir. 1992) (noting that “[t]here is no indication that [subsection (b)(11)] evinces congressional intent to broadly waive the sovereign immunity of [federal] agencies . . . when ordered to comply with state court subpoenas”); Longtin v. DOJ, No. 06-1302, 2006 WL 2223999, at *2-3 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2006) (citing Sparks, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that subsection (b)(11) is a “sweeping waiver of sovereign immunity”, and concluding that “neither the Superior Court of the District of Columbia nor the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland constitute(s) a ‘court of competent jurisdiction’ . . . to issue an order compelling a federal official to comply with a state court subpoena”).

Nevertheless, in Robinett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 02-0842, 2002 WL 31498992, at *3-4 (E.D. La. Nov. 7, 2002), aff’d per curiam, 83 F. App’x 638 (5th Cir. 2003), the district court looked to subsection (b)(11) and held that State Farm “properly obtained” an order from the state court for release of plaintiff’s medical records where “plaintiff’s medical condition was relevant to the litigation.”  The court upheld the Department of Veterans Affairs’ “determination that plaintiff’s records were subject to release based on the court order.”  In upholding the district court’s decision, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit specifically stated that the medical records were “released pursuant to the exception for orders of a court of competent jurisdiction contained in 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11).”  83 F. App’x at 639; see also Moore v. USPS, 609 F. Supp. 681, 682 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (assuming without explanation that state court subpoena, required by state law to be approved by judge, constituted proper subsection (b)(11) court order; issue of “competent jurisdiction” was not addressed).

In addition, at least one state court has ruled that it has “competent jurisdiction” to issue a subsection (b)(11) court order permitting the disclosure of a Privacy Act-protected record.  Tootle v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 468 So. 2d 237, 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984); cf. Saulter v. Mun. Court for the Oakland-Piedmont Judicial Dist., 142 Cal. App. 3d 266, 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (suggesting that state court can order state prosecutor to subpoena federal records for purpose of disclosing them to criminal defendant in discovery).

Agencies that construe state court orders as providing authority to disclose under subsection (b)(11) should be aware that compliance with such an order might be taken by a court as acquiescence to the court’s jurisdiction, notwithstanding applicable principles of sovereign immunity.

 

12. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(12) - Debt Collection Act
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records…except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless the disclosure would be—

…

(12) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711(e) of Title 31.”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(12).

Comment:

This disclosure exception was added to the original eleven exceptions by the Debt Collection Act of 1982.  It authorizes agencies to disclose bad-debt information to credit bureaus.  31 U.S.C. § 3711(e)(9)(F).  Before doing so, however, agencies must complete a series of due process steps designed to validate the debt and to offer the individual an opportunity to repay it.  See OMB Debt Collection Guidance, 48 Fed. Reg. 1,556, https://www.justice.gov/​paoverview_omb-83-dca.

 

Next Section: Accounting of Certain Disclosures

 
Updated February 16, 2021
Was this page helpful?
Yes No
en ESPAÑOL
Contact DOJ
Archive
Accessibility
Information Quality
Privacy Policy
Legal Policies & Disclaimers
Social Media
Budget & Performance
Office of the Inspector General
No FEAR Act
For Employees
FOIA
USA.gov
Vote.gov
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Quo Warranto,
This means "By What Authority", the best way to understand this is when you look at an everyday Warrant Situation. The 4th Amendment says no Unreasonable Search and Seizure, this has been interpreted to mean that when there is an investigation and enough information has been gathered from Public Sources to go to a Judge abd say "We think there may be a [Specific Thing], in a [Specific Location], based on this Evidence", and the Judge can then sign a Warrant for that thing to be Observed or Taken, this includes the Seizure of Persons. Tennessee v. Garner is the case Police Cite to Justify Murder, it actually says that because the Officer in Tennessee Blew a Hole in a Young Black Man's head for stealing a purse from a House and Running away, that now the Courts will adopt a stance that was already happening in Federal Agencies, which was to no longer follow the practice that Felonies constitute in any way whatsoever a "Dead or Alive" Warrant on the action of the Felony, and because Midemeanors and Felonies are now so similar and Arbitrarily made, that it is now much different than it was in the days of Gunslinging and Saloon Gunfights (apart from like the occasional Biker shootout instigated by the FBI nowadays), so committing a Felony doesn't Warrant Death, but instead being a threat.

So Tennessee v. Garner said that if a Violent Criminal is fleeing after an attack, there is a threat of bodily injury to others. So there is a question if force to be used now, and escalation, which at it's highest would be in response to someone running away with a gun in their hand. But that is why now we hear Police discussing Fear in Court, and being afraid that they would die, so they had to use force. Because that is the Standard.

So if we look at the Day to Day Warrant Situation, we are seeing a Judge Approving a Specific thing in a Specific Place to be Legally Seized or Observed, and Seizure includes any action by the Government to restrain your ability to move, as in arrest or detainment or Death. When the Cop comes to your door, you say "Do you have Warrant", and they show a Warrant. That is a Quo Warranto situation.

This is a Case where a Judicial Warrant was overturned for Broadness, it also can be illegal if it is a Malicious Warrant
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-704
MESSERSCHMIDT v. MILLENDER
Shelly Kelly was afraid that she would be attacked by her boyfriend, Jerry Ray Bowen, while she moved out of her apartment. She therefore requested police protection. Two officers arrived, but they were called away to an emergency. As soon as the officers left, Bowen showed up at the apartment, yelled “I told you never to call the cops on me bitch!” and attacked Kelly, attempting to throw her over a second-story landing. After Kelly escaped to her car, Bowen pointed a sawed-off shotgun at her and threatened to kill her if she tried to leave. Kelly nonetheless sped away as Bowen fired five shots at the car, blowing out one of its tires... Messerschmidt included two affidavits in the warrant application. The first detailed his extensive law enforcement experience and his specialized training in gang-related crimes. The second, expressly incorporated into the search warrant, described the incident and ex plained why Messerschmidt believed there was probable cause for the search. It also requested that the warrant be endorsed for night service because of Bowen’s gang ties. Before submitting the application to a magistrate for approval, Messerschmidt had it reviewed by his supervisor, Sergeant Robert Lawrence, as well as a police lieutenant and a deputy district attorney. Messerschmidt then submitted the application to a magistrate, who issued the warrant. The ensuing search uncovered only Millender’s shotgun, a California Social Services letter addressed to Bowen, and a box of .45-caliber ammunition.

When you file "Quo Warranto", you are just saying "Where is your Warrant", but not just in 4th Amendment situations. It means "By What Authority", and it can be filed against Companies, Agencies, etc, for them to prove by what legal Authority they are operating. This is also then used to Challenge Election Results, that is where you see it most now but it is not just for Elections.

If we look at the FISA Court we can see a Good Example, I will text everyone how to file against FISA later in this thread. But the Rules are basically that the Warrants have to be renewed with new Info every 6 months, and only allows for Surveillance. It was made to watch Foreign Terrorist operations in America. We can best actually see the purpose of the Court in its History. First it was Established in the 70s because the FBI was doing way to much, what Tupac called "Beyond the call of duty" when the Police Officer beat him in the Street for J-Walking. The FBI was just doing too much, and was trying to get Black Panthers to argue and were generally stopping what was being called a Revolution.

We can actually see this mindset of the FBI and how it is wrong if we first look at what was happening and what it meant. In the 60s there was the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, a Political Party. There was the Youth International Party, a Political Party associated with the "Up Against the Wall Motherfuckers", etc. The FBI was fighting the Formation of Political Parties, mainly in a McCarthyistic fight against Communist and Socialist Parties from forming.  This is what the FBI was doing, and then they also threw in the KKK for good measure so it wasn't Racist completely even though it was all Racial, even back to the Mobs and earlier. This was called COINTELPRO and they said they stopped doing it after that, and then said the hadn't been doing it long. But if you look at the Marcus Garvey FBI Vault, this is just what they do. The first Black FBI Agents became captain of, and crashed, the first Black Cruise Ship.

But this thing they were fighting is called a "New Party System", which means New Political Parties entering the System. We can see this in the Prohibitionist Party, the early Federalists, and Whigs (who became the Republicans under Lincoln). So that's what was happening in the 60s,
And the FBI stopped it,
So the FISA Court was created to stop them from doing things like that in America ever again. But then came 9/11 and the Patriot Act, and the Freedom Act, all bolstered by Bill Clinton's CALEA, which made it a Law for Cell Phone companies to make Bugging a Phone and listening in, etc, as easy as flipping a switch. The Patriot Act was used:

"To Protect us from Terror"...
"But also Drug Cartels are kinda epic, so we need the Army and Navy and National Guard in the Drug War"...
"And also we are investigating Trump"...
"And don't you remember we beat Edward Snowden and everyone enjoys us watching them now"


An SF-95, is how you declare the Government has Damaged you and prepare to sue under Federal Tort Law.

We will also be getting in to Texas Labor Laws and the CARES Act in this thread also.

I did not enter my hearing for my 04-15-21 Ruling wondering "Oh dear, I really hope I am owed money, I really wish to get something", I called in after waiting almost half a year for a hearing, and PROVED to the Judge I was owed money. And he agreed that I should have been paid, and I have not yet been paid.

I am not asking what can be gotten,
I am telling everyone how Distribution of COVID Relief money was completely messed up.

According to news articles from credible sources published in 2021. Billions in COVID relief was lost to fraud.


....


Its impossible to address this. Most don't follow current events closely enough to be aware things like this happen.

Once the funds have been misallocated, there usually isn't a method to retrieve them or have them returned.

Fraudsters typically reside in countries which do not extradite criminals to the USA to be prosecuted.

Long story short, it is very hard to address this.

Texas did it more the opposite,
They saw that happening and instead of taking your attitude that it was swindled, they decided that's what everyone was joining for. They blocked anyone not in a Payroll system, and then worked to put the Money in the Rainy Day Fund.

It is very hard, but not impossible, luckily I have been at this since March 2020 and have detailed records if everything, and alerted Investigators all along.

The Texas State Auditor has been Investigating for months. And so has the Federal GAO, and even the FBI.

This is part of the January 6th Insurrection, Texas Government was actually busy trying to kill Mike Pence while I was creating Records.

I was even already Investigating Ken Paxton and my Home Town before all of this

yah..  i call bs here.  when i see this amount of material combined with statments like "the government is forcing black females in to sex work"  what you have is conspiracy thinking at work. 

and i might be wrong.   but im probably not. 

If they continue not to pay everyone there will be Federal hearings. I will add Evidence now. Lots of links on the way.

We have records of Everything.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: El Sasha <mahatmajapa@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, June 7, 2021
Subject: Fwd: Texas is no Longer a Functioning State Re: TWC is Playing Games RE: LSC and LANWT have referred me to you
To: "pbarkhurst@bhlawpc.com" <pbarkhurst@bhlawpc.com>, "will.bardwell@splcenter.org" <will.bardwell@splcenter.org>, "mjbarkermeyer@gmail.com" <mjbarkermeyer@gmail.com>, "mlb@longlaw.com" <mlb@longlaw.com>, "cbarbour@blswlaw.com" <cbarbour@blswlaw.com>, "dale@baringerlawfirm.com" <dale@baringerlawfirm.com>, "danahbarbos@gmail.com" <danahbarbos@gmail.com>, "smbarber@mc.edu" <smbarber@mc.edu>, "Brennan@ou.edu" <Brennan@ou.edu>, "barbier@laed.uscourts.gov" <barbier@laed.uscourts.gov>, "michellebarfieldlaw@yahoo.com" <michellebarfieldlaw@yahoo.com>, "brett.barfield@hklaw.com" <brett.barfield@hklaw.com>, "mfd@tcm.law" <mfd@tcm.law>, "denise.barnett@usdoj.gov" <denise.barnett@usdoj.gov>, "cbarnes@malsi.org" <cbarnes@malsi.org>, "jwbarnet@yahoo.com" <jwbarnet@yahoo.com>, "bbarnes@rctlegal.com" <bbarnes@rctlegal.com>, "abarnes@wileyrein.com" <abarnes@wileyrein.com>, "bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com" <bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com>, "tijuana.barnes@udc.edu" <tijuana.barnes@udc.edu>, "marialyn.barnard@gmail.com" <marialyn.barnard@gmail.com>, "sajbarnes@comcast.net" <sajbarnes@comcast.net>, "sbarnes@fdh.com" <sbarnes@fdh.com>, "david.barlow@davidwbarlow.com" <david.barlow@davidwbarlow.com>, "roy@barneslawgroup.com" <roy@barneslawgroup.com>, "abarlow@kuchlerpolk.com" <abarlow@kuchlerpolk.com>, "jmbarne1@go.olemiss.edu" <jmbarne1@go.olemiss.edu>, "ronald.barliant@goldbergkohn.com" <ronald.barliant@goldbergkohn.com>, "hbarnes@allenbarneslaw.com" <hbarnes@allenbarneslaw.com>, "patrick@barkmanlawyer.com" <patrick@barkmanlawyer.com>, "crystal.barnes16@stjohns.edu" <crystal.barnes16@stjohns.edu>, "lbarkley@jeffersoncano.com" <lbarkley@jeffersoncano.com>, "barousse@bornewilkes.com" <barousse@bornewilkes.com>, "bobbybarrealaw@gmail.com" <bobbybarrealaw@gmail.com>, "EBARRERA@mmlk.com" <EBARRERA@mmlk.com>, "mtrowbridge@phjlaw.com" <mtrowbridge@phjlaw.com>, "neil@ngbaronlaw.com" <neil@ngbaronlaw.com>, "ibarras@iplawconsulting.com" <ibarras@iplawconsulting.com>, "pbb@pbarnettlaw.com" <pbb@pbarnettlaw.com>, "brooke@longlaw.com" <brooke@longlaw.com>, "lbarquist@boginmunns.com" <lbarquist@boginmunns.com>, "jeb61fulton@aol.com" <jeb61fulton@aol.com>, "jbartholomew@barneslawgroup.com" <jbartholomew@barneslawgroup.com>, "bbartholomew@sessions.legal" <bbartholomew@sessions.legal>, "dbarrios@bkc-law.com" <dbarrios@bkc-law.com>, "pcb@decof.com" <pcb@decof.com>, "bbarriere@fishmanhaygood.com" <bbarriere@fishmanhaygood.com>, "abarriere@huberslack.com" <abarriere@huberslack.com>, "fbarry@dkslaw.com" <fbarry@dkslaw.com>, "kbarrettwiik@bestlaw.com" <kbarrettwiik@bestlaw.com>, "lee@bcrlaw.net" <lee@bcrlaw.net>, "hbarrow@andrewsmyers.com" <hbarrow@andrewsmyers.com>, "barrett_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov" <barrett_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov>, "abarrett@haganbarrett.com" <abarrett@haganbarrett.com>, "ebarron@wtplaw.com" <ebarron@wtplaw.com>, "attorneys@thebartonlawfirm.com" <attorneys@thebartonlawfirm.com>, "rbarton@hfblaw.com" <rbarton@hfblaw.com>, "aeb@ccbattorneys.com" <aeb@ccbattorneys.com>, "bob.barton@taylorporter.com" <bob.barton@taylorporter.com>, "jtbarton@mix.wvu.edu" <jtbarton@mix.wvu.edu>, "emadisonwalker@gmail.com" <emadisonwalker@gmail.com>, "mbartley@uscourts.cavc.gov" <mbartley@uscourts.cavc.gov>, "kbartsch@ahn-law.com" <kbartsch@ahn-law.com>, "dbartlett@erisgrp.com" <dbartlett@erisgrp.com>, "eric.bartsch@stoel.com" <eric.bartsch@stoel.com>, "brad@mcallistergarfield.com" <brad@mcallistergarfield.com>, "wbauer@mail.stmarytx.edu" <wbauer@mail.stmarytx.edu>, "william.bates@farrar-bates.com" <william.bates@farrar-bates.com>, "ernie@ernestbauerlaw.com" <ernie@ernestbauerlaw.com>, "jgbates@phillipsmurrah.com" <jgbates@phillipsmurrah.com>, "rbaudouin@krebsfarley.com" <rbaudouin@krebsfarley.com>, "jbates@bakerlaw.com" <jbates@bakerlaw.com>, "wbaudoin@dartt.biz" <wbaudoin@dartt.biz>, "attorneybaten@gmail.com" <attorneybaten@gmail.com>, "kbattle@mokblaw.com" <kbattle@mokblaw.com>, "meredith.bateman@klgates.com" <meredith.bateman@klgates.com>, "mbateman@schiffhardin.com" <mbateman@schiffhardin.com>, "taylorb@mmrblaw.com" <taylorb@mmrblaw.com>, "sbassett@mbfc.com" <sbassett@mbfc.com>, "ana.batista@upr.edu" <ana.batista@upr.edu>, "fbassett@ndnlaw.com" <fbassett@ndnlaw.com>, "simeonhb@disputeresolve.com" <simeonhb@disputeresolve.com>, "sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com" <sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com>, "jebaxley@deloitte.com" <jebaxley@deloitte.com>, "rudy@boslaw.com" <rudy@boslaw.com>, "david.baum@alston.com" <david.baum@alston.com>, "ambautis@my.loyno.edu" <ambautis@my.loyno.edu>, "Suzanne_Bauknight@tneb.uscourts.gov" <Suzanne_Bauknight@tneb.uscourts.gov>, "bbauges@cu-portland.edu" <bbauges@cu-portland.edu>, "abauermeister@sbgblaw.com" <abauermeister@sbgblaw.com>, "william_bauer@ca7.uscourts.gov" <william_bauer@ca7.uscourts.gov>, "tbeach@wtplaw.com" <tbeach@wtplaw.com>, "beattycn@mail.uc.edu" <beattycn@mail.uc.edu>, "pinksalmon007@gmail.com" <pinksalmon007@gmail.com>, "Dbeach@beach-oswald.com" <Dbeach@beach-oswald.com>, "beasley@beasleylaw.net" <beasley@beasleylaw.net>, "lisa_bertinobeaser@nywb.uscourts.gov" <lisa_bertinobeaser@nywb.uscourts.gov>, "jbazile@glennarmentor.com" <jbazile@glennarmentor.com>, "barbara.bearnson@usdoj.gov" <barbara.bearnson@usdoj.gov>, "damonb@townsleylawfirm.com" <damonb@townsleylawfirm.com>, "abb@legalhawaii.com" <abb@legalhawaii.com>, "tjb@federmanlaw.com" <tjb@federmanlaw.com>, "ajbaynham@liskow.com" <ajbaynham@liskow.com>, "tbfg33@gmail.com" <tbfg33@gmail.com>, "kbbecker@liskow.com" <kbbecker@liskow.com>, "jackie.bechara@gmail.com" <jackie.bechara@gmail.com>, "bryon.becker@bakerbotts.com" <bryon.becker@bakerbotts.com>, "npbebov2002@yahoo.co.uk" <npbebov2002@yahoo.co.uk>, "bbecker938@aol.com" <bbecker938@aol.com>, "jamie@freetothrive.org" <jamie@freetothrive.org>, "abeaumont@perkinscoie.com" <abeaumont@perkinscoie.com>, "bbeauman@sturgillturner.com" <bbeauman@sturgillturner.com>, "rbeaulieu@mcguirewoods.com" <rbeaulieu@mcguirewoods.com>, "dbeck@beckredden.com" <dbeck@beckredden.com>, "pbeauchamp.law@gmail.com" <pbeauchamp.law@gmail.com>, "tim@bechtoldlaw.net" <tim@bechtoldlaw.net>, "judge_beaty@ncmd.uscourts.gov" <judge_beaty@ncmd.uscourts.gov>, "zachschanaron@gmail.com" <zachschanaron@gmail.com>, "lelandbegay@utemountain.org" <lelandbegay@utemountain.org>, "jeremyrbedford@gmail.com" <jeremyrbedford@gmail.com>, "bjb184@law.miami.edu" <bjb184@law.miami.edu>, "sandra_beckwith@ohsd.uscourts.gov" <sandra_beckwith@ohsd.uscourts.gov>, "pbeers@glennfeldmann.com" <pbeers@glennfeldmann.com>, "mike.beers@bultersnow.com" <mike.beers@bultersnow.com>, "michele.beckwith@usdoj.gov" <michele.beckwith@usdoj.gov>, "BBeers@beerslaw.net" <BBeers@beerslaw.net>, "beckwithj1989@gmail.com" <beckwithj1989@gmail.com>, "kbeckman@pipesmiles.com" <kbeckman@pipesmiles.com>, "Laurel_beeler@cand.uscourts.gov" <Laurel_beeler@cand.uscourts.gov>, "ab3448@mynsu.nova.edu" <ab3448@mynsu.nova.edu>, "ryan.beckett@butlersnow.com" <ryan.beckett@butlersnow.com>, "tjb3@beedemlaw.com" <tjb3@beedemlaw.com>, "stacie.beckerman@ord.uscourts.gov" <stacie.beckerman@ord.uscourts.gov>, "becker@chaffe.com" <becker@chaffe.com>, "mark.beebe@arlaw.com" <mark.beebe@arlaw.com>, "rbecker7@mail.stmarytx.edu" <rbecker7@mail.stmarytx.edu>, "acaciabellamy@gmail.com" <acaciabellamy@gmail.com>, "jbelkarce@yahoo.com" <jbelkarce@yahoo.com>, "ebelin@provostylaw.com" <ebelin@provostylaw.com>, "cbell@carltonfields.com" <cbell@carltonfields.com>, "tbell@irwinllc.com" <tbell@irwinllc.com>, "alfred.belcuore@belcuorelaw.com" <alfred.belcuore@belcuorelaw.com>, "rbell@mhba.com" <rbell@mhba.com>, "andre@manassehandgill.com" <andre@manassehandgill.com>, "nbell@my.loyno.edu" <nbell@my.loyno.edu>, "michaelleobell@gmail.com" <michaelleobell@gmail.com>, "ralph_beistline@akd.uscourts.gov" <ralph_beistline@akd.uscourts.gov>, "julie.bell@gunn-lee.com" <julie.bell@gunn-lee.com>, "martin.beirne@akerman.com" <martin.beirne@akerman.com>, "jbelljr@battslaw.com" <jbelljr@battslaw.com>, "lbehn001@fiu.edu" <lbehn001@fiu.edu>, "acofresilaw@gmail.com" <acofresilaw@gmail.com>, "rbengtson@benjestlaw.com" <rbengtson@benjestlaw.com>, "sbenford@gcrta.org" <sbenford@gcrta.org>, "henry_bemporad@txwd.uscourts.gov" <henry_bemporad@txwd.uscourts.gov>, "tbenedict@fbslawyers.com" <tbenedict@fbslawyers.com>, "abendana@lowestein.com" <abendana@lowestein.com>, "hbenavides@burnsandblack.com" <hbenavides@burnsandblack.com>, "bradleybellows@gmail.com" <bradleybellows@gmail.com>, "fortunato_benavides@ca5.uscourts.gov" <fortunato_benavides@ca5.uscourts.gov>, "benavidesax1@elpasotexas.gov" <benavidesax1@elpasotexas.gov>, "cbellini@bellinilaw.com" <cbellini@bellinilaw.com>, "abelleau@lawla.com" <abelleau@lawla.com>, "lawinfo@stjohns.edu" <lawinfo@stjohns.edu>, "maurice.bellan@bakermckenzie.com" <maurice.bellan@bakermckenzie.com>, "cbenach@irwinllc.com" <cbenach@irwinllc.com>, "ebennett@wc.com" <ebennett@wc.com>, "bbenn35@lsu.edu" <bbenn35@lsu.edu>, "jbenjamin@perrierlacoste.com" <jbenjamin@perrierlacoste.com>, "pbennett@reedsmith.com" <pbennett@reedsmith.com>, "emma.m.benjamin@gmail.com" <emma.m.benjamin@gmail.com>, "Lauren_Bennett@sulc.edu" <Lauren_Bennett@sulc.edu>, "jbennett@gunster.com" <jbennett@gunster.com>, "brock@brockmorganbenjamin.com" <brock@brockmorganbenjamin.com>, "erinr.bennett@yahoo.com" <erinr.bennett@yahoo.com>, "terrence.berg@mied.usco" <terrence.berg@mied.usco>, "ariel.anthony@huschblackwell.com" <ariel.anthony@huschblackwell.com>, "antcliff@aol.com" <antcliff@aol.com>, "jantonisse@millerandjohnson.com" <jantonisse@millerandjohnson.com>, "sonia@ansarilawfirm.com" <sonia@ansarilawfirm.com>, "salvador.antonetti@oneillborges.com" <salvador.antonetti@oneillborges.com>, "vantonetti@gaclaw.com" <vantonetti@gaclaw.com>, "tannweiler@greerherz.com" <tannweiler@greerherz.com>, "pantis@gamde.com" <pantis@gamde.com>, "gloria@anguslawfirm.com" <gloria@anguslawfirm.com>, "sangulo@amgprlaw.com" <sangulo@amgprlaw.com>, "dangulo@gcaklaw.com" <dangulo@gcaklaw.com>, "jandrophy@bafirm.com" <jandrophy@bafirm.com>, "rma@lcba-law.com" <rma@lcba-law.com>, "Judge_Richard_Andrews@ded.uscourts.gov" <Judge_Richard_Andrews@ded.uscourts.gov>, "tmichael.andrews@hotmail.com" <tmichael.andrews@hotmail.com>, "michael_m_anello@casd.uscourts.gov" <michael_m_anello@casd.uscourts.gov>, "msandrus@my.okcu.edu" <msandrus@my.okcu.edu>, "dargo4022@aol.com" <dargo4022@aol.com>, "Saundra_Armstrong@cand.uscourts.gov" <Saundra_Armstrong@cand.uscourts.gov>, "aston.m.armstrong-1@ou.edu" <aston.m.armstrong-1@ou.edu>, "mcaproposedtext@nmcourt.fed.us" <mcaproposedtext@nmcourt.fed.us>, "rareaux@carverdarden.com" <rareaux@carverdarden.com>, "jardoin@joneswalker.com" <jardoin@joneswalker.com>, "sarakaki@hi-lawyers.com" <sarakaki@hi-lawyers.com>, "archibald@garonhorton.com" <archibald@garonhorton.com>, "lynzi.archibald@millermartin.com" <lynzi.archibald@millermartin.com>, "blapt@aol.com" <blapt@aol.com>, "appel_elizabeth@yahoo.com" <appel_elizabeth@yahoo.com>, "gfarceneaux@gbsnola.com" <gfarceneaux@gbsnola.com>, "garceneaux@liskow.com" <garceneaux@liskow.com>, "iaponte@live.com" <iaponte@live.com>, "joanysaparicio@pucpr.edu" <joanysaparicio@pucpr.edu>, "allison.aoki@galiherlaw.com" <allison.aoki@galiherlaw.com>, "nancy_atlas@txs.uscourts.gov" <nancy_atlas@txs.uscourts.gov>, "ian@semmlaw.com" <ian@semmlaw.com>, "eatkinson@smu.edu" <eatkinson@smu.edu>, "jatwood@mcnsupremecourt.com" <jatwood@mcnsupremecourt.com>, "ratkins@sidley.com" <ratkins@sidley.com>, "John.Atkins@tklaw.com" <John.Atkins@tklaw.com>, "stephen.atwell@honolulu.gov" <stephen.atwell@honolulu.gov>, "dbreaux1@bellsouth.net" <dbreaux1@bellsouth.net>, "paulaadams113@gmail.com" <paulaadams113@gmail.com>, "cmattaway@my.okcu.edu" <cmattaway@my.okcu.edu>, "jra@ateslawfirm.com" <jra@ateslawfirm.com>, "Katelyn.Ashton@butlersnow.com" <Katelyn.Ashton@butlersnow.com>, "astorgno@law.unm.edu" <astorgno@law.unm.edu>, "justin.ashlock@alumni.ou.edu" <justin.ashlock@alumni.ou.edu>, "lashley@joneswalker.com" <lashley@joneswalker.com>, "dana.m.w.ashcraft@gmail.com" <dana.m.w.ashcraft@gmail.com>, "carys.arvidson@phelps.com" <carys.arvidson@phelps.com>, "arnold@lytlesoule.com" <arnold@lytlesoule.com>, "aaa@czwglaw.com" <aaa@czwglaw.com>, "martiles@estrellallc.com" <martiles@estrellallc.com>, "sharion_aycock@msnd.uscourts.gov" <sharion_aycock@msnd.uscourts.gov>, "kmb@lewisbabcock.com" <kmb@lewisbabcock.com>, "jaycock@porterhedges.com" <jaycock@porterhedges.com>, "jaycock@andrewsmyers.com" <jaycock@andrewsmyers.com>, "sayabe@gmail.com" <sayabe@gmail.com>, "joan_azrack@nyed.uscourts.gov" <joan_azrack@nyed.uscourts.gov>, "nawad@15jdido.net" <nawad@15jdido.net>, "lazebu@steptoe.com" <lazebu@steptoe.com>, "dean_aviles@dsdusa.org" <dean_aviles@dsdusa.org>, "michael.avery@mcafeetaft.com" <michael.avery@mcafeetaft.com>, "lea@shieldsmott.com" <lea@shieldsmott.com>, "leeayres@arklatexlaw.com" <leeayres@arklatexlaw.com>, "jauringer@posteo.net" <jauringer@posteo.net>, "maverill@irwinllc.com" <maverill@irwinllc.com>, "judge_auld@ncmd.uscourts.gov" <judge_auld@ncmd.uscourts.gov>, "giannicavalos@gmail.com" <giannicavalos@gmail.com>, "schrisauz@aol.com" <schrisauz@aol.com>, "aaughtry@bhbmlaw.com" <aaughtry@bhbmlaw.com>, "valerie.auger@mannmorrow.com" <valerie.auger@mannmorrow.com>, "raucoin@perrierlacoste.com" <raucoin@perrierlacoste.com>, "bbadalamenti93@gmail.com" <bbadalamenti93@gmail.com>, "bbacon@sbtribes.com" <bbacon@sbtribes.com>, "karitzamar.baez@gmail.com" <karitzamar.baez@gmail.com>, "nbacon@feldesmantucker.com" <nbacon@feldesmantucker.com>, "jbaer@baerlawllc.com" <jbaer@baerlawllc.com>, "kbacon@joneswalker.com" <kbacon@joneswalker.com>, "bachusa@superiorcourt.maricopa.gov" <bachusa@superiorcourt.maricopa.gov>, "abaer@fisherphillips.com" <abaer@fisherphillips.com>, "Judge_Robert_Bacharach@ca10.uscourts.gov" <Judge_Robert_Bacharach@ca10.uscourts.gov>, "jimmybaehr@gmail.com" <jimmybaehr@gmail.com>, "annabaecker22@gmail.com" <annabaecker22@gmail.com>, "lawrence.baca@yahoo.com" <lawrence.baca@yahoo.com>, "pababine@my.loyno.edu" <pababine@my.loyno.edu>, "jbabineaux@bpasfirm.com" <jbabineaux@bpasfirm.com>, "sbailey@bradley.com" <sbailey@bradley.com>, "mbahner@chamblisslaw.com" <mbahner@chamblisslaw.com>, "gbahnan@gmail.com" <gbahnan@gmail.com>, "rbailey@byulaw.net" <rbailey@byulaw.net>, "brookebahlinger@gmail.com" <brookebahlinger@gmail.com>, "charlotte.bahin@occ.treas.gov" <charlotte.bahin@occ.treas.gov>, "jbailey@baileyandbaileypc.com" <jbailey@baileyandbaileypc.com>, "ebailey@rsjg.com" <ebailey@rsjg.com>, "bagwell@carverdarden.com" <bagwell@carverdarden.com>, "jasonpaulbailey@gmail.com" <jasonpaulbailey@gmail.com>, "jbague@dtslaw.com" <jbague@dtslaw.com>, "drb@rushtonstakely.com" <drb@rushtonstakely.com>, "Joebagnell@gmail.com" <Joebagnell@gmail.com>, "cbailey@brunini.com" <cbailey@brunini.com>, "cbailey@baileybrauer.com" <cbailey@baileybrauer.com>, "babailey@mc.edu" <babailey@mc.edu>, "ellen@leydeckerlaw.com" <ellen@leydeckerlaw.com>, "mbalascio@barrassousdin.com" <mbalascio@barrassousdin.com>, "baker.megan@dorsey.com" <baker.megan@dorsey.com>, "ebalart@joneswalker.com" <ebalart@joneswalker.com>, "baker_ecf@scd.uscourts.gov" <baker_ecf@scd.uscourts.gov>, "jeffreybakst@fuse.net" <jeffreybakst@fuse.net>, "jbaker@greeneespel.com" <jbaker@greeneespel.com>, "debz.ca@gmail.com" <debz.ca@gmail.com>, "drassoff1776@yahoo.com" <drassoff1776@yahoo.com>, "william.baker@lw.com" <william.baker@lw.com>, "mark.baker@nortonrosefulbright.com" <mark.baker@nortonrosefulbright.com>, "Tim.Baker@justice.usdoj.gov" <Tim.Baker@justice.usdoj.gov>, "bbaker@parsonsbehle.com" <bbaker@parsonsbehle.com>, "ben.baker@beasleyallen.com" <ben.baker@beasleyallen.com>, "dbain@bain-law.com" <dbain@bain-law.com>, "lbaine3@pagekruger.com" <lbaine3@pagekruger.com>, "albalent@gmail.com" <albalent@gmail.com>, "dballina@hellerdraper.com" <dballina@hellerdraper.com>, "bballay@bakerdonelson.com" <bballay@bakerdonelson.com>, "keith_ball@mssd.uscourts.gov" <keith_ball@mssd.uscourts.gov>, "jbaldini@fedbar.org" <jbaldini@fedbar.org>, "jbalhoff@shergarner.com" <jbalhoff@shergarner.com>, "balhoff@pbmbllc.com" <balhoff@pbmbllc.com>, "marybethbalcerak@yahoo.com" <marybethbalcerak@yahoo.com>, "Lcda.camachocamacho@gmail.com" <Lcda.camachocamacho@gmail.com>, "mbanerjee@jd19.law.harvard.edu" <mbanerjee@jd19.law.harvard.edu>, "bbarbash@willkie.com" <bbarbash@willkie.com>, "muqadas-barbar@tourolaw.edu" <muqadas-barbar@tourolaw.edu>, "tebandstra@gmail.com" <tebandstra@gmail.com>, "ebambrick@liskow.com" <ebambrick@liskow.com>, "kbanville@rodey.com" <kbanville@rodey.com>, "dmbanov@charlestonlaw.edu" <dmbanov@charlestonlaw.edu>, "sbalogh@17thcircuit.illinoiscourts.gov" <sbalogh@17thcircuit.illinoiscourts.gov>, "jbanks@bw-firm.com" <jbanks@bw-firm.com>, "barryb@flboardcertifiedlawyer.com" <barryb@flboardcertifiedlawyer.com>, "daniel.balmori@hoganlovells.com" <daniel.balmori@hoganlovells.com>, "abalmanno@agutah.com" <abalmanno@agutah.com>, "emmawballs@gmail.com" <emmawballs@gmail.com>




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021
Subject: Texas is no Longer a Functioning State Re: TWC is Playing Games
To: "eric.johnson@dallascityhall.com" <eric.johnson@dallascityhall.com>


People deserve now not just what they are owed under American Relief Act, and Pandemic Acts, but Damages and Interest. Punitive Awards.

States should be Punished for not releasing COVID relief Grant Funds. Especially in Texas, where we had a Blizzard

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
IDme, FEMA and DOL, are about to get hit with a Class Action Quo Warranto.

On Sunday, May 30, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
We now have plenty of people for a Class Action, we will file next week.

On Saturday, May 29, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
We do not negotiate with Terrorists, We want every Dime of everyone's money.

On Friday, May 28, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
Btw,
Ken Paxton sued a bunch of States to Justify Murder on Jan 6th, and Trump's own Judges said Ken was a dipshit, so probably ignore him.

On Friday, May 28, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
Evidence,
Dallas Courts are Non-Functional

We have to go to the UN or IACHR if they don't stop it.

On Thursday, May 27, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
Because we got Texas to start paying out Rental Assistance, even though we personally were waiting since August and watched Evictions happen all year, there never was much of a CDC moratorium in Texas, that was a joke the CDC made.

But because we, my Husband and I, finally got them moving. We can now afford to get IDs, we are going tomorrow and can get my ID done, releasing my $10,000, but they still owe my Husband $20,000 after that.

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
The follow up to this case is going to be:

Van Kush
v.
Texas AG, Dallas County Court Clerks, Idme, TechSoup, Facebook and the Department of Labor

Under 1st Amendment, 14th, 1983, 242/243, Unfair Trade and Racism & Cruel and Unusual Homeless Treatment

And Slander for calling us Angry

On Thursday, May 20, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
Van Kush v. USA is not a request for Charity. We are owed money from Unemployment all the way back to March 2020, that is our money.

Texas is mad, because they put our $600.00 weekly payments in their Rainy Day fund, and we are taking it out.

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
Texas has been attempting to put Black and Mexican money in the Rainy Day Fund. This is not an innocent mistake, and IDme is negligent at this point, we warned them for months before all these people flooded them with problems. They neglected us.

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
We've been waiting since Easter.

https://mobile.twitter.com/IDme/status/1392241652509589509
Hello! We are experiencing higher than normal wait times due to the high volume of users that require assistance. Please bare with us during this time. Please DM us the email address linked to your IDme account if you would like us to pre-review your documents while you wait.

On Saturday, May 8, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
This is very Narrow,
We are asking:

1. My ID be looked at, as ID.me and Myself have requested of the State, releasing what is now $10,000 of Requested Payments. The State just can't figure out how IDs work, it's that simple

2. My Husband's Appeals ruling, that he waited from September when the Appeal was filed, to April 15th when they finally had the hearing; to simply now be applied. We now, after all that, can't get a TWC agent on the phone to apply the Ruling.

All the stuff Ken Paxton is defending himself from is later, Van Kush family v. USA is a very Narrow case.

1. I need my ID checked
2. TWC can't answer phone because Ken Paxton screwed over so many people. We just need them to read their own Ruling

600,000 people basically trying to call in all at once, all year. That Lawsuit comes later.

On Saturday, May 8, 2021, Kali Palmpay <hollywoodpalmpay@gmail.com> wrote:
Texas Government and former Military now Contractors in Texas, are investigating us so they can be near Harry Heins Rd.


On Thursday, May 6, 2021, Sasha Gallagher <wearemckinneytexas@gmail.com> wrote:


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sasha Gallagher <wearemckinneytexas@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2021
Subject: WARNING: TX CODE 37.10 Read it
To: "bbtorres@teajf.org" <bbtorres@teajf.org>, "astone@txbf.org" <astone@txbf.org>, "matkinson@yourhonor.com" <matkinson@yourhonor.com>, "info@legalethicstexas.com" <info@legalethicstexas.com>, "jbuck@texaslegal.org" <jbuck@texaslegal.org>, "affidavits@ethics.state.tx.us" <affidavits@ethics.state.tx.us>, "treasappoint@ethics.state.tx.us" <treasappoint@ethics.state.tx.us>, "formsecurity@ethics.state.tx.us" <formsecurity@ethics.state.tx.us>, "opinions@ethics.state.tx.us" <opinions@ethics.state.tx.us>, "public_comments@ethics.state.tx.us" <public_comments@ethics.state.tx.us>, "sworncomplaints@ethics.state.tx.us" <sworncomplaints@ethics.state.tx.us>, "federalbar.southflorida@gmail.com" <federalbar.southflorida@gmail.com>, "chapters@fedbar.org" <chapters@fedbar.org>, "fba.southtx@gmail.com" <fba.southtx@gmail.com>, "tammy_shipley@txnd.uscourts.gov" <tammy_shipley@txnd.uscourts.gov>, Rangers <rangers@dps.texas.gov>, "txcrimestoppers@gov.texas.gov" <txcrimestoppers@gov.texas.gov>, "tdex@gov.texas.gov" <tdex@gov.texas.gov>, "sumer.wassef@dps.texas.gov" <sumer.wassef@dps.texas.gov>, "martha.horn@dps.texas.gov" <martha.horn@dps.texas.gov>, "david.knight@dps.texas.gov" <david.knight@dps.texas.gov>, "donna.fullilove@dps.texas.gov" <donna.fullilove@dps.texas.gov>, "roxanne.mata@dps.texas.gov" <roxanne.mata@dps.texas.gov>, "ragan@mckinneytexas.org" <ragan@mckinneytexas.org>, "jbrownrigg@co.collin.tx.us" <jbrownrigg@co.collin.tx.us>, "sasher@collincountytx.gov" <sasher@collincountytx.gov>, "ahatch@co.collin.tx.us" <ahatch@co.collin.tx.us>, "mselman@collincountytx.gov" <mselman@collincountytx.gov>, "pcundiff@collincountytx.gov" <pcundiff@collincountytx.gov>, "mlangan@collincountytx.gov" <mlangan@collincountytx.gov>, "Contact-pdadmin@mckinneytexas.org" <Contact-pdadmin@mckinneytexas.org>, "Contact-pdcid@mckinneytexas.org" <Contact-pdcid@mckinneytexas.org>, "Contact-pdpatrol@mckinneytexas.org" <Contact-pdpatrol@mckinneytexas.org>, "Contact-pdisd@mckinneytexas.org" <Contact-pdisd@mckinneytexas.org>, "Lauren.Rodriguez@gov.texas.gov" <Lauren.Rodriguez@gov.texas.gov>, "Andrew.Friedrichs@gov.texas.gov" <Andrew.Friedrichs@gov.texas.gov>, "Judy.Switzer@gov.texas.gov" <Judy.Switzer@gov.texas.gov>, "Aimee.Snoddy@gov.texas.gov" <Aimee.Snoddy@gov.texas.gov>, "Askovc@ncjrs.gov" <Askovc@ncjrs.gov>, "Info@txvsa.org" <Info@txvsa.org>, "Kelsea.monk@dallascityhall.com" <Kelsea.monk@dallascityhall.com>, "Krissi.boulom@dallascityhall.com" <Krissi.boulom@dallascityhall.com>, "victim.svc@tdcj.texas.gov" <victim.svc@tdcj.texas.gov>, "Jlee2@mckinneytexas.org" <Jlee2@mckinneytexas.org>, "const4@collincountytx.gov" <const4@collincountytx.gov>, "const3@collincountytx.gov" <const3@collincountytx.gov>, "const2@collincountytx.gov" <const2@collincountytx.gov>, "const1@collincountytx.gov" <const1@collincountytx.gov>, "cclclerks@collincountytx.gov" <cclclerks@collincountytx.gov>, "TexFile-cclclerks@collincountytx.gov" <TexFile-cclclerks@collincountytx.gov>, "lawlib@collincountytx.gov" <lawlib@collincountytx.gov>, "records@collincountytx.gov" <records@collincountytx.gov>, "disaster@leo.gov" <disaster@leo.gov>, "OklahomaCity@fbi.gov" <OklahomaCity@fbi.gov>, "angie.mccown@tdcj.texas.gov" <angie.mccown@tdcj.texas.gov>, Mary McCaffity <mary.mccaffity@tdcj.texas.gov>, "tamara.stockton@tdcj.texas.gov" <tamara.stockton@tdcj.texas.gov>, "amanda.gage@tdcj.texas.gov" <amanda.gage@tdcj.texas.gov>, PD VictimServices <pdvictimservices@plano.gov>, "AskDOJ@usdoj.gov" <AskDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "policechief@plano.gov" <policechief@plano.gov>, "dancu@plano.gov" <dancu@plano.gov>, "bradf@plano.gov" <bradf@plano.gov>, "mprice@plano.gov" <mprice@plano.gov>, "curtish@plano.gov" <curtish@plano.gov>, "gleyko@plano.gov" <gleyko@plano.gov>, "jasonc@plano.gov" <jasonc@plano.gov>, "stevec@plano.gov" <stevec@plano.gov>, "dannyp@plano.gov" <dannyp@plano.gov>, "miket@plano.gov" <miket@plano.gov>, "sandrat@plano.gov" <sandrat@plano.gov>, "courtneyn@plano.gov" <courtneyn@plano.gov>, "wesg@plano.gov" <wesg@plano.gov>, "dannya@plano.gov" <dannya@plano.gov>, "Tcunningham@friscotexas.gov" <Tcunningham@friscotexas.gov>, "Hcochran@friscotexas.gov" <Hcochran@friscotexas.gov>, "Robnettm@co.grayson.tx.us" <Robnettm@co.grayson.tx.us>, "

I think this is not just in Texas but all around the world. Many people in any government, monarch, or any type of government are using the supposed funds for certain types of events, like the pandemic, to their pockets. Indeed, many people have died to prevent the stopping of that kind of operation. Is there even a way to stop all of this corruption?

I will continue to post Evidence and everything about the Labor Law, and Evidence that Money is being Withheld, and we can get into Ken Paxton and Collin County,

And we will be getting deep into Law in this thread,
But I want to point out here that thid skepticism express ed that I "might be wrong", and it "seems like conspiracy talk", that is very tame for the internet. So I just want to say for the benefit of the reader now, so it does not become derailed, this is not a crazy challenge to me compared to most of the internet to everything else on the internet.


There is probably a lot going on everywhere.

We have the IACHR, check for your counterpart and start getting on record.

There are hearings also so you can find the date by looking for the meeting dates and signing up. So we can start to get ths discussed, I'll get a video now.

https://www.corteidh.or.cr/como_acceder_al_sistema.cfm?lang=en

I can help people file cases and Writs in their Country.

I want everyone to start cases about things who need to. I am filing Ethics stuff and everything.

I have financial records on Judges, and I have records of the DEA watching me instead of Granting Exemption, the being part of the Colombia part of this. The NSA and FBI have records of me, there are places called like NSA CCS, or CSS centers. And I wrote a Protest guide like 6 years ago before Ferguson, maybe more than 6.

I left Texas to go to Colorado on a FAFSA for a Semester in 2017, I was my Mom's house for a week, and FBI agents came to ask if I wanted to start a Revolution.

This case shows how Attainder works,
Board of Medical Examiners v. Nzedu, 228 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. App. 2007)
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2357115/board-of-medical-examiners-v-nzedu/

Scientology in Court
United States v. ARTICLE OR DEVICE, ETC., 333 F. Supp. 357 (D.D.C. 1971)

The Drug Enforcement Agency has confirmed it is investigating a wild night in Rotterdam, in which sources say an agent drank too much, stripped naked, pooped on the door of another agent’s hotel room — yet avoided arrest.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dea-agent-strips-naked-defecates-in-front-of-another-agents-hotel-room-sources-say

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/541551-dea-suspends-agent-seen-outside-capitol-during-riot

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/pharoahs-owner-charged-with-bribing-dea-agent-as-feds-investigate-buffalo-mafia/article_6d9d428e-7abc-11eb-b85d-fbc423a29063.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/standout-dea-agent-conspired-drug-cartel-73010095

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/retired-dea-agents-agency-legacy-discrimination-71326557

https://www.nola.com/news/courts/article_0fc2a2a2-13de-11eb-8aed-b30e74bdb80f.amp.html

https://sanangelolive.com/news/crime/2020-09-11/former-dea-agent-arrested-attempting-sell-massive-amount-cocaine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/15/mexico-security-law-dea-agents-us

https://www.live5news.com/2020/05/01/ap-dea-agent-accused-stealing-ppe-agency-warehouse/



Cooper v. Pate, 378 US 545 (1964); Mustafaa v. Dutton, 958 F 2d 372 (6th Cir 1992); Africa v. Commonwealth, 662 F2d 1025 (3rd Cir 1981); Utah v. Mooney, 20010787 (2004 UT 49); Olsen V DEA 878 F.2d 1458 (1989); Washington v. Sessions, et al 1:17-cv-05625; MARK PERKEL v. US DOJ, DEA 08-74457 (2009)

We are suing Texas for Slander, Cruel and Unusual Homeless Punishment, and a Class Action for IDme issues, and Facebook's behavior together with the Texas Tea Party QAnon-ers

Gang Injunctions needed, Particularly in Texas
https://m.facebook.com/123488374379680/posts/3698658190195996/

Pastor Jeffers is basically the Original QAnonShaman, and Ken Paxton along with Sydney Powell made Trump think the other States and SCOTUS were stealing from him.


The article in the link is from the below lawyer's friend, and it is about how much poor people love going to court with no lawyers. I had the LSC and DOJ look at this and the FBI is investigating.


1 Attorney:
https://www.cowlesthompson.com/index.php?section=news-and-events&prrid=214&catid=2

His partner in Law:


2010-06-07 slc - Kirsten Clanton IMG_0884_175x150.pngKirsten Anderson -  Litigation Director       Pronouns: She, her, hers

 

Ms. Anderson joined Southern Legal Counsel in 2007 as a staff attorney and became the organization's Litigation Director in 2016.  She litigates complex civil rights cases in state and federal trial and appellate courts and in administrative forums.  Since 2007, she has directed SLC's Ending Homelessness Project which utilizes litigation, policy advocacy, community education and outreach to remove legal barriers to ending homelessness.  She is a frequently invited speaker on social justice issues, particularly on the civil and human rights of homeless individuals.

Ms. Anderson is a member of The Florida Bar, and the bars of the U.S. Middle, Southern and Northern District Courts of Florida and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She is a Past Chair of the Public Interest Law Section (PILS) of The Florida Bar and is a past chair of the PILS Committee on Homelessness.  Prior to joining SLC, she worked as an associate at a private law firm specializing in immigration and nationality law.

Ms. Anderson received her J.D. with honors (2005); M.A. in Latin American Studies (2005); and B.A. in Spanish with honors (2001), all from the University of Florida. In 2009, she received the Outstanding Young Alumnus Award from the University of Florida Alumni Association.


On Sunday, May 9, 2021, Sasha Gallagher <wearemckinneytexas@gmail.com> wrote:
And I work for a Tyler Technologies competitor btw.

Part of this is Ken Paxton and others stealing Trade Secrets. I'm not some bum off the street.

On Thursday, May 6, 2021, Sasha Gallagher <wearemckinneytexas@gmail.com> wrote:
This is the Criminal Investigation into Bob Davis, but his office is not in McKinney, it is in Richardson/Dallas.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sasha Gallagher <wearemckinneytexas@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, April 12, 2021
Subject: Re: Collin County Police Report #20023116
To: "ragan@mckinneytexas.org" <ragan@mckinneytexas.org>, "jbrownrigg@co.collin.tx.us" <jbrownrigg@co.collin.tx.us>, "sasher@collincountytx.gov" <sasher@collincountytx.gov>, "ahatch@co.collin.tx.us" <ahatch@co.collin.tx.us>, "mselman@collincountytx.gov" <mselman@collincountytx.gov>, "pcundiff@collincountytx.gov" <pcundiff@collincountytx.gov>, "mlangan@collincountytx.gov" <mlangan@collincountytx.gov>


Greg Abbott lied to the FBI 11 years ago to put her in Jail https://mobile.twitter.com/taygoldenstein/status/1375077428557664258

On Monday, April 6, 2020, Sasha Gallagher <wearemckinneytexas@gmail.com> wrote:
The Transcript from Jan 23rd is now being demanded by a 5th COA Judge in the Dallas appeals court. Please review Andrew Hatch's error, because it will be laid plain in Court soon and I would like the Police to be accurate.



On Tuesday, April 27, 2021, Sasha Gallagher <wearemckinneytexas@gmail.com> wrote:


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sasha Gallagher <wearemckinneytexas@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, May 28, 2020
Subject: Collin County
To: "const4@collincountytx.gov" <const4@collincountytx.gov>, "const3@collincountytx.gov" <const3@collincountytx.gov>, "const2@collincountytx.gov" <const2@collincountytx.gov>, "const1@collincountytx.gov" <const1@collincountytx.gov>


I personally had never thought of Collin County as a particularly corrupt place, until my experience with Kerrie Walker. In 2010 I wanted to explain my Religion in Court, to explain how the Collin County Police and Narcotics Sergeant came to my house with no warrant, broke in after looking through the front door window and seeing me walk upstairs, then arresting me for having Religious Materials. My first attorney wouldn't let me use a Religious Defense and I still didn't assume it was corrupt, so I asked him to remove himself from my case and he wrote a nasty letter to the Judge. Then, Kerrie Walker was my Public Defender, and because of her actions on my case I fled the state to go learn about my Rights. I still didn't necessarily assume corruption.

After I left, there was a Scandal with a City Manager firing the Police Cheif on YouTube and inventing high paying jobs for his friends

Jason Gray
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/mckinney/headlines/20140225-embattled-mckinney-city-manager-jason-gray-resigns1.ece
Jason Cooley
Ty Lake
Joe Williams
Todd Philips
Cheree Bontrager
Geralyn Kever

Then, upon my return in 2015 and reading my 2010 Court documents, I started Googling Kerrie Walker and learned about her Resignation from the CCDAO, and then by that time she had also let her Bar License expire, meaning she was no longer an Attorney.

This was a very small instance of Corruption involving 2 people. You could even say in a sense that Kerrie is herself a Victim of the Corruption of Collin County and she was just "doing what everyone was doing".
Kerrie Walker
Curtis Howard (former FBI Agent)

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2009/11/02/hot-links-why-was-collin-dwi-case-aborted/

I then began to look a little deeper, it was 2015/16. So I starting Googling and found that Rick Perry was under pressure for abuse of office. And he may not have explicitly abused his office there, but the instance shows the attitude of Texas Politicians.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.39.htm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry_veto_controversy

Rick Perry
Kirk Watson
Mary Ann Wiley
David L Botsford

Then I discovered the Judges of Collin County. Collin County Judges have a sweet tooth for corrupt Judicial activity. The Roaches have illegally used the Clerks for Political Campaigning (Cynthia Wheless has the Clerks listed as her Campaign Treasurers, and it is probably just normal in Collin County) which was a big scandal because it is illegal. Judge Sandoval is a gem, with a non-FDA Approved Addiction Miracle Cure with a 70% success rate (including the people it killed).

John Roach
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/in-the-collin-county-courthouse-due-process-has-a-funny-way-of-expressing-itself-payback-personal-vendettas-and-overzealous-prosecutions-6420961
http://www.petition2congress.com/17145/impeach-judge-john-roach
Judge Sandoval
http://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2009/december/the-worst-judge-in-dallas-county
Judge Roach Jr.
Patricia Wysong Crigger
Hannah Kunkle
Rebecca Littrell
Sherry Bell

Then, Ken Paxton was booked in the Collin County Jail literally 1 week before I intended to turn myself in for my Religious case. So I started looking into Ken Paxton. My Stepmom knew him, and was going to his Political events, and his arrest became a big deal across Texas.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/09/ken-paxton-hires-terri-moore-dan-cogdell-to-lead-defense-team.html/

When I looked into him, I found just a wealth of corruption. Ken Paxton is the Low Hanging Fruit in this Investigation. He is almost like a figurehead, with so many actions, payments, signatures, arrests, etc, imenating from him that he literally argues when Investigated "I can't keep track of all my investments" and they stop investigating him for writing Laws that benefit his companies. He doesn't even personally have knowledge of many of the corrupt actions being taken in his name.

Ken Paxton
Eldorado-Collin L.P.
Cornerstone Development
Chicago Title Insurance Co.
Collin County Appraisal District
Unity Resources LLC
WatchGuard Video
Enforcement Video LP
Greg Willis
Don Day
Byron Cook
Anthony Holm
Dan Cogdell
Terri Moore
Ted Cruz
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/12/25/year-texas-politics/
Dan Patrick
Howard Hamilton
Judge Willis
Servergy Inc.
William Mapp
Joel Hochberg


Everything below this point was written in 2016, and I am currently getting the Investigation Documents from the FBI Investgation into the Collin County District Attorney, which Federal Court Records in the Judge Suzzane Wooten Case (where they charged a Judge with 5 felonies and ruined her life because she wasn't in line with them Politically) which states that the FBI Criminal Investigation into them ended Aug 28th, 2010 when the CCDAO told the FBI that they were legitimately bringing charges on Suzzane Wooten, which was a lie as can be clearly seen in the 2018 Wooten Case.

Once I have those records and Financial Records of various Judges I will update this further.

__________________________________


Dwayne Henderson

David Dewhurst
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dewhurst

Rick Perry threatened to, and did because if personal disputes with other officials, use his office to veto otherwise passable bills and coerced an official into resignation.

Ken Paxton & Byron Cook voted for spending bills that gave state business WatchGuard video which they own stock in. Byron Cook is on the board of WatchGuard and Ken Paxton helped form the company and loaned it money. WatchGuard was contracted to provide cameras to McKinney Police.

El Dorado-Collin, a company Ken Paxton and Greg Willis are partners in, bought land from North Dallas Loan and Trust, then lobbied to rezone it. Days after rezoning it sold the land to Cornerstone development who used a company Ken Paxton has interest in called Chicago Title Insurance Co., cornerstone then sold the land to Mckinney's appraisal district, who Paxton was aware the whole time wanted to buy the land.

1 Grand Jury in Collin county has:
5 members from one church, the pastor is the Foreman, 2 associate pastors are jurors and 2 more church members are on the same jury. One juror hosted a fund raiser for Greg Willis in her home and donated to Ken Paxton's campaign, one supported Greg Willis' campaign. 2 have served on the executive committee of the Collin county Republican Party.

2nd Grand Jury in Collin county:
The foreman and vice foreman were actively involved in Ken Paxton's campaign.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19801200446US754_11169/HANRAHAN%20v.%20HAMPTON


WatchGuard Video cameras were shown on KPLC news April 19, 2016 while promoting Local Senator Ronnie Johns proposed Bill 398 that would restrict public records laws. The bill is supported by CPDA John DeRosier. Who is WatchGuard Video (Enforcement Video, LLC) from Allen, TX? WatchGuard identified over $1.8 Billion in grant money available for the camera. Records show Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton helped form the company and loaned it money. Paxton is currently under Federal Indictment for multiple fraud and securities criminal matters. The Texas Constitution bars legislators from benefitting “directly or indirectly” from contracts authorized by the Legislature. As of his latest available personal financial disclosure form in 2014, he continues to own an interest.  

Paxton voted in favor of spending bills that authorized a DPS contract, even though he had an ownership stake in the company. The company won a contract worth at least $10 million to supply the DPS. The company has also received $1 Million in Federal economic stimulus money. Some have complained that the bid was written in a way to assure that Watchguard would get the contract.  

According to a 12 year Veteran officer and user of the camera, The problem with the cameras is that they didn’t match up to the competition. WatchGuard failed frequently and featured much weaker safeguards against unauthorized editing of footage.  

http://www.kplctv.com/story/31767172/local-law-enforcement-supports-bill-to-keep-some-body-cam-videos-off-limits?clienttype=generic&sf24682555=1

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/10/18/texas-republican-caucus-condemns-their-own-house-speaker-but-does-not-call-for-resignation/

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



I have been dealing with the DEA for years now

First, the Case in Austin. I filed against the DEA and Mallinckdrodt, pointing to Normaco v. DEA and the Johnson Mathey DOJ Anti-Trust Memo, and the 2016 opening of Federal Marijuana Registration, in order to sue the DEA for their Marijuana Monopoly (which is what the Anti-Trust Memo calls the Cocaine Manufacturers and the DEA working together in such a small protected group) and the Magistrate Judge took about 2 weeks to respond, and gave a very Thorough 14 Page point-by-point statment about how I didn't have "Standing" for any of the Claims that were being made, the main citation for their argument was AT&T or Comcast Case where someone tried to sue them for being a Monopoly, but gave a very detailed opinion from the Court about what you need to sue a Company or Government Agency. Mainly, you need to have already contacted them about the problem, or be able to prove directly that you were damaged by the  Monopoly.

So I did more research, because the Monopoly did kill my brother, Jail me for my Religion as a kid, and actually prevents me from opening any kind of Temple, and I know more people can make the same claims. Then I filed in Dallas, and I filed against the DEA, and the US Attorney General. That Court put it on Hold "Pending Review", then didn't do anything for a Year. Then almost 1 whole Year after I filed, I got an ECF E-Filing Account with the Dallas Federal Court, and began filing, specifically asking them to "Show Cause" why they had not done anything, and to Enstate a "Class" in the Case. A "Class" is a group of people that was effected separately or together by the same entity. Like the "Working Class" or "Upper Class" are good ways to think of "Classes". So when I did that, the Magistrate responded, not in 14 days, but after 1 whole year (it took him a few weeks to respond which made it a whole year), and wrote a 2 Page response stating that the DEA has Immunity and can not be sued, and said that Agents of the DEA must be named as Defendants, not the DEA itself. 2 Pages, not 14 Pages, after 1 Year, not 14 Days. Citing Bivens,a Case from before the DEA existed, Bivens v. 6 Unknown Named Agents was against the Federal Buerae of Narcotics, which was dispanded to create the FDA and the FBI. I was given 2 weeks to respond, and along with responding (citing Cases where the DEA is the Defendant), I sent a request for Writ of Mandamus to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (the Court above the Dallas Federal Court), requesting that the Case either be moved forward in the Dallas Court, or moved to Colorado as my brother's Death Certificate is in Colorado, or to take the Case themselves. After my 2 week response period, the Dallas Court took about 1 extra week to say that they were going to do what the Magistrate Suggested, and dismissed the Case without Prejudice, so it could be brought again with New Defendants Listed. That is all they wanted was new Defendants.

But I was in Colorado already by that time, and I decided to just move forward in the Colorado Federal Court, and contact the DEA Pharmacuetical Registration email, the ODLP@USDOJ.gov email, and asked them how to do it right, how to get the same exemption as the Native America Peyote Church, and the Santo Diame Church which uses Ayahuasca, and the Temple of True Inner Light who use DPT. And they sent me a PDF that gave Guidelines as to how to Petition the DEA for an Exemption under the RFRA and in line with the Gonzales v. O Centro decision in 2006. So then I sent in a Petition, in October 2017, but called the DEA Registration Hotline number (I forget the number but you can find it online) and told them that Joe Ranicizzi was listed as the Contact in the Guidelines, but that he no longer worked for the DEA and was actually suing the DEA himself for causing the Opiod Crisis, and they eventually got back to me and told me to send it to Demetra Ashley, who was working in that position now. So I sent it to her, and I never got any kind of confirmation that anything was happening. And in February 2018, Demetra Ashley left the DEA and retired.

So I contacted the USDA and DEA and a few other Agencies FOIAs, and then eventually found out that Susan A Gibson had taken the place of Demetra Ashley, so I then asked all of those FOIA people and  everyone to forward everything I had previously sent to the DEA and Demetra Ashley, to Susan A Gibson. And then I got a response about 2 Months ago from James "Jim" Arnold, stating that my Petition had been recieved, and that it was under review. I then mailed the DEA an Unschuled Substance, 4-OH--MiPT, which is the Lord God Soma by the interpretation of our Temple after the Death of Dr. Sasha Shulgin and asked them to do NMR Forensics Testing on everything, the same as the Austin PD had done previously when the Seized a bunch of Religious Materials from me, and had to return everything 6 Months Later. I then called them, and told them that I sent them a white Powder for Forensics Testing, in a Letter, that explained everything and asked them to do Forensics Testing. They then called me, and I missed the call, so I called them back and they told me that you can not send white Powders to Federal Buildings, to I explained everything and they said it was fine this time, but not to do it again; they then told me that they would call me the following Tuesday and give me a Timeline for a response to my Petition. I emailed them Bonds v. United States (2014), and they dropped the subject and never brought it up again, and I asked James "Jim" Arnold what was going on, and why I wasn't called Tuesday, and he said that my Petition was "Under Review".

So now, I am suing Jim Arnold, and the DEA. Asking them to respond, using Olsen v. DEA (1985) as the process they should be following.

And the 5th Circuit Court sent me a letter about the Dallas Cas this week, saying that I need to send in the Paperwork that they sent to me along with the letter about my Case, and that my Writ of Mandamus would move foward.

So both of those Cases are going to be on the Docket this week, and that is where we are.

The Spirit of the Laws
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/montesquieu-complete-works-vol-1-the-spirit-of-laws

ULTRA VIRES;
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969); United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. _ (2012)

Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, Nos. 03-71366, 03-71693 (2004)
"We have previously held that the definition of “THC” in Schedule I refers only to synthetic THC, and that any THC occurring naturally within Cannabis is banned only if it falls within the Schedule I definition of “marijuana.”...We reiterate that ruling here: in accordance with Schedule I, the DEA's relevant rules and regulations may be enforced only insofar as they ban the presence of marijuana or synthetic THC."

Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987)
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1979)
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 522 F. Supp. 140 (N.D. Ill. 1981)
United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953)
Craker v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 09-1220 (1st Cir. 2013)
Nevada v. Hicks,533 U.S. 353 (2001)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5 (1925)
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
Gonzales v. O Centro, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
Washington v. Sessions, et al 1:17-cv-05625
Gallagher v. DEA et al 3:2017cv00734
In re: RYAN GALLAGHER 18-10407
Gallagher v. Rosenberg et al 1:16-cv-01117
Olsen V DEA 878 F.2d 1458, 279 D.C. 1, 58 USLW 2023
United States v. Forbes, 806 F. Supp. 232 (D. Colo. 1992)
Normaco v. DEA, 375 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah,508 U.S. 520 (1993)
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920)
Randall v. Wyrick, 441 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Mo. 1977)
MM Steel, LP v. Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. et al, No. 4:2012cv01227 - Document 504 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
Tunica Web Advertising v. TUNICA CASINO OPERATORS, 496 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2007)
Spectators’ Comm. Network, Inc. v. Colonial Country Club, et al., 253 F.3d 215 (5 th Cir. 2001)
NW Wholesale Stationers v. Pac. Stationery 472 U.S. 284 (1985)
Norman Bridge Drug Company, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Michael Banner, John R. Bartels, Jr., Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, et al., Defendants-appellants, 529 F.2d 822 (5th Cir. 1976)
Mellouli v. Lynch 575 U.S. _ (2015)
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church, 210 U.S. 296 (1908)
COLE DRUG COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS vs. CITY OF BOSTON 326 Mass. 199 (1950)
United States v. Johnson,221 U.S. 488 (1911)
United States v. Morgan,222 U.S. 274 (1911)
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, 241 U.S. 265 (1916)
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States,476 U.S. 227 (1986)
Dalehite v. United States,346 U.S. 15 (1953)
indell v. Abbott Laboratories L.A. No. 31063. Supreme Court of California. March 20, 1980
Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 (1904)
United States v. Mottolo, 695 F. Supp. 615 (D.N.H. 1988)
Jelen and Son, Inc. v. Bandimere 801 P.2d 1182 (1990)
People v. Noland 739 P.2d 906 (1987)
United States v. Ishmael, 843 F. Supp. 205 (E.D. Tex. 1994)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
People v. Phillips (1813)
New York v. Phillips (N.Y.Ct.Gen.Sess.1813)
People v. Smith (N.Y. 1817)
New York v. Smith, 2 City Hall Recorder 77 (1817)
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 51 (1980)
Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 727, 20 L. Ed. 666 (1871)
New Jersey v. Szemple, 622A.2d248,249 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1993)
Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church, Inc., 124 Ohio App.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Dist.1997)
Totten v. UnitedStates, 92 U.S.105,107 (1875)
In re: Ver-plank,329 F.Supp 433,435 (C.D.Cal1971)
United States v. Keeney, 111 F.Supp 233,234 (D.D.C.1953)
Louisiana v. Mayer, 589 So.2d 1145,1148 (La.Ct.App.1991)
Bonds v. Arkansas, 837 S.W.2d 881, 884 (Ark.1992) 
Easley v. Texas, 837 S.W.2d 854, 856 (Tex.Ct.App.1992)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 U.S. 111 (1784)
Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (1976)
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948).
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm
Article 18

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b3ccpr.htm
Article 18

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, G.A. res. 36/55, 36 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 171, U.N. Doc. A/36/684 (1981).
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/d4deidrb.htm
Article 1, Article 2, Article 4, Article 6 (definitely pay attention to sections C & H), Article 7

Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (1986)
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/FreedomReligionIndex.aspx
Mandate

Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, Article 18 (Forty-eighth session, 1993). Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 35 (1994).
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/gencomm/hrcom22.htm
2, 3, 4

If you were a Wheless, you could use your PFS in Federal Court to File IFP. Meaning they claim to have no assets or income. They could get a Free court case, no filing fee

https://www.scribd.com/document/465247305/Wheless-Personal-Financial-Statement

https://www.scribd.com/document/445086192/Judge-Cynthia-Wheless-Recusal-Petition-to-Human-Rights-IACHR-OAS-Rev-Ryan-Sasha-Shai-van-Kush

https://www.scribd.com/document/465247986/Cynthia-Cindy-Wheless-Personal-Financial-Statement

Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia
http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/jefferson/jefferson.html

"Great numbers of French, of English, and of Americans, are perfectly acquainted with these people. Had he had an opportunity of enquiring of any of these, they would have told him, that there never was an instance known of an Indian begging his life when in the power of his enemies: on the contrary, that he courts death by every possible insult and provocation. His reasoning then would have been reversed thus. 'Since the present Indian of North America is brave, and authors tell us, that the ancestors of those of South America were brave also; it must follow, that the cowardice of their descendants is the effect of subjugation and ill treatment.' For he observes, ib. §. 27. that 'los obrages los aniquilan por la inhumanidad con que se les trata.' that in other situations also he meets death with more deliberation, and endures tortures with a firmness unknown almost to religious enthusiasm with us: that he is affectionate to his children, careful of them, and indulgent in the extreme: that his affections comprehend his other connections, weakening, as with us, from circle to circle, as they recede from the center: that his friendships are strong and faithful to the uttermost† extremity:

A remarkable instance of this appeared in the case of the late Col. Byrd, who was sent to the Cherokee nation to transact some business with them. It happened that some of our disorderly people had just killed one or two of that nation. It was therefore proposed in the council of the Cherokees that Col. Byrd should be put to death, in revenge for the loss of their countrymen. Among them was a chief called Silòuee, who, on some former occasion, had contracted an acquaintance and friendship with Col. Byrd. He came to him every night in his tent, and told him not to be afraid, they should not kill him. After many days deliberation, however, the determination was, contrary to Silòuee's expectation, that Byrd should be put to death, and some warriors were dispatched as executioners. Silòuee attended them, and when they entered the tent, he threw himself between them and Byrd, and said to the warriors, 'this man is my friend: before you get at him, you must kill me.' On which they returned, and the council respected the principle so much as to recede from their determination.

And btw,
Part of this is literally Polish Judges who are using Polish and Eastern European Hackers to say that is like us, because we are teaching people to use Bitcoin and asking for our money.
Actively and Effectively stopping us from Feeding various Economies.

This is not just a Byproduct of their actions, but a very central part of it. Against me in particular.

I'm building a Blockchain Beauty Economy with my Wife.

The FBI started this against me because I wrote Protest Guides, made Crowd unControl tutorials, while talking to the New Black Panthers, the Moors, the Nation of Islam, etc, and then Ferguson happened.

A lot of people at this event were there because of me, and I still have a lot of people waiting for me to Organize them
https://www.denverpost.com/2013/04/22/denver-police-420-shooting-followed-argument-between-gang-rivals/

http://www.famous-trials.com/chicago8/1326-hoffman

New Black Panthers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case

BIEs
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/opinion/black-identity-extremism-fbi-trump.html

And this thread is going to get into some of the stuff we are talking about as far as Slavery Human Trafficking, I will get into that next. Because Game is not harmless in all situations,
We are talking about Pimps and Women in Slavery. There are Escorts, Strippers, CamGirls, Call Girls, Back Page type Prostitutes, then there are like Groupies, etc, etc. And there is a system of Slavery involved in what is going on with Pimping, not all of it is Slavery, but it's there.

The show "For my Man" is kind of a good start. And it feeds itself, like there are intentions of just like Freedom when people write songs about Gang stuff and everything, but there are people who are hardly involved in anything and even who are, doing stupid things because they started doing a few things, got caught up with someone else's Wife or Man, and now feel like the person being cheated on isn't even Human, like a Rodent or Roach, and same with the Cheater, like "I'll take that Blowjob, Skank; and when I take some shit you can't tell your husband where it went".
Understanding all this can put a whole new perspective in Forensic Files, etc.

If you go to any County Jail or City Jail it is not hard to find someone in a jail for Human Trafficking. So this guide is not like a Snitch book or anything like that, this will help everyone, I'm not naming anyone, this is no different than what Lil Wayne has done or Dipset, or Tupac, etc. I am doing the same thing, but heavy on not breaking the Law, and bringing Spirituality in to this World. A Grandma could read from my writing and learn, this is almost like Soap Opera, Playwriting type work, it will help advance Art, etc. We are also selling Soap.

If you go to Vegas and spend all your Money Gambling, and are there broke on the Street. You could end up in some crazy situations. At the age of 18 I stepped off of a Greyhound Bus from Dallas, in San Diego and met someone who had just got out of jail, I'm looking for a Bike. He Sells Bikes, how convenient. But it turns out later that he steals Bikes, he was in jail for stealing Bikes. So anyway, I stay the night at their room and leave the next day, and a ton of random things happen. The guy spends like an hour out in the rain finding me like a gram or less of some weed so he can get $20 from me. I Buy a Bike not realizing he stole them and I leave in the morning when the Woman says her husband is coming and I'm on the floor asleep and the guy is gone. These people were just doing crazy stupid stuff to get money for a Room and smoke a bunch of Meth.

If you go to Vegas and run out of money, and you are on the Street. You may meet a girl. I met an old Pimp and he told me how he did it and I will expand on this, it is very subtle, this would be a Dating situation though and could actually be getting into maybe just a talk about your Woman's sexuality. But it gets worse. So what he explained was being out at a restaurant and the Woman goes to the bathroom, and he sees her make eye contact with a man. This could be all the way from she was herself just fishing around for numbers to meet new guys, to she is freaky and likes to go in Public bathrooms and do things with people she doesn't even really know. Some women like people to see, and like risk, that is just something that makes something sexy. Like fucking someone else's Wife, you might enjoy running out real quick in a no strings attached sex session, then go back home and argue with your spouse in that mindset instead of just dealing with them. Maybe the relationship needs more to it, and again part of sexyness can be risk so it may not be your relationship at all. So going to the Bathroom with a man while on a Date with another man could be everything from "Hi there" in the hall passing a number on a napkin, to going into a stall after making eye contact.

When you are looking around in a Public place, and a Woman turns around quickly and acts like you were looking at her ass, sometimes she is wanting you to be like "Yeah, I was looking", sometimes not. It's just different mindsets at different times. So when this Pimp was there with this Woman, and sees the eye contact, sees her go to the bathroom, he then brings it up when she gets back. And let's her know she needs to bring back money.

There are old rules with Pimps and Hoes and everything, and the situation usually ends in the Pimp getting the Money, and the Woman having to be not allowed inside, or even locked in like a sex dungeon where guys come. This isn't anything you can't see on Hustle and Flow and other Movies. But you have to see that the Goal with Addiction in these situations is to let someone think they are partying, having a great time. Then now they owe money for what they took and need to have sex with someone, this can be everything from "If you are the reason why it's empty spin the bottle", to "babe, I owe this guy some money and you have to take one for the team", to forcing someone to suck a dick and Fuck you and others to stay indoors. And this isn't completely these people's fault. This is the Game, Slavery was made Illegal but it never ended. And Freed Slaves were just kept on Plantations.

I'm not calling out Rappers. I'm calling out the groups related to the Slavers that Jesuits did War with in South America. This goes back to Rome, and the Puny Punic. I will get some quotes.

Also, Little Boy Fresh by Santana with Dipset.

But before that, back to the Vegas example I just had to explain that first. If you are out there basically lost, I once was passing through between California and Colorado and a girl covered in dirt and scabs asked if I wanted to switch shirts. Another guy told me he was stranded and wanted to use my receipt or boarding pass and I use the other, and the literally were saying "you need to bring both" and I was just like "I can't help".

So say you are there and need a room,
There are guys looking for Hoes, so maybe a Woman had sex for money. She's not a criminal, but an Officer can take Advantage of Her, and so can any Man who sees she is now trapped in the underworld and really he's her support, he could be ruining her life and be all she has. Having her hold guns, or meth in her pussy, etc. But now maybe there is an agreement between a man and a woman and it becomes something where they start housing other girls, all for the purpose of sex. Then maybe there are people running Game in California, advertising Celebrity to Women, then locking them in a World where they can't even be seen in Public.

It is not Illegal to pay a Woman or Man to be an Actress, to do nude Photos, or a Documentary even if they usually are doing illegal work, that is still acting pay. They can be paid at Brothels in Nevada and other Places. And a Call Girl is a Girl who advertised her services and is on call to either come to you, or you come to her. This gets all the way to like Craigslist and Backpage, where it is extremely public, to kind of just passing your number and there being booty calls. And this could also be like a Sugar Daddy Sugar Baby situation, but this then can get Illegal also when Pimps are involved. Especially when someone crosses a State line. You never want to be stuck somewhere where your reward is Addiction and there is no way out and really no one is Winning, everyone is losing money, losing everything, and much of it becomes illegal. But as soon as State lines are crossed for sex, that is Human Trafficking. And Revenge Porn is when you make Videos of a Woman and then release it without her being an Actress, when she just wanted to have sex or was drugged, etc, and you release a video to shame her or her husband, where she would not want it in Public, especially if she wasn't told or paid. It's a Felony also. So it's not like a Loophole, the Woman needs to be wanting to be an Actress and paid for that. In some states there are even laws, but if you are on the up and up, there are like SBREFA laws and Small Business Exemptions. It's all very "Fish aren't Evidence", like the Law is. That was a case where it was assumed Cocaine was dumped overboard when Fish were dumped. That was all the Evidence they had, and the Courts read the rules about "Evidence must contain information", even important relevant DNA is information, but "Fish aren't Evidence".

CHARACTERS

AGORASTOCLES a young man; Carthaginian by birth, Calydonian by upbringing
MILPHIO a slave; works for Agorastocles
ADELPHASIUM a girl; Carthaginian slave of Lycus, loved by Agorastocles
ANTERASTILIS a girl; Adelphasium’s sister
LYCUS a pimp; a newcomer in the city of Calydon
ANTAMYNIDES a soldier; interested in Anterastilis
ADVOCATES1 litigious freedmen siding with Agorastocles
COLLYBISCUS an overseer; works for Agorastocles
SYNCERASTUS a slave; works for Lycus, but dislikes him
HANNO a Carthaginian; father of Adelphasium and Anterastilis
GIDDENIS a nurse; abducted long ago together with Adelphasium and her sister
SLAVE BOY son of Giddenis, belongs to Hanno
SLAVE GIRL belongs to Lycus, accompanies Adelphasium and Anterastilis to the temple
STAGING

The stage represents a street in Calydon. The house of Lycus is on the left, that of Agorastocles on the right. The street leads to the city center on the right and to the temple of Venus and the harbor on the left.

Lil Boy Fresh
https://youtu.be/16ZqmXO1iB4

I want to get into a few things here that also should be recognized,
First, that there are people in the World actively setting things up to trap people in these Situations. But I want to mention something that I talked about with someone in Jail. That is also where I met the Old Pimp, but there was a guy saying he does a bunch of Meth, like over a gram a day injected in his arm, and you could tell just by watching him like 2 weeks in to him being there still. He knew some people from my Home Town, and mentioned that he sends his girlfriend in to his Meth Dealer's house, he stays in the Car, and she Fucks the Dealer and comes back with it. Most people do, and I thought immediately, "Your girlfriend is a Meth Whore", so there is a fine line.

The Old Pimp also talked about falling in Love. We can begin to look at songs like Murder She Wrote,
We can look at Fleetwood Mac, a band of people who write songs about having their hearts all broken by each other. This is not new.
When we talk about Babies Mommas, and Sneaking around behind people's backs, that's the same story about Grandpa had 2 Families, or a Korean child. And when the term "The Game" is used people think this is a Black thing, but Slavery involved a lot of having to see other people's bullshit, so this same Gossip we hear about today, was happening on the Plantation with White people, and in the British Empire, and at the Fall of Troy when Paris takes the Spartan Queen for a Wife, also Bathsheeba. None of this is new.

The term FUCK, is F.U.C.K. Fornication Under Consent of the King, and this then gets into population control. Caesar was everyone's Spouse. This goes all the way back. And then we can see in the 60s and 70s with the Sexual Revolution with Birth Control pills, we can see that people began to open up more and created nudist colonies, and now Polyamory is more normal. I would say most people are comfortable with, but don't yet understand, Unicorn Hunting as it is called. This is to find a 3rd partner to join an existing relationship. There are also Swingers, and then there are Orgies, and then more structured type things. There are also Marriages by contract, so there can be multiple wives or husbands. People also commonly used the term "Co-Parenting" and consider themselves Single. We can also see the kind of negative side of all this, as in getting a girl drunk to incapacitation or weakness, and either having sex with or raping her, then letting others come in after you, called a "Train", this is often non-Consentual, there is also Gang Bangs, which can be everything from 2 on 1 to getting passed around to join a Gang.

We can see that younger people don't want to be married, they want to explore, and some older people still want to explore, and marriage can seem confining to many who have yet to experience much. So we can see that there is Single and belonging to everyone almost, there are Groupies, there are Spinsters with Cats, there are all kinds of Single people and there are people that want sex to come about tangentially and accidentally pop up as an occurrence of being connected to one another. The Old Pimp was talking about there was one girl he wished he had been with, and he did get with her by the end and they were married. People have all kinds of things they are doing.

So when I talk about the Government is running Game,
I'm talking about people who are supposed to be protecting us from Terror, trying to engineer our lives and decide what we should be doing with our Bodies. Like Alien Abductors.

Im going to expand on this with Simple P's concepts,
This is not some big time Pimp, I'm sure even mentioning him is helping him, but this guy probably lives with Family now. He is not allowed in the US, and talks about Pimping in Vegas and Cali. He says he is an Actor, so he shouldn't mind the mention. He had a girl come on there saying "I'm a renegade Ho", and he tells her she is not even a Ho. Because she has no Pimp.

So basically a Woman listens to Lil Wayne, and whoever, she thinks "this sounds fun, I'm going to Ho a little" just not even really meaning it, and this woman started getting a few payments and felt like "I'm a Ho", Simple P comes to tell her "No, you are out of pocket". If you are a Female with Money, a Pimp might come take that Money from you. It's just part of the game. That Pimp might snatch your purse, or snatch you and lock you in a room, but you can be out of Pocket and have no man, and he'll take it from you.

A lot of people think of the game as,
"I'm going to take a Female from a man that can't handle her",

There is a lot of perversion behind it really, and obsession with sex, but it's what the Weekend is singing about and every Rapper has a song, it's just part of the World. Tupac, everyone. But we are talking about this isn't for Fun anymore, this isn't for Pleasure, or whatever a motive might be for someone who is innocently reading this. But it becomes just a Game, the Women are expendable. This is about going through Women. Sugar Daddying is like nearly Tabboo in most people's heads, I'm talking about people who are just mad at life. People fuck their Girl and she leaves, she joins the other team.

C-Lo Green, Fuck You. Listen to that song today. A lot of people are starting from there when they get into the Game.

I see you driving 'round town with the girl I love
And I'm like, "Fuck you" (ooh, ooh, ooh)
I guess the change in my pocket wasn't enough
I'm like, "Fuck you and fuck her, too"
Said, "If I was richer, I'd still be with ya"
Ha, now ain't that some shit?
(Ain't that some shit?)
And although there's pain in my chest
I still wish you the best
With a "Fuck you" (ooh, ooh, ooh)
Yeah, I'm sorry
I can't afford a Ferrari
But that don't mean I can't get you there
I guess he's an Xbox and I'm more Atari
But the way you play your game ain't fair
I pity the fool that falls in love with you
(Oh shit, she's a gold digger)
Well (just thought you should know, nigga)
Ooh, I've got some news for you
Yeah, go run and tell your little boyfriend
I see you driving 'round town with the girl I love
And I'm like, "Fuck you" (ooh, ooh, ooh)
I guess the change in my pocket wasn't enough
I'm like, "Fuck you and fuck her, too"
Said, "If I was richer, I'd still be with ya"
Ha, now ain't that some shit?
(Ain't that some shit?)
And although there's pain in my chest
I still wish you the best
With a "Fuck you" (ooh, ooh, ooh)
Now I know that I had to borrow
Beg and steal and lie and cheat
Tryna keep ya, tryna please ya
'Cause being in love with your ass ain't cheap
Now I pity the fool
That falls in love with you
(Oh shit, she's a golddigger)
Well (just thought you should know, nigga)
Ooh, I've got some news for you
I really hate your ass right now
I see you driving 'round town with the girl I love
And I'm like, "Fuck you" (ooh, ooh, ooh)
I guess the change in my pocket wasn't enough
I'm like, "Fuck you and fuck her, too"
Said, "If I was richer, I'd still be with ya"
Ha, now ain't that some shit?
(Ain't that some shit?)
And although there's pain in my chest
I still wish you the best
With a "Fuck you" (ooh, ooh, ooh)
Now baby, baby, baby, why d'you wanna, wanna hurt me so bad?
(So bad, so bad, so bad)
I tried to tell my mama but she told me
"This is one for your dad"
(Your dad, your dad, your dad)
Yes, she did
And I was like, uh
Why? (Uh) Why? (Uh) Why, lady?
Oh, I love you
Oh, I still love you, oh
I see you driving 'round town with the girl I love
"Fuck you" (ooh, ooh, ooh)
I guess the change in my pocket wasn't enough
I'm like, "Fuck you and fuck her, too"
Said, "If I was richer, I'd still be with ya"
Ha, now ain't that some shit?
(Ain't that some shit?)
And although there's pain in my chest
I still wish you the best
With a "Fuck you" (ooh, ooh, ooh)

I just want to point out,
This thread is not "Free Game", we are calling out FirstNet and AT&T, we are using this to show "What not to do" in Government and we are suing them to COVID Funds and Damages. Fox News, CNN and MSNBC are Stalkers. And not just some innocent type Stalker either, it is Malicious Evil intent, they want to Fuck your Wives and Daughters, and then keep an Eye on them.

If we look at the Constitution we can see that there is a Clause that ends Slavery, this part is not meant to be able Federal Law in the way but instead is about Slavery, so we won't get too deep into how the Constitution actually says things that aren't in the Amendments, which many people don't realize are active in our Courts. And instead we will discuss Attainder, which is for Congress to write a Law making a group of People Criminals for what they Believe. This is most commonly seen in McCarthyism, as in when they were running around saying everyone was Socialist and treating Socialists like Nazis, attacking anyone with a Che Guevara poster. That is Attainder, we can better understand stand this by looking at the Formation of State Medical Boards. First there was the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act and the Marihuana Tax Act, and the Federal Courts declared "It is not in our Jurisdiction to directly regulate Medicine", and then in Dent v. West Virginia, State Medical Boards became a thing where the State could approve schools which would then be "Accredited", and you would have to join an Accredited Medical School to become a Doctor. We can see pushback from this in places like Small Towns where the Veterenarian is the Human Doctor also, or some people might say "I don't need the White Man to tell me I'm a Doctor", and instead have a record of healing people through Diet and other means, and are thereby a Doctor to their community in that way. It is not Illegal for people to say they are Dr, like Dr. Dre, though he may be a real Doctor I am not sure it should be easy to look up, but people can call themselves Doctor, or Doc, and there are also PhDs instead of Medical Doctors, so it's a great example of an Attainder ripe profession, there are a lot of examples there of how Attainder works.

I go through all of that to point out that the Constitution bans Attainder in the same place where it Ends Slavery. The Constitution gives a "Latest End Date" for Slavery, assuming Slavery will be needed for a while to build the Nation, but then figuring it can be worked out by everyone by the time the Date came around. This is important to Note because Attainder is Prerequisite to Slavery. If a group of people is declared Criminal, you can pretty much do anything you want to them. This gets into how Women are treated for Selling Sex, Police and Pimps, these Women can be mistreated by anyone. This is most apparent on the Boarder, where people are picked up, taken in, and kids disappear, they may be in Slavery. And if you feel like that can't happen here, how about during the trip here, they could easily become enslaved just making the Journey. Then when they get here it's not any better. And when you go on TV saying "We are arresting Illegal Aliens on sight", now they can't even call 9-1-1 and anyone can do anything they want to them, they may even feel like they need the Gangs to be their American Police force since the Police won't answer.

This brings us to Marshal Fox and the Golden State Rapist,
Marshal Fox was on Court cam, in a Family Court hearing. He takes the Women in a back room to look for Drugs, and he thinks she is a Ho. He maybe has been in that Room with a Woman who was horny before, maybe a Woman liked the Risk, she was mad at the Judge and wanted to Fuck her Marshal in the Back Room, but if that happened it was in the past, this time he gropes her without consent just thinking he can get away with it. They come out of the room and she is quite at first, then she says "He made me lift my shirt without a Female present", which was actually timid compared to what happened. Fox then has her arrested, and her child taken to a Home, later it is revealed he did more than just lift her shirt he was touching on her.

This then gets into the mindset of the Golden State Rapist,
It seems he would find people who were vulnerable sometimes at home Smoking Marijuana, and he would come in like a Police Officer with a Flashlight, and with Police training, he may have even yelled "Freeze!!" Or something to spark in their head that they were in trouble, so then these people have to follow his rules and he does things like put Glass Plates stacked on the Man, while he gets the girl to go into another Room and basically consent to have sex with him or he will kill people, so a kind of situational Rape through Coercion, and all of that is what turned him on. He was using Risk, and many Serial Killers and Rapists are playing these Games.

Ever told on a nigga? (nope)
Ever squeezed a trigger? (yup)
Ever set a nigga up? (nope)
Ever helped a brother out when he was down on his luck? (yup)
You a sap? (nope)
You a boss player, you a mack? (yup)
Let me hold a couple dollars (nope)
Y'all still be poppin' y'all collars? (yup)
Stock rims on a scraper (nope)
Paint wetter than a lake (yup)
Poodle in my blood (nope)
Bitch, I'm a thug (yup)
You a loser? (nope), Winner? (yup)
Starving? (nope), Dinner? (yup)
You still sell dope? (nope)
Now you cleaner than a bar of Dove soap? (yup)
Got a little gouda (nope)?
Got a thumper, got a Ruger? (yup)
You in love wit' the ho? (nope)
She bringin' you the dough? (yup)
You gon' cry if she leave? (nope)
You gon' fly overseas? (yup)
Everybody get choices
I choose to get money, I'm stuck to this bread
Everybody got choices
These bitches is choosin', I'm all in they head
Everybody got choices
Keep it 1 thou, I'da liked it, I chose
Everybody got choices
These niggas be hatin', I already know
But I never go broke (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)
And I ain't gotta sell my soul (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)
If you broke, you ain't like me (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)
I give a fuck if you don't like me (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)
Ugh, lazy? (nope)
Got dick that'll drive a ho crazy? (yup)
Hater? (nope), Wanna see a player get paper? (yup)
Traitor? (nope), Loyal to my soil, not a faker? (yup)
Sleep? (nope), Bust moves, hella active in the streets? (yup)
Scared of the dark? (nope)
Have money, have heart? (yup)
Narc? (nope), Shark? (yup)
Gossip like a broad? (nope)
Check a bitch like a smog? (yup)
Slippin'? (nope), Trippin'? (yup)
Sober as a gopher? (nope)
Higher than a rollercoaster? (yup)
Star Wars? (nope), Yoda? (yup)
Never leave the house without my strap (nope)
Shoot a muthafucka in his nap (yup)
Never been a sucka or a pussy (nope)
Blowin' cookie, never coughin' like a rookie (yup)
Everybody get choices
I choose to get money, I'm stuck to this bread
Everybody got choices
These bitches is choosin', I'm all in they head
Everybody got choices
Keep it 1 thou, I'da liked it, I chose
Everybody got choices
These niggas be hatin', I already know
But I never go broke (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)
And I ain't gotta sell my soul (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)
If you broke, you ain't like me (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)
I give a fuck if you don't like me (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)
Was it love at first sight? (nope)
Did she ride you like a bike? (yup)
Was it ripe? (nope), Was her pussy tight? (yup)
Got some property? (nope), Drive a Maserati? (yup)
You softer than a sock? (nope)
You solid as a rock? (yup)
Slow? (nope), Trained to go? (yup)
Your team weak? (nope)
You respected in the stree-neets? (yup)
Shallow? (nope), Di-neep? (yup)
Broke? (nope), Chi-neat? (yup)
Not a BB or a pellet gun (nope)
But a long barrel base drum (yup)
If I get into it will run (nope)
I'mma give a nigga fair one (yup)
Still live in the trap? (nope) You ever go back? (yup)
Wear a wire and a camera? (nope) Ears to the scanner? (yup)
Everybody get choices
I choose to get money, I'm stuck to this bread
Everybody got choices
These bitches is choosin', I'm all in they head
Everybody got choices
Keep it 1 thou, I'da liked it, I chose
Everybody got choices
These niggas be hatin', I already know
But I never go broke (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)
And I ain't gotta sell my soul (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)
If you broke, you ain't like me (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)
I give a fuck if you don't like me (no, no, no)
I'mma stay gettin' money (yeah, yeah, yeah)

If we look to basically all parts of Society we can see this Present, the movie How to Make an American Quilt is exemplary of all this and should be looked at from this perspective of understanding that all of this is not new, it has been happening forever. In Books, the Great Gatsby is about a person who lied to a Woman and said he was a Soldier and they fell in Love, so then he had to join the Military and also saved a wealthy Yachter at Sea. So he then ends up throwing Parties to lure a Woman who is Married to another Man, and that Man is also Sugar Daddying the Wife of another Man that is working for him. And they all end up accidentally killing the Sugar Baby, which is kind of the Classic story of the Dead Prostitute and people generally try to hide the body in that situation showing how there can be a thin line between being seen as a Slut, and a Whore, to just Fun to be around and Sexy.

Soap Operas are generally about all of this, and it's not all just about Sex. Sex can be a distraction, you might be Fucking someone else's Wife and he's robbing you blind, this can go all kinds of ways. You could be Date Raped, or Kidnapped. If you look at Drug Dealers, sometimes we see people making the same rationalization as "I'm going to take a Female from a Man who can't handle her", to "I'm going to take those Drugs from him because he isn't on his Game", and it's worse for Females trying to be in the Game, there are various reasons you can be seen to not be on your Game, but at any point someone might come ask you to Sell them something, and they will ask to look at it in their car and drive away, or point a gun a you and have you give them something. Maybe they are sleeping with your Wife just to get in your house, or sending you a girlfriend to kind of spy on you while flirting and getting to know each other.

If we look at Senor de Los Cielos it is a Spanish Soap Opera that in English is "the Sir of the Skies", or "the Man of the Skies" (but that would be more like Hombre), which is about the leader of a Cartel that Rules Mexico, and the President of Mexico, and how closely their lives are interconnected. It is a Soap Opera, and tons of people watch it of all ages and genders, because it's like a Cartel show too with that part of it, almost like a Narco Film, or in America we could point to like Breaking Bad and Blow, or American Me.

And while you may start seeing this as education, almost like Self Help or Support, there are actually those forming in a Bad way. When I said C-Lo Green's song shows where some angry people are coming from, there are some people starting what are now called "Red Pill" groups so they can talk about how horrible Women are to Men, just how savage Women are. That is the step some people take after the C-Lo Green step, C-Lo is not Angry, he is getting over it. "Fuck you, and Fuck her too" is just "Have a nice Life", some people then turn to Anger. Kevin Gates is not completely Angry I wouldn't say, but he is deeper in the Game than the C-Lo song, here in the Get on my Level Song. He is not completely a Woman Hater here, but he is mad at a Woman. He's not even blaming the Men.

And if you are the C-Lo Green Song, seeing your Girl Ride around. You might blame her, C-Lo doesn't, he says Fuck YOU, and Fuck her too. But the Man is first.

Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Tongue kissing, I'm fight in public
Can't see you niggas
No feelings, ain't no bitch I'm trusting
Can't see you niggas
Faces that she make, disgusting
Can't see you niggas
Throwing dick inside her stomach
Can't see you niggas
Call her 'cause I've been hurt before
Can't see you niggas
Love don't live here anymore
Can't see you niggas
Racks spent on designer frames
Can't see you niggas
Rocking shades to hide the pain
I can't see you niggas
Money ain't shit
Got it all day, get it all day
Hoes y'all chase, wanna fuck me
The things you niggas brag about, ain't shit to me
I feel it's only right to say
You niggas need to get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
You niggas need to get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Ain't squealed when the polices took me
Can't see you niggas
'Fraid to death in Central Booking
Can't see you niggas
Lick was for my team, I took it
Can't see you niggas
Not thinking they would play me pussy
I can't see you niggas
Talked about when I'm not looking
Like Stevie Wonder
Play with keys while making music
Like Stevie Wonder
Smiling bright throughout my struggle
Like Stevie Wonder
Rich as shit, but can't see nothing
Just like Stevie Wonder
Money ain't shit
Got it all day, get it all day
Hoes y'all chase, wanna fuck me
The things you niggas brag about, ain't shit to me
I feel it's only right to say
You niggas need to get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
You niggas need to get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Going hard for 'em in the paint
Never had a real family
That nigga I call daddy
I never had a real daddy
They was already making music, I just added rap talent
Came out of prison, pursuing my dream
Now everybody mad at me
I ain't never tried to diss y'all
All I ever did was tell the truth
Pray every one of y'all artists make it
Don't or do, I still salute
Got real niggas from New Orleans
All they do is clip corners
Made men don't make statements
You bigger than that, that's phony
Want every nigga that rap, from Louisiana to make it
Medication then meditation, it elevating the greatness
I'm not bothered by your dissin'
You was in your feelings
Gave you niggas my all and you mistreat your nigga
Now I can't see you niggas
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Love don't live here anymore
I can't see you niggas
Get up on my level
Get up on my level
Love don't live here anymore
Now I can't see you niggas
Can't see you niggas
I can't see you niggas
Karma comes right back around
And you'll get what you did to me
Oh I can't see you niggas
And love don't live here anymore
I can't see you niggas
Karma comes right back around
And you'll get what you did to me
You'll get what you did to me
Karma comes right back around
And you'll get what you did to me

Feminism also has groups, and Books. Women know about this, some Women are forced into it and don't even realize what they know because they thought it was just part of being a Girl who people want to sleep with. There are then Waves of Feminism, first being the Playboy Wave, and showing off your Body, having your Titties out at a Protest, etc. Then now to Polyamory, and all of this stuff going on regarding Marriage and Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Butches or Studs and Equal Rights. We also see Republican Feminism though, when ERA was being passed for ratification the Christian Women came out to say they liked being in the kitchen, and wanted to show how to use Hairspray and bake Pies, etc. And that became part of everything also, because people do enjoy Glamour, and Glits, shaving, raising Kids, etc.

My Wife and I watched Collateral Beauty, and this is what we got from it.

This then also in this context gets to the point of Will, Jada and August, which is not completely related to Government running Game, but August sings about Jada a lot.

If you look at Regina Spektor, she gets very deep into Love and a little into the World and so also into some of the Game.

This is a lot like the C-Lo song, it's a Song about Drifting Away from each other.

It's like forgetting
The words to your favorite song
You can't believe it
You were always singing along
It was so easy
And the words so sweet
You can't remember
You try to feel a beat eeet eeeet eeet
Eeet eeeet eeet
You spend half of your life
Trying to fall behind
You're using your headphones
To drown out your mind
It was so easy
And the words so sweet
You can't remember
You try to move your feet eet eeet eeet
Eeet eeeet eeet
Someone's deciding
Whether or not to steal
He opens a window
Just to feel the chill
He hears that outside
A small boy just started to cry
'Cause it's his turn
But his brother won't let him try
It's like forgetting
The words to your favorite song
You can't believe it
You were always singing along
It was so easy
And the words so sweet
You can't remember
You try to move your feet
It was so easy
And the words so sweet
You can't remember
You try to feel the beat-t-t-t-t-t

This may never start
We could fall apart
And I'd be your memory
Lost your sense of fear
Feelings insincere
Can I be your memory?
So get back, back, back to where we lasted
Just like I imagine
I could never feel this way
Get back, back, back to the disaster
My heart's beating faster
Holding on to feel the same
This may never start
I'll tear us apart
Can I be your enemy?
Losing half a year
Waiting for you here
I'd be your anything
So get back, back, back to where we lasted
Just like I imagine
I could never feel this way
Get back, back, back to the disaster
My heart's beating faster
Holding on to feel the same
This may never start
Tearing out my heart
I'd be your memory
Lost your sense of fear
Feelings disappeared
Can I be your memory?
So get back, back, back to where we lasted
Just like I imagine
I could never feel this way
So get back, back, back to the disaster
My heart's beating faster
Holding on to feel the same
This may never start
We could fall apart
And I'd be your memory
Lost your sense of fear
Feelings insincere
Can I be your memory?

So you can start to understand stand People's emotions in all of this. There are people in the Government who are New to this, some who have their own Favorite songs they hear differently, or they already were listening to and already understood that part of it all, but wasn't aware how everything tied together.  But there are people in this that are out to do Damage, they are playing the Game like we are in the Old Testament taking Foreskins.

This is Regina Spektor talking about being a Ho, and fighting for Honor
I kissed your lips and I tasted blood
I asked you what happened and you said theire'd been a fight
You said I've been fighting for your honor but you wouldn't understand
I said hold on your honor I'll get ice for your hand
Oh you been fighting for my honor and I don't understand
But hold on your honor I'll get ice for your hand
You said c'mon baby let's just make love
It's the only thing to make me better
You said come on let's just get you out of that sweater
I said I don't kiss losers and I don't kiss winners
And I don't fight for honor cause we all are born sinners
Gargle with peroxide
A steak for your eye
But I'm a vegetarian so it's a frozen pizza pie
You tell me that you care and you never do lie
And you fight for my honor but I just don't know why
Mary had a little lamb it's fleece was white as snow
You've got me and I'm just a common ho
But I know what I am and I know what I ain't
So don't get cut cause I still won't be no saint
Gargle with peroxide
A steak for your eye
But I'm a pizzatarian so it's a frozen pizza pie
You tell me that you love me and you never do lie
And you fight for my honor but I just don't know why
You fight for my honor and I don't understand
But hold on your honor I'll get ice for your hand

Lil Wayne
Faded off the kush I'm gone
Only 2 years old when daddy used to bring them hookers home
Looking like my Grammo, my niggas got that ammo
We jack son then light up that "L", Samuel
Tunechi in this bitch nigga, y'all niggas bitch niggas
Rats gone rat and snakes gone hiss nigga
Baseball rich nigga, do this shit for all my homies
Where them bad bitches at? Come and put that pussy on me
Tunechi you a murderer, boy you just be killing shit
Yeah you know that money talk, I am the ventriloquist
Tranquilizer in the trunk, put your ass to sleep man
Birdman Jr. got the world in my wingspan
How you niggas want it? Have it your way, Burger King
I get deep in that pussy, dig her out, surgery
Fuckking with a real nigga, fucking right, certainly
Break in your fucking home, take your life, burglary
Woah nigga, die slow nigga,
For dear life your holding on En Vogue nigga
Unload nigga, reload nigga, tools on deck, Home Depot nigga
Well if life is a bitch, then mine a gold digger
And all my bitches nasty like a cold dinner
Everyday I go so hard and work my ass off
I'm good, I'm 100 like a fastball
It's Carter 4!
We get fuck y'all money, how you want to play it?
That AK sleep on the side of my bed
That's one eye closed, one eye open
Your cap get peeled like ibuprofen
I'm sick, I'm ill, I ain't the nigga to fuck with
This a crazy world and life is shorter than Bushwick
Young Money man we got this shit by a land slide
Boy I send them bloods at your ass like a tampon
Uptown shit, wet the whole party, Weezy gone ball
Ball like Steve Harvey, the heater I'm a tuck her
Tuck her like Dolores, that's my word like, word like the-saurus
I don't see no future in your fronting, I be stunting hard
Rap game dependent on me like a bungee cord
Fear nobody but God almighty
Shoot that motherfucker till I get arthritis
I'm a beast, I'm a ass, I'm ahead of my class
I'm a diamond in the rough like a baby in the trash
I don't talk it, I live it. I paint a picture vivid
And them pistols popping like they sitting in a skillet
I go so hard, I go so mean, I'm so New Orleans
Told the judge I couldn't budge, it was him or me
Forget the bullshit and remember me

This may all seem confusing, but then also that is where the Pimp comes in. When there is an issue of Men not Respecting the Women, this has generally in the past been handled by Pimps, that is why all the Rules exist between Pimps and Hoes. It is kind of like Gang Extortion, "It would be a shame if someone broke your Store Windows, why don't you pay us to protect you", and if you don't they break your Windows. So Lil Wayne is generally talking about like Groupies, and the Weekend the same, and they are famous, these are people who everyone knows I don't need to explain who they are and everyone has favorite Celebrities and everything, when Lil Wayne says he fucked your Wife you might be like, "Oh wow, I have something in common with him, awesome". But when it gets deeper in the streets it becomes a lot more variable, there becomes a lot more Coercion and Duress which are concepts everyone should understand.

Duress and Coercion can actually be reasons you aren't charged for a Crime. If you have a Pimp, and this Pimp is constantly pointing Guns at your head, feeding you Pills, Meth or something, keeping you away from your Friends and Family without you making that choice, there is the kind of what could be called the Patty Hearst Defense, from the Symbianese Liberation Front. This was an Organization of White Students led by a Black Prisoner they had helped escape from Prison, who then killed a School Board Director and kidnapped a Newspaper Heiress. The kidnapped Girl was Patty Hearst, she was held for Ransom and at first they actually asked for like a Community Food Truck and it started a Riot because it was Over Publicized and Under Organized, and while the Family was paying these Ransoms Patty was out Robbing Banks and everything with a Machine Gun in her hand, and had kind of fell in Love with her captors as they had given her new Experiences that made her old Life seem boring, and she even started a Relationship with one of the Kidnappers, and shot Bullets at a Bank or Laundromat or something from outside at a distance. When she was Arrested there was at first an Arrogance and kind of Maverick attitude, then she quickly began saying she was Brainwashed. This is also like Witness Protection and Witness Visas.

What is happening is called a Flood. The Epic of Gilgamesh is about the same thing, so is the Bible and Noah, Phrygia, Greece, we can also see it in Titanomachy and Gigantomachy. Flood is a Metaphor for an Enlightenment.

Virtue is like precious odours, most fragrant when it is crushed.
Baroness Orczy, The Scarlet Pimpernel

Thus human beings judge of one another, superficially, casually, throwing contempt on one another, with but little reason, and no charity.
Baroness Emmuska Orczy, The Scarlet Pimpernel

Now, when their glances met, they understood one another. The power that lay within both their souls had met, and, as it were, clasped hands. They accepted one another's sacrifice. Hers, mayhap, was the more complete of the two, because for her his absence would mean weary waiting, the dull heartache so terrible to bear.
Baroness Emma Orczy, The Scarlet Pimpernel

She said nothing, and Sir Andrew, too, was silent, yet those two young people understood one another, as young people have a way of doing all the world over, and have done since the world began.
Baroness Orczy, The Scarlet Pimpernel

A Woman's heart is a complex problem - the owner thereof is often most incompetent to find the solution to this puzzle.
Baroness Orczy, The Scarlet Pimpernel

Flinders Petrie was an Archaeologist who discovered the rules and procedure for various Egyptian board games. He also discovered that Wax and Metal blobs around everywhere in Egypt were actually weights, used to Calibrate the scales. I am now expanding on that information given the discovery of the Egyptian headcones, and the Paintings of the feasts and the headcones, as well as Flinder's Wax Discoveries, and the concept of Punic Wax which is currently used in Encaustic Painting, but is so much more than that.
http://www.punicwax.com/2021/01/the-anthropology-of-punic-wax.html

Oh, you tink life is yours?
Life ain't na somethin you can rap with
Ooh come na ordinary game
Da game na somethin you can rap with
Me's a player you know?
I do not, play in no game
Me just, make money, dollars, everytime seen?
One: 2Pac
Now how can I explain how this game laced, plus with this fame
I got enemies do anything to break me, my attitude changed
Got to the point where I was driven, twenty-four/seven
Money's my mission, just a nigga tryin to make a livin
These busta tricks don't want no mail
They spendin they riches on skanless bitches
Who'll stay petrified in jail
It's hell, plus all the dealers want a meal ticket
Jealous-ass bitches, playa-hatin but we still kick it
Always keep my eyes on the prize, watch the police
Seen so much murder, neighborhoods gettin no sleep
But still, I get my money on major, continuously
Communicatin through my pager, niggaz know me
Don't have no homies cause they jealous, I hustle solo
Cause when I'm broke I got no time for the fellas, listen
Ain't nothin poppin 'bout no work nigga, I ain't no joke
Fuck what they say and get your dough nigga
(Game's been good to me)
Heavy in the game
(Lady Levi)
Who da bumba claat him a come try take mine?
Oooh, me see you rushin up
(Game's been good to me)
I throw 'im blood claat P.M. to A.M.
All, all da bumba come ya take dis ting
For ya take dis ting for joke?
(I don't care what it did to them
The game's been good to me)
Oh! Dat's right
Two: Richie Rich
Well lemme shoot some of this how heavy type of shit.
Certain niggaz wanna stick to the game, yousea trick to the game
Waitin upon your turn, so when will you learn?
Ain't no turns given, niggaz be twistin and takin shit
Puttin they sack down, then puttin they mack down
Me myself I hustle with finesse yes I'm an Oakland baller
Rule number one: check game, and fo' sho' you gon' respect game
Be yo' own nigga meanin buy yo' own dope
Cause that front shit is punk shit, somethin I never funked with
Be true to this game and this game will be true to you
That's real shit; disrespect, see what this here do to you
That jackin and robbin, despisin your homie
Ain't healthy, niggaz be endin up dead 'fore they get wealthy
But not me though, I'm sewin somethin major
So what I reap is boss -- that's why my public status is floss
Went from a, young nigga livin residential
To a, young nigga workin presidential
(Game's been good to me)
(Lady Levi)
Me nigga Tu-pac ALWAYS look good
You know that's true 'im look good every time
Ooh, pussy war? Step up
(Game's been good to me)
Can yi know I'm servin up blood claat
Playin yi fuckin games
Ooh, we take game, we WON
(I don't care what it did to them
The game's been good to me)
Any by now, all, yi haffa forget fi we WON
Everytime
Three: 2Pac
I'm just a young black male, cursed since my birth
Had to turn to crack sales, if worse come to worse
Headed for them packed, jails, or maybe it's a hearse
My only way to stack mail, is out here doin dirt
Made my decisions do or die, been hustlin since junior high
No time for askin why, gettin high, gettin mine
Put away my nine, cause these times call for four-five shells
Cause life is hell and everybody dies
What about these niggaz I despise -- them loud talkin cowards
Shootin guns into crowds, jeapordizin lives
Shoot em right between them niggaz eyes, it's time to realize
Follow the rules or follow them fools that die
Everybody's tryin to make the news, niggaz confused
Quit tryin to be an O.G. and pay your dues
If you choose to apply yourself, go with the grain
And come the riches and the bitches and the fame
Heavy in the game
(Game's been good to me)
(Lady Levi)
Boy, ya nah bitch!
Major that's true we look good everytime
When we at Beers Diamond
And Tupac drives vintage car
(Game's been good to me)
And fi dem frame dem look good, oh no?
This whole world ya call on
Gonna mass on a face
(I don't care what it did to them
The game's been good to me)
For any, section of bumba ras claat, oh!
Flush it! . Oh!
Nobody wan come test me y'know
True dem we a drive pretty car
Wanna no part of any ting
And now you wan come drown a gun
But ya see we know, you haffa show 'im MAXIMUM respect
For when a blood claat run or when a pussy walk up
We look good everytime
Nuff dollars, DOLLARS
Y'know about dollars dem right?
But we nah talk no shit
We haffa walk de walk for we a talk, see it?
Cause action, action speak louder dan words
You know da record!
Don't blood claat ting at ALL

She take my money when I'm in need
Yeah, she's a triflin' friend indeed
Oh, she's a gold digger
Way over town, that digs on me
Now, I ain't sayin' she a gold digger
(When I'm in need) But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
(She give me money) Now, I ain't sayin' she a gold digger
(When I'm in need) But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head
Cutie the bomb, met her at a beauty salon
With a baby Louis Vuitton under her underarm
She said, "I can tell you rock, I can tell by your charm
"Far as girls, you got a flock"
"I can tell by your charm and your arm"
But I'm lookin' for the one, have you seen her?
My psychic told me she'll have a ass like Serena
Trina, Jennifer Lopez, four kids
And I gotta take all they bad ass to ShowBiz?
Okay, get your kids, but then they got their friends
I pulled up in the Benz, they all got up in
We all went to Den and then I had to pay
If you fuckin' with this girl, then you better be paid
You know why? It take too much to touch her
From what I heard she got a baby by Busta
My best friend said she used to fuck with Usher
I don't care what none of y'all say, I still love her
Now, I ain't sayin' she a gold digger
(When I'm in need) But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
(She give me money) Now, I ain't sayin' she a gold digger
(When I'm in need) But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head
Eighteen years, eighteen years
She got one of your kids, got you for eighteen years
I know somebody payin' child support for one of his kids
His baby mama car and crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV any given Sunday
Win the Super Bowl and drive off in a Hyundai
She was supposed to buy your shorty Tyco with your money
She went to the doctor, got lipo with your money
She walkin' around lookin' like Michael with your money
Shoulda got that insured, Geico for your money
If you ain't no punk
Holla, "We want prenup! We want prenup!" (Yeah!)
It's somethin' that you need to have
'Cause when she leave yo' ass, she gon' leave with half
Eighteen years, eighteen years
And on the 18th birthday he found out it wasn't his?
Now, I ain't sayin' she a gold digger
(When I'm in need) But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
(She give me money) Now, I ain't sayin' she a gold digger
(When I'm in need) But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head
Now, I ain't sayin' you a gold digger, you got needs
You don't want a dude to smoke but he can't buy weed
You go out to eat, he can't pay, y'all can't leave
There's dishes in the back, he gotta roll up his sleeves
But while y'all washin', watch him
He gon' make it to a Benz out of that Datsun
He got that ambition, baby, look at his eyes
This week he moppin' floors, next week it's the fries
So stick by his side
I know there's dudes ballin', and yeah, that's nice
And they gonna keep callin' and tryin', but you stay right, girl
And when you get on, he'll leave yo' ass for a white girl
Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head
Let me hear that back

Charging it to the Game, this concept is the idea that "Shit Happens" basically. When you Charge something to the Game, it could be like something you dropped and lost, or something taken from you like a Snatched Chain, anything like that is Charging it to the Game, if you aren't going to retaliate; because even if you are the biggest badass, you have to choose your battles. This goes in all situations, for Male and Female, and then gets into the whole "Out of Pocket" concept.

Just to have good details on everything for everyone, Stripers are usually Contract Workers, Self-Employed as a kind of Actress for the Venue, this though is also how Waiters are paid, and then they work for Tips. I am getting into this because we are talking about people forced into Sex Work with the ending of the FEMA benefits, and refusal to pay Benefits already owed up to that time. Strippers generally do not have to have Sex with Customers though often times with so much Money being exchanged and their being normal Customers, etc, sometimes there are Relationships. Some places also have like back rooms, or other hidden type spaces, where whatever the Stripper is willing to do can happen. So it is variable. But I have seen a girl that was thin and everything, but I'm not sure everyone would automatically like say she was a super sexy or attractive Female and she made at least a few hundred a day at the Dallas Caberet. I never went, I just knew her. There is a whole area of Dallas on the road called Harry Heins, and it's like the Strip Clubs, and all kinds of other stuff going on.

If we look at 50 Shades of Gray, that then gets into the kind of Sugar Daddy stuff the Government started with. A lot of Women generally and Men, were opened up to all of this by 50 Shades of Gray. Women generally like to read books like this, the Fabio books, then if you look at like Galilee by Clive Barker, and books about drugs, etc. Then there is BDSM and Dominatrix stuff which everyone knows tangentially about, but shows how people like risk and bondage, etc. Then this gets again into Contracts, because like a Nude Model, or Actress, Contracts can be made for pretty much anything.

Sugar Daddies and Sugar Babies are generally thought to be a harmless concept. Like a Home Stripper, but like the Great Gatsby Situation, and like many people who want to Run Game, they are more interested in getting your Daughter or your Wife to call them Daddy, while having some kind of control over your life also, than to go out and find a college girl and make an arrangement to help pay for her school, like most people think of it. They want to take a Girl from someone else, whether it be her real Dad or her Husband. So people like Ken Paxton are actually doing this in Office, and calling it Southern Culture. He's from North Dakota, I'm from DFW. Most people think of Sugar Daddy stuff as like Seeking Arrangement, etc, you could also look at Stormy Daniels with Donald Trump who was getting paid by his Lawyer whole he was meeting up for Sex. Then when he became a Public figure in Office serving the people, she was able to release the book about him. Also on the point of Service, in the Game there is the idea that "Is my Record gonna Sell... Does Crack Sell in the Hood?", like the idea that Addiction exists and someone is going to profit, why not me, and it is so pervasive it is compared to other ways to make money, like this will sell like Crack. So then they talk about providing Crack to the Addicts as Service.

These people who say they are providing "Service" to the Addicted, are then in a position to force them in to Sexual Situations when they have no money, and it's not even a huge distance once someone is addicted to Crack or Heroine, etc, to get them to do something like that and it look Consenting to anyone who doesn't understand. But then the Politicians and Government Employees are taking this same Attitude, with Public Service. Like, "If a Crack Dealer is a Servant and Deserves Sex, why don't I", but they don't understand that they Crack Dealer is not earning Sex, he is Violating Women. Who then sometimes go take that out on others in their Lives, and this is happening throughout the Government, with people working for the Government sometimes being a Servant and an Addict. It's all very twisted when everyone wants to Play the Game and Win.

This then gets to Ken Paxton's mistress. They Fired the whole TX AGs office to bring in Far Right Christians thinking they would be crooked, then they reported him for having his mistress working there with them. And that is part of why I am writing this, he is using my State of Texas and Southern Culture as a Defense, but this Little Boy from North Dakota doesn't understand. What they are doing is Corrupt, all the way back to taking "To Catch a Predator" off the Air for exposing one of them, and the Prometa Drug Court and whatever else they have going on, they have a 13th Amendment they might be using in this game. So letting them arrest Women for Sex Work, while Running Game with Addiction, is a mix ripe to turn on a Woman and bring her into Slavery if you want more from her.

You can also look into the DC Madame to learn more about the kinds of things that have been Public before, also Epstein, etc. We will get deeper into R Kelly.

Humiliation and Degradation as Tools in the Game,
The Street
SNAP Benefits,
Single Mothers, Welfare Queens aren't a thing anymore,
The Candy House, Trap Houses and Money Houses,
Walker v. HUD,
Dallas was found to be actively working against Black residents of Dallas and keeping human beings homeless on purpose, in cooperation with 9 surrounding counties. In January, it was found that Dallas closing the Housing list with Federal funding and Federal Laws in place, is illegal. And that Section 8 is the Anti-Segregation inititive of HUD, meaning Dallas literally just started desegregating the counties in 2020. And now they will be moving Black people to Mckinney and other Suburbs.

This link explains all the intricacies of the Walker case, which has been open since 1985 when Dallas demolished Public Housing on the West Side, and had this very impactful ruling in Jan 2020, so a 30 year ongoing case. But the link stops at 2018, the new order can be found online.
https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=1015

At first Dallas was taken off the case by the Judge because they thought this was a Federal Housing issue in 1985, but after a Consent Decree was issued by the Court and Dallas ignored it, they were brought back in. Through the 90s more issues were identified with Dallas, and now it was decided that this is Dallas' fault at this point. They actually had the Housing list closed for like the past 6 years, after all the rulings, which led to the 2020 ruling

This is not meant to be like Anti-Rapper or Anti-Black in any way, and I want to point out that actually this thread is about the Government owing people Money. If we look to the Walker v. HUD issue that is apparent, DFW is Segregationist.

Everybody, c'mon, put your hands together
Clap, clap, clap
Everybody let's clap
Put yo' fuckin' hands (clap, clap, clap)
Clap your hands everybody (clap, clap, clap)
Everybody just clap yo' hands (clap, clap, clap)
Just clap yo' hands (clap, clap, clap)
Clap yo' hands (clap, clap yo' hands)
Clap yo' hands (clap, clap yo' hands)
Everybody just clap yo' hands (clap, clap yo' hands)
Clap yo' hands (clap, clap yo' hands)
Just clap yo' hands (clap yo' hands)
Clap yo' hands (clap, clap yo' hands)
Clap yo' hands (Melbourne clap yo' hands)
Clap yo' hands (Melbourne clap yo' hands)
Clap, clap, clap (clap, clap yo' hands)
If man is the father the son in the middle of the earth (clap yo' hands)
In the middle of the universe
Then why is this verse coming six times rehearsed? (clap yo' hands)
Don't freestyle much but write 'em like such (Melbourne)
But this is fiends controlled by the screens (clap yo' hands)
What does this mean all this shit I seen'? (clap, clap yo' hands)
Human beings screaming vocal javelins (clap yo' hands)
Signs of the local nigga unraveling (ho-ho)
My wonderin' got ass wonderin' (clap yo' hands)
Where Christ is in all this crisis (clap yo' hands)
Hating Satan never knew what nice is (clap, clap yo' hands)
Check the paper while I bet on ices (clap, clap yo' hands)
Only your eye can see and ears can hear (clap yo' hands)
Year by year all the sense disappears (clap, clap yo' hands)
Nonsense perseveres prayers laced with fear
Beware y'all the two triple o is near
It might feel good, it might sound a little somethin' (what?)
But fuck the game if it don't mean nothin' (what?)
What is game? Who got game? (What, what?)
Where's the game in life, behind the game behind the game (yo yo)
I got game, she's got game
They got game, she got game, we got game
It might feel good, it might sound a little somethin'
But fuck the game if it don't mean nothin'
Fuck the game if it don't mean' nothin'
Fuck the game if it don't say shit
Fuck the game if it don't mean' nothin'
Fuck the game if it don't say shit
Fuck the game if it don't mean' nothin'
Fuck the game if it don't say shit
Fuck the game if it don't mean' nothin'
Fuck the game if it don't say shit (Melbourne)
Give it up for Flava Flav in the house, yo Chris
Let everybody know, yo
We got a new album out, it's called, "Revolvolution"
What is it called?
"Revolvolution"
What is it called?
"Revolvolution"
We are gonna do a song that you never heard before

Come on, come on
I see no changes, wake up in the morning, and I ask myself
Is life worth living, should I blast myself?
I'm tired of bein' poor, and even worse I'm black
My stomach hurts, so I'm lookin' for a purse to snatch
Cops give a damn about a negro
Pull the trigger, kill a nigga, he's a hero
Give the crack to the kids who the hell cares
One less hungry mouth on the welfare
First, ship 'em dope and let 'em deal the brothers
Give 'em guns, step back, watch 'em kill each other
It's time to fight back, that's what Huey said
Two shots in the dark, now Huey's dead
I got love for my brother, but we can never go nowhere
Unless we share with each other
We gotta start makin' changes
Learn to see me as a brother instead of two distant strangers
And that's how it's supposed to be
How can the devil take a brother, if he's close to me?
I'd love to go back to when we played as kids
But things changed, and that's the way it is
Come on, come on
That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is
Ooh, yeah
Come on, come on
That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is
Aww, yeah
I see no changes, all I see is racist faces
Misplaced hate makes disgrace to races
We under, I wonder what it takes to make this
One better place, let's erase the wasted
Take the evil out the people, they'll be acting right
'Cause mo' black and white is smokin' crack tonight
And only time we chill is when we kill each other
It takes skill to be real, time to heal each other
And although it seems heaven sent
We ain't ready, to see a black President
It ain't a secret, don't conceal the fact
The penitentiary's packed, and it's filled with blacks
But some things will never change
Try to show another way but you stayin' in the dope game
Now tell me, what's a mother to do?
Bein' real don't appeal to the brother in you
You gotta operate the easy way
(I made a G today) But you made it in a sleazy way
Sellin' crack to the kid (I gotta get paid)
Well, hey, well, that's the way it is
Come on, come on
That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is
Aww, yeah
Come on, come on
That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is
Aww, yeah
We gotta make a change
It's time for us as a people to start makin' some changes
Let's change the way we eat
Let's change the way we live
And let's change the way we treat each other
You see, the old way wasn't working so it's on us to do
What we gotta do, to survive
And still I see no changes, can't a brother get a little peace?
There's war in the streets and war in the Middle East
Instead of war on poverty, they got a war on drugs
So the police can bother me
And I ain't never did a crime, I ain't have to do
But now, I'm back with the facts givin' 'em back to you
Don't let 'em jack you up, back you up
Crack you up and pimps smack you up
You gotta learn to hold ya own
They get jealous when they see ya, with ya mobile phone
But tell the cops, they can't touch this
I don't trust this, when they try to rush, I bust this
That's the sound of my tool, you say it ain't cool?
But mama didn't raise no fool
And as long as I stay black, I gotta stay strapped
And I never get to lay back
'Cause I always got to worry 'bout the pay backs
Some buck that I roughed up way back
Comin' back after all these years
Rat-a-tat, tat, tat, tat, that's the way it is
That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is (Way it is)
Aww, yeah
That's just the way it is
Things will never be the same
That's just the way it is
Aww, yeah

You better count your money
You better count your money (Ghetto Cowboy)
You better count your money
You better count your money (Ghetto Cowboy)
You better count your money
You better count your money (Ghetto Cowboy)
You better count your money
You better count your money (Ghetto Cowboy)
The name is Krayzie, big bad ass bone,
Wanted up north for all the gold that I stole,
Along with some cash I even took the mayor's daughter,
Now that there's kidnap, but she was with us so I brought her.
Dun got myself into a whole heap of trouble,
Double crossed by the law so it's nobody to run to,
Yeah it's just me and my sawed-off shotgun,
I dun now call him 'Leatherface'
I'm headed for the west heard they got a couple banks in town
That ain't been held up yet, well uh, I ought to make it by sundown,
I figure that's enough time for me to get the whole rundown,
So I continue my mission, it's gettin' dark
So now I'm watching for them damn injuns,
They like to catch up then they rob -n- split.
I'll be a rootin' tootin' shootin' damn fool, protectin' my chips.
All of a sudden, I heard somebody rumble in the bushes, stopped my horse,
Whoa Nelly!
Who in the bushes, you better speak up,
Or I'm-a let my shotgun's song sing out.
Who's this?
Hope this ain't the law, draw out the bushes with my sawed-off shotgun.
Come on out right now I'm gettin' angry.
Took a step back 'cause it could get dangerous.
Please don't shoot it's just me Thug Queen Horse Stealer.
Then why the hell is you hidin' in them bushes
I'm wanted in four counties, for armed robbery,
Killed two sheriffs, six of his best men with my head,
Stole two horses, thought you was the law that's why I jumped in the bushes.
Goodness. Now she was hotter than a barrel of fire but
I could use her for the job so I told her to ride, come on.
May I ask you what you headed to the west for?
I got a partner got a plan for some dough and if you're down
You can pick up yourself a pretty penny.
Be in town in a minute now be sure if you're with it.
We be up before the sun rise got a stallion here for your partner
To ride hit the saloon before the moon shine down
For whatever let's ride let's ride.
These directions say we go to Tucson, Arizona
When we arrive we'll cop a place we can bunk,
And meet my boy in the morning for details 'n hookup.
You better count your money
You better count your money (Ghetto Cowboy)
You better count your money
You better count your money (Ghetto Cowboy)
Rise 'n shine, good morning, howdy.
Nine o' clock we meet my boy in the saloon in the valley.
Now I dun came a long way and I don't wanna be late.
Tell him I'll make it to him, you know we ain't.
Move out, giddy up giddy up giddy up
Move out, giddy up giddy up giddy up
Move out, giddy up giddy up giddy up
Move out, giddy up giddy up giddy up
You better count your money (Ghetto cowboy)
You better count your money
I'm peepin' Krayzie's 'Wanted' poster in the saloon,
So I assume it'll be trouble round here pretty soon.
Glanced across the room I seen this youngster gettin' ready to fight
But if he mess up tonight I think that Krayzie just might take his life.
So I approached him and I paused.
Look man, I really don't wanna brawl, but won't you chill before them laws,
Come messin' up this master plan,
Since he already rowdy I'm just asked the man (Dang)
You want some work well partner put in your bid
And by the way now what's your name, they call me Layzie the Kid.
The name's Powder Pete, can I get a twelve gauge!
Outlaw every day, on the front page.
Mister Kid, if you give me the low down me and Blackjack,
Be ready for the showdown, with two double barrels pointed at whatever,
We'll stick together, I'm pretty clever.
So saddle up, jump on the bandwagon because it's all goin' down.
I heard the guy runnin' the bar screamin' 'Krayzie's in town.'
Now when we get to this saloon, you don't worry, wait outside.
Don't be stealin' nobody's damn horses.
Stepped inside the bar.
Layzie Kid you son of a gun!
Hey man I'm glad you made it safely, now let's go have some fun.
And this my partner Powder, he's a young gun.
Howdy
Mighty glad to meet ya son.
Oh yeah, you know I also brought a friend along, meet Thug Queen,
The horse peddler, straggler, just met her.
Howdy partner, already got the horses saddled up.
I hope you're good at robbin' banks like you rustle that cattle up.
Now y'all, it's gonna be gettin' dark real soon.
I think you're right I say we move, come on let's.
Move out, giddy up giddy up giddy up
Move out, giddy up giddy up giddy up
Move out, giddy up giddy up giddy up
Move out, giddy up giddy up giddy up
You better count your money
You better count your money
You better count your money
You better count your money
You better count your money
You better count your money
You better count your money
You better count your money

Justice Willet as a Target of Remonstrance as a Player in the Game.
https://i.ibb.co/WgjR8My/Screenshot-20211019-152822.png

Regulators, we regulate any stealing of his property
And we damn good too, but you can't be any geek off the street
Gotta be handy with the steel if you know what I mean to earn your keep
Regulators, mount up
It was a clear black night, a clear white moon
Warren G was on the streets, trying to consume
Some skirts for the eve, so I can get some funk
Just rollin' in my ride, chillin' all alone
Just hit the Eastside of the LBC
On a mission trying to find Mr. Warren G.
Seen a car full of girls ain't no need to tweak
All you skirts know what's up with 213
So I hooks a left on the 21 and Lewis
Some brothas shootin' dice so I said, "Let's do this"
I jumped out the ride, and said, "What's up?"
Some brothas pulled some gats so I said, "I'm stuck"
Since these girls peepin' me, I'ma glide and swerve
These hookers lookin' so hard they straight hit the curb
Won'tcha think of better things than some horny tricks
I see my homey and some suckers all in his mix
I'm gettin' jacked, I'm breakin' myself
I can't believe they taking Warren's wealth
They took my rings, they took my Rolex
I looked at the brotha said, "Damn, what's next?"
They got my homey hemmed up and they all around
Ain't none of them seeing if they going straight pound for pound
I gotta come up real quick before they start to clown
I best pull out my strap and lay them busters down
They got guns to my head, I think, I'm going down
I can't believe this happenin' in my own town
If I had wings I could fly, let me contemplate
I glanced in the cut and I see my homey Nate
Sixteen in the clip and one in the hole
Nate Dogg is about to make some bodies turn cold
Now they droppin' and yellin', it's a tad bit late
Nate Dogg and Warren G had to regulate
I laid all them busters down, I let my gat explode
Now I'm switching my mind back into freak mode
If you want skirts sit back and observe
I just left a gang of those over there on the curb
Now Nate got the freaks and that's a known fact
Before I got jacked, I was on the same track
Back up back up 'cause it's on
N A T E and me, the Warren to the G
Just like I thought, they were in the same spot
In need of some desperate help the Nate Dogg and the G-child
Were in need of something else, one of them dames was sexy as hell
I said "Ooo I like your size"
She said, "My car's broke down and you seem real nice
Would ya let me ride?"
I got a car full of girls and it's going real swell
The next stop is the Eastside Motel
I'm tweaking into a whole new era
G-Funk, step to this, I dare ya
Funk, on a whole new level
The rhythm is the bass and the bass is the treble
Chords, strings
We brings melody
G-Funk, where rhythm is life
And life is rhythm
If you know like I know
You don't wanna step to this
It's the G-Funk era
Funked out with a gangsta twist
If you smoke like I smoke
Then you high like everyday
And if your ass is a buster
213 will regulate

Wi reach 33 degrees
An mi a seh wait
Heights a evil
3 a clak inna di mawnin
Wen dem a walk up and dung wid dem tall ting
Wi ave dem oman pan wi cocky head bawlin
Mi nuh luk fi bwoi a nite
Hey
Mi murda people inna broad daylite
Six pants mi walk wid cah di ak lite
A wa do sum bwoy
Weh win a play play flite
Wi a hot head
Weh strap up like a airplane flite
Hey
Dem bwoi deh jus start bad
You no how long we bloodcloth bad
From skool days
Wi a shot man
Middle day
Ask di man
Weh sell bloodcloth crab
Tings weh mi do
People tel mi mi mus guh a hell
Pussyy mi nuh mus no god
Dis teacha
Di hol a portmore mad
Dem charge mi fi murda
Mi guh tru di court door glad
Witness no seh di ting set a way
Mi kuff koff kwef midday
Kuff koff kwef wid di six pants
A nuh kid play
Gaza nah role wid k
Mi get my rifle dem
From di us of a
A cologne alone him spray
You tink mi a jus deejay
Ask wataford people how mi stay
Mi murda people inna broad daylite
Six pants mi walk wid cah di ak lite
A wa do sum bwoy
Weh win a play play flite
Wi a hot head
Weh strap up like a airplane flite
Yuh tink
Man jus a talk dis
P*u**yy
Mi live dis
An mi breed dis
An mi walk dis
Suh memba
Da dawg ya a nuh ratty
Wen bark dis
Watch mi
Bullseye you fren bighead
Beca mi nah miss
Di gun weh stephen cloth middleday
Bring down dawkniss
Wen dem roun a di office
Gwaan like thug
But u a di sofiss
You no mi long time
You no seh mi hartliss
No seh you caa diss
My boss a nuh bowas
You an you fren deh a toilit
Wen gyal waa piss
Postitue an crackhed
Walk a nite
Mi murda people inna broad daylite
Six pants mi walk wid cah di ak lite
A wa do sum bwoy
Weh win a play play flite
Wi a hot head
Weh strap up like a airplane flite

We can look at R Kelly's Music and R Kelly's Case, these are examples. R Kelly created "Trapped in the Closet", (and also created a video where he gives a 14 year old girl $200 to pee on her, all in the video). Trapped in the Closet is basically a Play, it's like a 20 Part Play in Music Videos, and it is just twist after twist after twist, and there are tons of people cheating on each other. Just as an example, after he gets trapped in the Closet and gets out (this isn't too many spoilers, it's a pretty long series of Videos, like a whole Movie), he speeds home and gets stopped by a Cop his Wife slept with. And that just gets it all started, that might be the first 2-3 videos. And when I say Cheating, I guess I should point out that I personally see that if a Woman wants to do more things Sexually, she should be able to express that to her husband, and vice versa, so I guess by saying Cheating it covers a lot of area. But you have to understand that if you are busy doing something for your Family, and your Futures together, that does not mean your Wife or Husband is waiting on you. Just because they are telling you they want something better with you, does not mean it can not be theirs if they left you today and went to a Bar somewhere in a high end of town and put herself at Risk of being thrown aside after a 1 night stand or worse, but she could probably go do better than what you are doing while she waits. And if she or he cheats at that time in your lives, maybe you should hear them out because you might have said some mean things or been distant and rude, or otherwise offputting. And maybe they even felt like you were moving on.

Trapped in the Closet
https://youtu.be/TVQv8Bh-RFY

Seven o'clock in the morning
And the rays from the sun wakes me
I'm stretchin' and yawnin'
In a bed that don't belong to me
And a voice yells, "Good morning, darlin'"
From the bathroom
Then she comes out and kisses me
And to my surprise, she ain't you
Now, I've got this dumb look on my face
Like, what have I done?
How could I be so stupid to be have laid
Here 'til the morning sun?
Lost the track of time
Oh, what was on my mind?
From the club, went to her home
Didn't plan to stay that long
Here I am, quickly tryin' to put on my clothes
Searching for my car keys
Tryin' to get on up out the door
Then she streched her hands in front of it
Said, "You can't go this way"
Looked at her, like she was crazy
Said, "Woman, move out my way"
Said, "I got a wife at home"
She said, "Please, don't go out there"
"Lady, I've got to get home"
She said her husband was comin' up the stairs

I Admit it, by R Kelly
https://youtu.be/oR9lJfYTI-g

Gayle Interview with R Kelly
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-gayle-king-interview-with-r-kelly/

The Pied Piper

Hannibal Burress and Bill Cosby

Africa Bambata

We can look at R Kelly's Music and R Kelly's Case, these are examples. R Kelly created "Trapped in the Closet", (and also created a video where he gives a 14 year old girl $200 to pee on her, all in the video). Trapped in the Closet is basically a Play, it's like a 20 Part Play in Music Videos, and it is just twist after twist after twist, and there are tons of people cheating on each other. Just as an example, after he gets trapped in the Closet and gets out (this isn't too many spoilers, it's a pretty long series of Videos, like a whole Movie), he speeds home and gets stopped by a Cop his Wife slept with. And that just gets it all started, that might be the first 2-3 videos. And when I say Cheating, I guess I should point out that I personally see that if a Woman wants to do more things Sexually, she should be able to express that to her husband, and vice versa, so I guess by saying Cheating it covers a lot of area. But you have to understand that if you are busy doing something for your Family, and your Futures together, that does not mean your Wife or Husband is waiting on you. Just because they are telling you they want something better with you, does not mean it can not be theirs if they left you today and went to a Bar somewhere in a high end of town and put herself at Risk of being thrown aside after a 1 night stand or worse, but she could probably go do better than what you are doing while she waits. And if she or he cheats at that time in your lives, maybe you should hear them out because you might have said some mean things or been distant and rude, or otherwise offputting. And maybe they even felt like you were moving on.

Trapped in the Closet
https://youtu.be/TVQv8Bh-RFY

Seven o'clock in the morning
And the rays from the sun wakes me
I'm stretchin' and yawnin'
In a bed that don't belong to me
And a voice yells, "Good morning, darlin'"
From the bathroom
Then she comes out and kisses me
And to my surprise, she ain't you
Now, I've got this dumb look on my face
Like, what have I done?
How could I be so stupid to be have laid
Here 'til the morning sun?
Lost the track of time
Oh, what was on my mind?
From the club, went to her home
Didn't plan to stay that long
Here I am, quickly tryin' to put on my clothes
Searching for my car keys
Tryin' to get on up out the door
Then she streched her hands in front of it
Said, "You can't go this way"
Looked at her, like she was crazy
Said, "Woman, move out my way"
Said, "I got a wife at home"
She said, "Please, don't go out there"
"Lady, I've got to get home"
She said her husband was comin' up the stairs

I Admit it, by R Kelly
https://youtu.be/oR9lJfYTI-g

Gayle Interview with R Kelly
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-gayle-king-interview-with-r-kelly/

The Pied Piper

Hannibal Burress and Bill Cosby

Africa Bambata

Humiliation and Degradation as Tools in the Game,
When we look at why the Government shouldn't be running Game, we can see that part of it is Degradation and Humiliation. There is part of building Relationships that involves identifying an Enemy or other. Commonly in a Relationship this can be an X, or Parents, or various other situations. But if you come to someone and you are in need, you are coming to them in a position where you are at their Mercy. Sometimes you might even just be being Polite, you may feel like you owe someone the service of being nice, accommodating, we can again look to the Spartans here. At the Olympic Games everyone was sitting and an Old Veteran came in and there was nowhere for him to sit, and they moved out of the way for him. In the Game, these kinds of small graciousneses are what the phrase "Kindness mistaken for Weakness" come from. So this then gets to Stoicism, and Quiet Strength. But we can see that in many situations that once a Woman is sleeping with a Man, and this also goes for a New Man other than her Husband, she is likely to be extra Accommodating towards him. The Husband may see her treat them like a special guest, etc. This again can be seen in the Great Gatsby where Gatsby and the Woman are pretty openly teaming up together against the Husband untill Gatsby tries to get her to leave her Husband. This is also seen in the Movie Fatale at the opening scene when the friend spills something and his Wife cleans it up. These small things could be called Power Moves. In real life it gets to like Hitting Women with Doors, and can be compared to little Boys flirting with Girls by hurting them because they don't know how to talk, but is Degradation.

And the Government doesn't need to be Playing.

John 8
1
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2
At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.
3
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group
4
and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5
In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
6
They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
8
Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10
Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11
"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
12
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
13
The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid."
14
Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.
15
You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16
But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
17
In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid.
18
I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."
19
Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."
20
He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.
21
Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."
22
This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, `Where I go, you cannot come'?"
23
But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
24
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], [1] you will indeed die in your sins."
25
"Who are you?" they asked. "Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied.
26
"I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."
27
They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.
28
So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."
30
Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.
31
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.
32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
33
They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants [2] and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"
34
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
35
Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.
36
So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
37
I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word.
38
I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father. [3] "
39
"Abraham is our father," they answered. "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would [4] do the things Abraham did.
40
As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.
41
You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
42
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
43
Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.
44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
45
Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
46
Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?
47
He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
48
The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
49
"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.
50
I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.
51
I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
52
At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death.
53
Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
54
Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
55
Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.
56
Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
59
At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
[24] Or I am he; also in verse 28
[33] Greek seed; also in verse 37
[38] Or presence. Therefore do what you have heard from the Father.
[39] Some early manuscripts "If you are Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then

The Street
SNAP Benefits,
Single Mothers, Welfare Queens aren't a thing anymore,
The Candy House, Trap Houses and Money Houses,

Astrology,
Aegyptiaca and Babyloniaca,
Anhur-Shu in Sebbenytos

It's like, the Megaliths, to Mt. Hermon, to everything else.

Nimrod Son of Kush

John 20
1
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
2
So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"
3
So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb.
4
Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.
5
He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.
6
Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,
7
as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.
8
Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.
9
(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)
10
Then the disciples went back to their homes,
11
but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb
12
and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
13
They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?" "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him."
14
At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
15
"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."
16
Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).
17
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
18
Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.
19
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
20
After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21
Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."
22
And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23
If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
24
Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
25
So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
27
Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31
But these are written that you may [1] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
[31] Some manuscripts may continue to

There's nothing New Under the Sun
Pythagoreus in Thessaly

I'm going to give away another part of the Angel, Egregore Technology, because it is simply something we must begin to do. And I want to start with the explicit sexualization that comes to mind when people think of multiple Women coming together in this way that is about to be described, the thought automatically being Mormons having Multiple Wives.

But that must be seen past,
What happens in a Temple can be Metaphorically seen in the Temple Structure, if we look at the Temple it had Pillars, Columns, so when Women are brought together as in a Temple, or as in a Family, they should first be treated as the Columns of the Temple, like we say today "Pillars of the Community". The Pillar being Topped with a Wax Capitol, and all Symbolizing the Strength of Women holding up the Society.

So at the Temple, the Bees, the Women working at the Temple, what can be seen as comparable to Mary Magdalene, a daughter of Magdala, and the Ancient Egyptian story of the Magicians under the Pharaoh and the Stroke Maiden loosing her Broach. The Women then are the Columns, they are the feature that Holds up the Roof.

This is how Angel Technology worked.

It can be seen in the Wax Cone Summer Feast carvings, and then in Peseshet, these Women, Angels with Wax Halos and Sheer Robes, were sent out and then became Queens, the Sheer clad Goddesses if Greece with Beeswax in their hair making it appear Windblown in the Statues and other Art.

In the Indus Valley Civilization we see the Philosopher King,
We can compare this to say the Pope, Saudi Arabia, Iran, ISIS, several other legitimate "Islamic States" like Malaysia, etc, these are Monarchies and Theocracies.

I really think this is something I shouldn't present to American Government because they are probably going to use it for evil, while I wouldn't use this knowledge the same way you all would,
But I think people are wondering, how do we get the Game to Translate to the Far East, South East Asia, etc. Like how does Lil Wayne reach like Indian Guru status without changing his message to much.

So we have to go back to the Philosopher King,
And we can look at the Supreme Mendicant, Shiva at one point has a debate with the other Gods about the creation of the Universe, he cuts of Brahma's head, this may also have been another I stance if him chopping a head off, he does it a lot. And Brahma is so Auspicious that his head grows back,

Shiva must atone by going around begging and then becomes a new form,
In this form you can see him as like the Beggar King, but like a Politician, the same way the Philosopher King is a Political type Role within the Religious Societal Framework, Supreme Mendicant is like a Leader,
But he feeds hungry Dogs and thereby has them following him,
And Lovesick Demon Women.

He goes to a village and sleeps with everyone's Wife,
But leaves the Shiva Lingam,
Which is like the entire Silpa Sastra,
Like Freemasonry in a sense.

He left them Art,
But in each home, and knowledge of Sex and Spirituality combined in that symbol.

Sharecropping and Feudalism (from Homer to Enlightenment)
The Magna Carta,
The Declaration of Independence,
Remonstrance

Reparations, I want to begin to get into several points about Reparations. And I will point out, just as an example, Black people should know that Melanin, the Black Pigment in Skin, Eyes, etc. Is used to Coat Rocket Ships to exit the Atmosphere. And it is also in some Vietnamese and African Marijuana Strains and other place. It is something like a Sun Screen. And White people actually seem to be more Mutant, like Cave Fish with Translucent Skin and No Eyeballs.

The Neutral Ground (also known as the Neutral Strip, the Neutral Territory, and the No Man's Land of Louisiana; sometimes anachronistically referred to as the Sabine Free State) was a disputed area between Spanish Texas and the United States' newly acquired Louisiana Purchase. Local officers of Spain and the United States agreed to leave the Neutral Ground temporarily outside the jurisdiction of either country. The area, now in western Louisiana, had neutral status from 1806 to 1821.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Ground_(Louisiana)

I think many in the Black community will appreciate this Analysis. If we look at Moses, Loki, Varun, Neptune, Merlin, etc. These Mixed races.

We can then put that into what we know, like for Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, back to mixed Carthaginian, Punics, to Moses at Fayum.

Then Red Bones, Yellow Bones, and what are called Black Dutch in Texas.

Red Bones can be traced back to the Louisiana Free Zone, and are like Black and White Mixed, then Mixed back into Black.

Yellow Bomes are White and Black, then Mixed into White. So we can see Yellow Bone Varieties as Precursors to various Red Bone Varieties.

This is like Mixing Hindu Kush with Strawberry Stardawg, then with Ghost OG, then back with Hindu Kush.

Emancipation Proclamation
Vankush, Van Kush, or Van-Kush is a Dutch Name of Indian Origin. The Dutch Governors of Europe brought their culture to India with the British Empire, and the name is derived from a combination of Dutch Syntax and Indian Geography.

Van: meaning "of" or "from", denoting a Birthplace or place of Individual or Family Origin.

Kush: the Kush Mountains exist of the Western Edge of India. The Kush region is the region of India which most influenced the Western World during Hellenization and vice-versa because Alexander the Great was deterred by Mountain Desert Tribes in the Modern Kush Mountain region.

The name Vankush or Van Kush, means "From Kush". This name may have first appeared during the time of the East India Trade company and British Empire (similar to words like "Oriental"; the word "Indica" or "Indic" like Indo- all mean "from India), or may be derived from an older name then translated into Dutch and English at that time. It may also be derived directly from the Surname "Kush" and others similar to it. Possibly related to "Vancush" which is more common.

It is now used as a first name in India, and is the last name of Rev. Ryan Sasha-Shai Van Kush and Kali Van Kush in the United States.

https://forebears.io/surnames/kush
https://lastnames.myheritage.com/last-name/kush
https://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=vancush
https://www.britannica.com/place/Hindu-Kush
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Boer-people
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_(Dutch)
In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great, 3 (London, England: BBC Worldwide, 1997, originally published 1997), 1 hour 2 mins

These descriptions are used in the book Kingdom of this World, page 72 Quadroons, Octoroons, Sacatra, and Griffe; Farrar, Straus and Giroux (2017) to identify individuals of varying mixtures of race. A Quadroon was half mulatto and half white, or one fourth black. An octoroon was the child of a quadroon and a white, so their blood was one fourth black at most. However, oftentimes any black blood in a person's lineage was enough to identify them as black, and/or a slave. A Griffe was half black and half mulatto, so they were at least three fourths black. A Sacatra was half Griffe and half black.

Other identifications used included Metif (same as Octoroon), Meamelouc (half white and half Metif), Quarteron (half Meamelouc and half white), Sangmele (half quarteron and half white), and Mango (half Griffe and half black). This was the origin of the black stereotype "Sambo" - as Sambo was the word for a child of a mulatto and a black, or a Griffe child. In Spanish the word Guerro means "White Mexican"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir
If we look at the History of Slavery and Slave Hunting, we can see that even in the North it was common to Hunt Slaves to bring them to the South. Under the Law these people were Property.

The Antelope, 25 U.S. 546 (1827)
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Order of the Sphynx.

We can then look to Gigantomachy, and Jason and the Argonauts, the Heroes before Achilles, and the Fall of Troy, following Hercules to see what happened to the Giants, and then Typhon is Hera and Gaia's revenge, and all his children. If we look at this first at a Glance, we see these are stories being told by Ancient Ancient, Prehistoric Human beings, before Recorded History. When a Modern person hears a Story about Repeunzel, or Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc, these are all assumed to be like 1000 AD, like Horses and Carriages, like Jesus was year 0 in Rags, then the Advancements to Kings and Queens with Steel and Guns or Crossbows and everything, then into today, but that is obviously very mistaken, Jason and the Argonauts is a story told about Ancient Ancient Times, with Kings and Protests, Greece and Rome and everyone around them were doing this, using these Mythologies as Guidelines, with the Champion System instituted by Homer, much like the System instituted by Zoroaster. These are stories of things that happened 10,000-40,000 years ago, the Neolithic Temple Culture, these Kings, Queens and Princesses were Ancient.
We can look to Aesop's Fables, and Fairy Tales to then see that these are Human Cultural Stories from Prehistoric Times.

Noah is in American Theology seen as the one after the Flood who repopulated the Earth after God Flooded it and most Americans have some idea in their minds that Giants were involved in that, and maybe that they are Stone related, then in Greek Mythology Humans are created by Stones being cast over the backs of the Gods. Mithra emerges from a Stone, and there are several other Gods associated with Humans, or Giants, and Stones.

Pangool are more Familiar to Christians, most have never heard of a Pangool but would accept it in the Americanized Christian Lore, they are Moral, this gets into Demi-Gods because Noah is just like the Demi-Gods, when we look at the Argonauts who found the Cities, this is what Noah and his Children are they are the Biblical Pangool, with Solomon, and John the Baptist Traveling, the Argonauts then also imply Hercules who is thought to have Founded several Italian and other Towns after crossing the Alps carrying a Boat, and Hercules killed the Giants at Phlegrae, Macedonia.

Fayum and Atlantis are then Key to this, and again all Americans have this in their Psyche but don't know all of it, they just would be like "Yeah, I know about that", but you have to mention that Noah was sent down the Nile and raised in the Egyptian Palace as a Prince, and then killed a Slave Driver, this happened in Fayum. Atlantis is something Plato talked about after visiting Egypt, and this requires Archaeology but we can see Fayum as little Atlantis, like Little China, or Little Cuba, or Little Mexico, or just whatever area is in your City where everyone still brings in their Culture and live together that way, this is what Fayum is for Atlantis in Egypt. They are the Culture of Phlegrae and Atlantis, then during Roman times after Alexander the Great (from Macedonia) in the Wax Sarcophagus Paintings. We can then trace this through Christianity by the story of King Herod when Mary had Jesus in the Stables, and he was going to kill all Babies under 2 years of age, and an Angel came to Joseph in a Dream and told him to go to Sebbenytos, Egypt. This was 300 years after Manetho wrote Aegyptiaca there, the Book where the word Dynasty comes from.

If we then study the Culture of 0 AD Sebbenytos, we see Anhur-Shu and Atlas, Atlantians from the Moorish, Numidian Region. This then takes us to the Argan Acacia Dry Forrest, Wax Painting, Candles, Bee Culture, etc. And in the Boats of Fayum and Phlegrae, as well as Sceria we see a connection of Boats, we can also see this as the Sea People who attacked Egypt and were the only Slaves in recorded Egyptian History, so here we can decipher a lot of this, Delos was once a place where Apollo and Artemis were born and the Greeks called the people there Pirates, but they also called the people Sentian Pirates who saved them from Typhon. So Delos was central, but the Greeks then removed all Bodies, banned Midwives, Birth and Death on the Island and gave it a different sacred aire than before. We can see this same action in Athens, with the Exhuming of Bodies and removal of the Midwife Culture, best defined as a Severing of ties between Sais, Egypt, and Athens, Greece, which is a massive partying of ways that is overlooked, and we can then see the Sea People as Early Founders of Said likely with the Egyptians, through a Treaty at Delos, then fleeing Athens and other places, trying to get back in and waging War.

Bes and Bastet,

Thug Life is a callback to Pope Tactics, written about by Machiavelli.

The basic concept can be seen directly in the Italian usage, the Sicilian Mob, etc, they used the same Tactics he Pope used to pay them for, like Templars, we can see all of this, including Knights and Assassins, as the same kind of push Tupac was making with Thug Life. Its not about being Ignant, it's about being a Force

The Black Panthers were the Black Panther Party for Self Defense. A Political Organization. The President has the Secret Service, Rome had the Praetorian Guard who killed Cesar with the Senate, and Septimius Severus replaced them after banning them from Rome. Their Role also kind of like a CIA, this gets to how the Art of War by Sun Tzu still applies to business today.

So Tupac, Makaveli, was saying that a Thug Life was necessary to create the Space needed to operate, that layer of Thug Life is Security like Bes, like the Templars, or the Italian Pope hired Political Thugs as they were called, imported by Italians and others. Machiavelli was a Political Ethicist, the first really, who pointed out the Dog Eat Dog nature of Politics. Ride or Die could be called a Machiavellian concept.

The primary Book Tupac, or anyone, would likely draw from, is "The Prince", which is meant to be read by those in Monarchies, who would be rulers. Called a Mirror for Princes, and the most popular one. Comparable to the Teachings of Ptahhotep, and both should be read together with the Spirit of the Laws for a bigger picture. And this Book is about Principalities, which then gets in to Royal Families, and the People's favorite Royal, Scandals, Dynasties, etc. So then Aegyptiaca, Babyloniaca and Sacred Tales should be Studied for Context.

Nobody wants to listen to this thread. You don't need to write everything here. Because if you understand in its entirety, then simply draw conclusions and let other people visit the articles you provide. please don't make this thread more complicated. Provide education to all according to what you can present in a simple, easy to understand and digestible manner.

Please, that not everyone will pay attention to this kind of thread which will only get him ignored.

I am going to get into how to Articulate Remonstrance against Judges, it's kind of a "Slippery Slope" argument, but you argue that the Government is your teacher:

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)
And Estoppel

Just to introduce everyone. And Judge Willet should be hearing it in his court. And Remonstrance because the Government stands where it does according to Olmstead, and we argue for a Spiritual path, Sadhana.

I am getting to the COVID Payments,
I am giving everyone background on why they are withholding payments. And people do like it, I made it a blog and it is getting good feedback.

I am creating a Guide using what I'm writing, and it will be up to 20-30 parts, we are exposing the Corruption, then showing how it plays out day to day in the coming Links

Van Kush Family Guide to the Game, Part 1
https://blurt.blog/blurtphoto/@punicwax/van-kush-family-guide-to-the-game-part-1

Van Kush Family Guide to the Game, Part 2
https://blurt.blog/blurtphoto/@punicwax/van-kush-family-guide-to-the-game-part-2

What we can see is being done by people who are Running Game, can be best gotten by looking at how a Nice Girl thinks of it. Alanis Morrisette in this song gets into kind of that perspective, but she is in the music industry at the time and so deeper in the Game than most, while still having this idea that a Player is accepting the Sex as Emotional Currency.

There is a distinction to be made, and there is a lot of Grey Area, that is why the Book the Government learned about all of this with, and entered the Game on, was called 50 Shades of Grey. The Distinction to be made that Sex can be seen as a Currency, as in for Trade for Money, or Status, etc, Sleeping your Way to the Top for example. And this then is confused for Emotional Currency, as in "If I am the best he ever had, he can't throw me away", and it gets extremely conflicted with people like Mike Tyson who at a rough time in his life made the Statement to a reporter "I'm going to Rape you until you Love me", which is a very Ken Paxton attitude.

But to the Alanis Morrisette song

I want you to know, that I am happy for you
I wish nothing but the best for you both
An older version of me
Is she perverted like me?
Would she go down on you in a theater?
Does she speak eloquently
And would she have your baby?
I'm sure she'd make a really excellent mother
'Cause the love that you gave that we made
Wasn't able to make it enough for you
To be open wide, no
And every time you speak her name
Does she know how you told me
You'd hold me until you died
'Til you died, but you're still alive
And I'm here, to remind you
Of the mess you left when you went away
It's not fair, to deny me
Of the cross I bear that you gave to me
You, you, you oughta know
You seem very well, things look peaceful
I'm not quite as well, I thought you should know
Did you forget about me, Mr. Duplicity?
I hate to bug you in the middle of dinner
It was a slap in the face
How quickly I was replaced
And are you thinking of me when you fuck her?
'Cause the love that you gave that we made
Wasn't able to make it enough for you
To be open wide, no
And every time you speak her name
Does she know how you told me
You'd hold me until you died
'Til you died, but you're still alive
And I'm here, to remind you
Of the mess you left when you went away
It's not fair, to deny me
Of the cross I bear that you gave to me
You, you, you oughta know
'Cause the joke that you laid in the bed
That was me and I'm not gonna fade
As soon as you close your eyes, and you know it
And every time I scratch my nails
Down someone else's back I hope you feel it
Well, can you feel it?
Well I'm here, to remind you
Of the mess you left when you went away
It's not fair, to deny me
Of the cross I bear that you gave to me
You, you, you oughta know
Well I'm here, to remind you
Of the mess you left when you went away
It's not fair, to deny me
Of the cross I bear that you gave to me
You, you, you oughta know

This can be even more Expounded on with the fact that Alanis Morrisette apparently made Statutory Rape Allegations in the past, or other people are making them now and she didn't make them in the past, but the accusations are in an HBO documentary and she doesn't like that it is being called Rape, or something to that effect. So again, you can see how it can get very conflicted and there is also the kind of idea there the Old Lady lets the Rapist have her to save the younger girl, and just kinda accepts that it happened. Lots of Grey.

Yhis is a topic and the details you gave us wanted to show us the proof that the liquidity sections are missing but it's really too long and very complicated. everything you provide is very difficult to read without a logic It's all like a copy from someone and then paste it on this forum post. So you need to summarize the content and give simple statements that will make the post. yours gets more attention.

It also seems that during the COVID Pandemic, many in Government forgot they can't even appear Bias. Lol. Really forgot.

https://tylerpaper.com/news/texas/texas-workforce-commission-ag-paxton-warn-texans-of-identity-theft-unemployment-fraud-schemes/article_1248353f-8076-5968-be1d-99318bc351ea.html

From March 2020 to April 2021, TWC received 4.48 million total claims filed from individuals applying for unemployment benefits. Among them, TWC tagged 611,000 claimants as suspicious, with the majority being blocked before any benefits were paid out. TWC continues to hire new investigators and improve its fraud-blocking efforts. In the last month, 94% of suspicious claims have been blocked before any benefits were paid, the agency reports.

Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020),

Texas Bill of Rights
Sec. 27. RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY; PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. The citizens shall have the right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good; and apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.

Rule 83. Rules by District Courts; Judge's Directives
(a) Local Rules.
(2) Requirement of Form. A local rule imposing a requirement of form must not be enforced in a way that causes a party to lose any right because of a nonwillful failure to comply.
Daily v. Municipality of Adams County, 117 Fed. Apps. 669, 671-72 (10th Cir 2004)


5 U.S.C. 8101, 8147 and Chapters 63 and 81
7 U.S.C. 1431, 1736, 1922, 1926, 1991, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2219a, 2279, 301, 3156, 321, 3241, 3361, 612c and 8103
10 U.S.C. Chapter 1606
12 U.S.C. 1454, 1717, 5701, 5702 and 5708
15 U.S.C. 2051, 2052, 632, 636, 637, 656, 78c, 78f, 9009, 9021, 9023, 9024, 9025, 9026, 9027, 9030 and 9073
16 U.S.C. 3371-3378, 3801, 661 and 742a
18 U.S.C. 42(a)
19 U.S.C. 3805 and 58c
20 U.S.C. 1059c, 1087tt, 1089, 1094, 1098a, 6311, 7272, 7441, 7515, 7544 and 7801
21 U.S.C. 1031, 1053, 360bbb-3, 451, 468, 601 and 695
22 U.S.C. 2221, 2346, 2427, 2601 and 7622
25 U.S.C. 13, 1601, 1603, 1621f, 2021, 4101, 4111, 4221, 5131, 5301, 5304 and 5325
26 U.S.C. 3111 and 3304
29 U.S.C. 1021, 1083, 1084, 1166, 1301, 1305, 1306, 1431, 203 and 50
31 U.S.C. 1324
38 U.S.C. 1703, 3001, 308, 310, 3313, 3319, 3452, 3688, 7101, 7113, 7301, 7701, 7703, 8131, 8137 and Chapter 74
42 U.S.C. 10403, 1103, 11301, 11302, 11360, 11371-11378, 11381-11389, 11703, 11705, 12572, 12576, 12601, 12653p, 12681, 12701, 12721, 12742, 12747, 12748, 12750, 12771, 12774, 1301, 1308, 1315, 1320b-5, 1322, 1395i-3, 1395ww, 1395x, 1395y, 1396, 1396a, 1396d, 1396n, 1396o, 1396r, 1396r-4, 1396r-8, 1396u-7, 1396w-5, 1397, 1397cc, 1397dd, 1397ee, 1397gg, 1397ll, 1437, 1437a, 1437f, 1472, 1474, 16131, 16137, 1766, 1773, 1786, 18031, 18041, 2001, 2004a, 201, 202, 241, 247d, 247d-3a, 254b, 254c-19, 254l, 254l-1, 254q-1, 256h, 262, 290aa-4, 290bb-21, 290bb-32, 290bb-36, 290bb-36b, 290hh-1, 293l-1, 294e-1, 297n, 2991b-3, 2992d, 300, 300bb-6, 300hh-15, 300j-1, 300x, 300x-21, 300x-51, 300x-62, 3149, 3233, 3616a, 4951, 4955, 5000, 5106a, 5106h, 5116, 5116b, 5116d, 5174, 5191, 5301, 5302, 5306, 603, 618, 701-713, 7403, 7405, 801, 8101-8107, 8105, 8621, 8626, 9604, 9858a, 9858c, 9858e, 9858m and 9858n
45 U.S.C. 352(a)(5)
47 U.S.C. 254 and 397
49 U.S.C. 24102, 24319, 24905, 40102, 44704, 47102, 47114, 5302, 5303, 5304, 5307, 5309, 5310, 5311 and Chapter 53

KVUE, KERA, WFAA, FOX4, etc, when you say there are 375,000 fraud cases. I, Tamika Battle/Kemp, am included in those numbers because they won't take a look at my Temporary State ID. And before that, refused to do a Wage Investigation.

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/investigations/defenders/fraudulent-unemployment-claims-in-texas-amid-pandemic/269-6dbd7686-fd81-4a69-b560-93b1024b31bf

Matthew 10
1
He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil [1] spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2
These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
3
Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
4
Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
5
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.
6
Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
7
As you go, preach this message: `The kingdom of heaven is near.'
8
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, [2] drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.
9
Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts;
10
take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
11
"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave.
12
As you enter the home, give it your greeting.
13
If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you.
14
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.
15
I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
16
I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
17
"Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues.
18
On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.
19
But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say,
20
for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
21
"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
22
All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
23
When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
24
"A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.
25
It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, [3] how much more the members of his household!
26
"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.
27
What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.
28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
29
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny [4] ? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.
30
And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31
So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
32
"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.
33
But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35
For I have come to turn "`a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
36
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' [5]
37
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
38
and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
39
Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
40
"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.
41
Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward.
42
And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."
[1] Greek unclean
[8] The Greek word was used for various diseases affecting the skin--not necessarily leprosy.
[25] Greek Beezeboul or Beelzeboul
[29] Greek an assarion
[36] Micah 7:6

"There was never an instance known of an Indian begging for his life when in the power of his enemies... ib. §. 27. that 'los obrages los aniquilan por la inhumanidad con que se les trata.' that in other situations also he meets death with more deliberation, and endures tortures with a firmness unknown almost to religious enthusiasm with us"
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

I just realized that most people out in the World are Naive to Addiction, so in this part we will start to get into Addiction.

First,
If someone is addicted to something it's not the same as like, wanting to eat something specific, it's like hunger, I thought I was addicted to Cigarettes as a kid but I went to Juvenile Detention for Marijuana Possession, and the other kids were asking if I thought the Guards would bring in Chew for them to use, and I said no. They then would rub their hands in my hair, and smell their fingers because my like head oils and everything smelled like smoke. So I learned here that I was not addicted, because I didn't want Cigarettes like they did.

And I used to think Meth Addiction, could be like someone using Ecstacy, just like an Occasional thing, but for some reason when people use Meth they just keep going. And they need it or they feel pain. This can best be experienced in a Trial Run, using high doses of Caffeine, which is addictive and can cause the Withdrawal feeling in a minimal way in the morning, hence "Don't talk to me until after I've had my Coffee". You can also test it with Phenibut, which you can notice the very first morning.

But usually it starts, just as a common example, at like a Port Authority or Bus Station with Gay people, and they use it because it "Makes everyone Beautiful". But you can see how that can lead to problems, and then there is also a Trap people use where they leave some out and maybe go away for a minute, and they come back knowing you will have done a lot, then make you pay for it with Sex. There are even people who like to Overdose people, especially when they get something pure.

And so everyone can see how this is Rape, I will get into my own experiences. JWH-018 was the original K2 Marijuana Replacement, and JWH-018 actually is like Marijuana in effect, but like pure THC and it can get stronger in effect. So what happens is you have Seizures avs your Cannabinoid Receptors like Grow according to research, but I have experienced the Seizures and seen several people experience them. I babysat them and helped them, nursed them through it, if I wanted I could have blamed them for trying to keep up with me, and I could have Raped them and called it Payment.

I have seen someone smoke new K2 off the street, which is now like AB-CHMINCA because JWH is illegal, and now it's a Lower Dosage, Micrograms like LSD, abd I have seen a Make Paralyzed for 3 days, in a Wheel chair hardly able to turn his neck, toes curled, like a Dead Spider that got sprayed with Poison. Imagine if after getting Raped for 3 Days paralyzed, you were addicted and wanted to come back. That can happen over a shorter period on Meth, and it's addictive.

There are Women in Dallas right now being raped in Tents unable to move, and Ken Paxton says it's their fault because he likes using Meth to get Pussy he doesn't need to be Playing with.

That's really how it is when a government deliberately squanders many who don't receive help from other countries, once they arrive, it's lacking, where is its history, even though there are as many people who go blind just because of a small amount of money equal to a  life because of extreme hunger will just accept it and just keep quiet that's how the government in the world all the economy is also declining and not all is enough ..

What the fuck has happened?

Not everything has to be a conspiracy.

The Van Kush Family Guide to the Game, Part 4 is coming out today or tomorrow, we will be getting into Workplace Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault, as well as the reasons so many Military and Police are committimg Suicide. And this will be contrasted with existing Religious Systems which delve into things like Nude Art, and Sculpture, and deeper into the Kali Ma Presence in Nature.

We are soon getting a TWC Commission appeal awarding our COVID payments, at which time we are suing for Damages and Punitive Award.

In this part we will get into how having people Running Game in a Business can become an issue, and we will be using ID.me and Cinepolis as examples. We can first open this discussion by talking about contracts, anf stating that you can Contract with someone to be an Escort, or a Porn Star, etc, these are in fact jobs, and you can create those contracts outside of having Contracts for Assistants, Employees, etc, it seems that there is a question in the World as to what Harvey Weinstein did, if it was just bad because he's gross, but no we will get deeper into the Power Dynamics here, and the Trade being made with Sex as Currency within another Framework, these being Women winning Oscars and other Awards if they go through with it.

So if we look at Cinepolis, it's not a super serious business, they are competing with Studio Movie Grill, they are Move Theater Restaurant, but what it's not is a Garage Band, even though that's how it is run sometimes. When we look at how things work now, with Tables being reserved by Beepers in most restaurants you can start to understand like the basic concept of how these places are dependant on what are SaaS Apps with Point of Sale (PoS) Utility, then connected to handheld Devices and TVs, then connected to each Chair so the Customer can click a button and it shows up on the TVs in a Chart with the chairs numbered as A1, A2, etc. Now, in Dallas Cinepolis is strategically located inside of a High End Apartment Building, which is a great convenience for anyone who wants to live there and go see Movies, an entire floor is the Theaters, they do not even have to leave the Building. But this then becomes almost what can be called Predatory, putting people who are working at this Theater with a completely different idea of what they are there to do. And as far as the Employees go there are actual Laws we can look at about this, like the Law regarding Managers and Tip Pools, which isn't allowed even at your Place of Business, because the Manager may start to skim, it's illegal because of their Role. So then there are also things to be signed by both Parties with HR to then later Prove everything is consentual if needed, and even then there are questions. A Relationship in this situation could be attacked various ways and is not smart to enter, particularly when you could contract like a Fluffers in real Life, at Adult Film studios it's a on, we all saw it on No Tuck, but to push someone into a Relationship when you control their job, and you control the checks, and you control the schedule, etc, you are in a position to then make their Job to be your Sexual object, you are in what could be called a "Daddy Role", but one with real Life Responsiblities as like a Parent, and you are Violating those as with your Minor Child. This is what Harvey Weinstein did, he broke that Trust. The difference here being that you can Invite someone into your World on the outside, not keeping them in that Artificial Role in which you control them. You can then communicate to HR that you are seeing each other outside, and not let it effect everyone at the Workplace, like not a Garage Band; and this is actually what legally has to be done to protect a company from being part of this. And With Cinepolis, they Promoted then Demoted my Wife and I, made her Cry in an Office with no Windows or Cameras where Mentally Handicapped people also come out of Crying, and then didn't pay my Wife, basically because the Manager disagreed with us being Married, he tried to split up our Schedules and then my Wife made me come sit in the Break Room because she felt Intimidated, and my Wife is a Beautiful Black Woman, so you can see how these things are coming from a place of Sexual Desire and could easily get much worse. They were constantly harassing me because of my Religion, and so they were literally attacking me and Intimidating my Wife, and we were Servers at a Movie Theater. It's disgusting in the World.

Harvey Weinstein v. A Girl Working at Taco Bell or Dominoes who has to let her Manager touch her ass, or sleep with her to keep her job, you can see how maybe we all have seen some interview with a Movie Star who cried to a News Anchor, or seen Stormy Daniels Interviews, etc, etc. But no one is listening to a Girl with a Real Job dealing with People who want to be Daddy.

This then gets to Landlord Rape and like the Pawn Shop stuff, all that is considered Pornographic, it's not Illegal for a Girl to be an Actress. If you see a Video where they pay a girl to have sex in the back of their Car, it's legal because they put it on a Porn Website, or they have a Business where they sell Videos of themselves, all that is legal. But these things aren't legal, when you are basically making a Girl a Prostitute, its called "Turning Hos out", and it's Human Trafficking and Rape.

The Market Value of an Illicit Commodity, that's the Issue, we are talking about the same thing as Marijuana coming across the Border, Ammonia from Farmers being used to make Meth, etc. We are talking now about putting a Price on Pussy, like putting a Price on Border Crossing, and now you are the Local Cartel. That's why Gangs are called Sex, Money, Murder, etc. They Run the Market, and Money has Markets when people have it and don't pay Taxes and can't use Banks, protecting and Moving Money is a Market.
The Men are the Criminals in these Situations in which a Woman is Treated like this.

90 Day Fiance,
Steven and Alina, 25 and 20
Watermelon in place of Engagement
"Did you just slept with other Women"
Speaking Russian so he doesn't need her and can then talk to all the Females he wants and say whatever he wants like it's his first day. She tested him with Masha.
The Old White Man Syndrome
Debbie does Dallas
Beavis and Butthead do America

Hanno the Navigator seems to be misinterpreted, it is much like Jason and the Argonauts, but Historians do not understand this and say that it contains “inconsistencies”. Hanno the Navigator can be seen as the story of the people who came from India around 30,000 BC to the Land of Punt, who then became the Prehistoric Stilt House Culture of Europe, and the Achaeans and Phaiakians, who then came together at Delos. They then became involved with the Cultures of Egypt and Canaan, being involved in developing them from maybe a little earlier than 10,000 BC on (along with Malta, etc, different Tribes of Temple Families), and then becoming the Carthaginians, the Sea People, associated with the Moors and Hebrews, as well as having a connection the Phoenicians at Tyre like all the land dwellers, but likely moreso because they were at Peace at Sea with the Phoenicians, when we see everyone else calling them Pirates or having little to no contact with them to even give them a Title. Hanno the Navigator then, in that lineage of Human History, is a Carthaginian, likely a Punic, possibly Mythical, or having copied a Mythical Pathway like Hannibal Barca through the Alps, who only did it because he had knowledge the the Argonauts carried a Boat across the Alps, Hercules had made it and so would he. We can maybe see Hanno as this same kind of event, the same kind of person as the Jewish stories of the Sky, but told by using the stories of real people around them; used by making these Planets and Heavenly Bodies, as indistinguishable from a regular Human being when you read about them in the Old Testament, because the stories are likely taken from an aspect of a real Human life that then was able to help their Culture explain the story in the Sky, and that person is then immortalized in the Sky by having done something the Sky shows happening (As Above, So Below). So we can see Hanno the Navigator as a story being told, of a History of the Aethiopian Ocean, something which occurred, not just an exploration, but a rich deep History of these people having been connected, no different than the Odyssey or the Iliad, but about the region of Carthage, Atlas, and the Western African Coast. There may have actually been Hanno, who took a trip, and it was his first time, but these people knew each other, and the Story of Hanno can be seen as important to understanding the Titan Atlas, and we will get deeper into this in the Book of Titans.

If we look today we can see that the region of Tunisia, and the Region of Morocco, as well as the Region of Punt, are all associated with the Building of the United States of America. The same way the French saved the Americans in the American Revolution, India and the Dutch were connected through the East India Trade Company and the Triangle Trade of Sugar, Rum and People from Africa, we also see Slaves coming from India and from the Punt Region, Cushitic Peoples and their Neighbors; as well as People from Ghana and other West African Regions, rather than East African. We can see Eastern Africa as represented by Punt, Aksum and Aethiopia, while Western Africa is represented by Atlas and the Atlantic Ocean (the Ocean of Atlas) at one point was called “The Aethiopian Ocean” showing the connection between East and West Africa that was stronger in the past, because of Poseidon (Neptune) and Atlas. We can then start to identify these groups as the Sentian Pirates, and the Phaikians. If we then look to the Time of Hannibal Barca, we see that first he pays Tribute to Carthage, Tunisia and Libya, to show that he is still a Carthaginian National, even though he is taking over the newly formed State of New Carthage in Spain, after the Death of his Father. So this is an example we can see of Tribute being paid in this Region. If we then look to the Founders of America, there were Barbary Pirates, who wore Red Hats, at least in Artistic depictions, and were associated with these regions, the Aethiopian Sea, and the Atlas Region or Moorish Region, what was Carthage and Mauritania, home place of King Atlas, in the Ancient World. We now see Pirates from Mauritania and Somalia (Punt region). What we are likely seeing, is the Tribute Culture of the Bronze Age Sun Gods, the Sun Kings, being displaced. This was part of the Natural Order, like the Sun, these African Nations emitted Light, their Daughters, Princesses, who then Created our Civilization by forming local Royal Families, which then paid Tribute to the Father Nation. This Order has been all but forgotten, and now what we are seeing is Pirate Organizations forming from Ancient Societal Regularities, Ancient Global Regularities, which have been overturned, we used to all recognize that we were from Africa, and that Africa was the land of our Ancestors, the “Land of the Gods” the Egyptians called Punt; and these Tributary Routes, these Institutions of Tribute that exist, are how Human Beings got where we are from the Stone Age, how we got through the Bronze Age, and even today modern Governments collect Taxes, Banks collect Interest and Churches collect Tithes. We can see part of what the Bible is saying in Satan rebelling against God to create his own Kingdom, and that being Hell, taking half of Heaven’s Angels with him, can be seen as Humans being influenced to diverge from this Natural Order, and this did not end the Natural Order, they integrated together over time, and continued on in some places, while being made dormant in other places, and even now becoming Piracy, the Natural Order was not replaced, and it seems to have never attempted to be replaced by the West outside of maybe Jesus, we will get deeper into this in the Book of the Sphynx; and the Books of Marilla and Jesus. We do see, in the Native Americans speaking of New Suns, see the order being started over and corrected in the Americas, before Europeans in the model of Greeks and Romans again come and upset the Natural Order in Columbus.



Qetesh
Kali and the Armistace

Yoni

Yoginis


Sharecropping and Feudalism (from Homer to Enlightenment)
The Magna Carta,
The Declaration of Independence,
Remonstrance
Part 2 of the Guide gets deeper into how Governments in the United States want to keep slaves like they have in Colombia.

This is not me running Game,
This is me Ending Judge Willet and Ken Paxton's Game they run with Phi Delta Phi.

We are teaching everyone who you are,
An Introduction.

Covid has made the economy more difficult, many companies went bankrupt so the government gave a lot of subsidies, in my country for the poor people get assistance of around $55 per month, unfortunately this assistance is only 6 months and since 4 months have ended, this is of course a difficult thing because it makes energy Buying residents are getting lower and there are many unemployed.

With BLURT and HIVE going up in value, and STEEM soon to follow, we will now be suing Texas for $2.50 for every $0.50 that could have gone to HIVE, and $0.03 for every $0.003 that could have gone to BLURT.

So now the Delay is costing Millions in Taxpayer Dollars.

we will not be separated from changes in nature, and humans who can survive are those who can quickly adapt to change, so that they can survive, but this is not easy to do. we can realize that during the pandemic, a lot of online trading is happening, so this seems to bring changes in human life

The development of technology that is really fast also makes changes in human life,
who would have imagined that buying and selling or trading could be done online,
with the development of technology makes everything easier and that is a positive thing and there are also negative impacts

Every development must go through the process of travel, in the past the internet was a rare item, until now we can access anything through cellphones, and of course those who can't keep up with the times will be degraded from the competition in the era that is so tight. even for now we can do anything from home. this is the development of the digital world

That's right and that's why it's important that we are obliged to keep up with the times,
In this case, of course it is very useful because the change to the digital world today provides many benefits, although it also creates new problems

He's basically just saying he can't see it, but he probably doesn't even live in the United States or didn't use the system, anyone who went through TWC and IDme would understand. IDme was Nation wide, and everyone dealt with it.

Texas wants to pretend the Pandemic is over, and act like anything they did is non-problematic, but you still can't get a Driver's License without waiting 3 months for an appointment.

I just want Everyone to know that this is not a Fucking Joke, and the Federal Government had to Create a Federal Oversight Board because the Pandemic was being used to RAPE PEOPLE, LITERALLY SYSTEMATICALLY, like a Holocaust of Rape. The NAVY WAS CONSIDERING A PURGE.

This is not a Game.

I am not Playing with the Dallas Government. This is a RICO, call me Whitman Knapp, because I'm making this Happen.

The Culprits are now Trying to Distract Everyone by Pointing out that Sa Neter is involved with New Black Panthers, and they are then making a MASSIVE STRETCH saying that "Black Identity Extremists" as Jeff Sessions Worded what we all are, are instead "Sovereign Citizens" which we are not but it has in fact Infected the Moorish Science Temple. Sovereign Citizens have Infected the Moorish Science Temple.

But that is not going to Stop this Knapp Commission we are doing in Dallas.

These Losers at the Radio Stations can’t even Help themselves.

Time continues to move with many changes. After the Covid period has passed, the El Niño climate has also changed the climate so that many problems occur, and it is not surprising that inflation in many countries has occurred, so that income is getting smaller because prices are increasing. So, the state must provide subsidy assistance so that there is no impact that makes it more difficult for citizens to be able to shop for necessities.
It is true that there was an impact that occurred during covid, that online trade continued to grow. Of course, offline trade closed because they preferred to be able to buy online. So there is a good side, but the bad side also happens.

Traditional markets are no longer as busy as before. The Covid season has indeed made many changes. However, the El Niño storm is a natural disaster and not the impact of Covid. prevented by humans. Inflation that occurs in several places is a scenario from the Global Elite who regulates the movement of money conditions in all countries. This is human nature which was planned that way and war occurred in several large countries. If we observe more deeply, this chaos seems to have been arranged in such a way.

Traditional markets are not closed for certain commodities, especially for daily needs for food, but for others it is really affected by the existence of online businesses which make distances and transactions easier, but there are also fraudulent online transactions with goods that do not match what is stated. There is a good side and there is still a bad side that occurs because online fraud is so widespread.
Everyone cannot avoid superpowers, whose majority regulate all the rules that are made so that global conditions depend on them and everyone cannot avoid this because of the law of nature. The big will regulate the small.
So if you think there is chaos, it looks organized and that's not something strange,

El Niño has long been a problem in tropical countries however this time it was worsened due to extreme climate change. Environmentalists and climatologists have always warned us about the effects of climate change but due to greed people ignored them and continued living the life they wanted with little to no regard to the environment.

The pandemic probably eased out many types of pollutions as no one can go out trash is lessened and traffic are reduced. But ever since we’ve come back to normal, I fear it has even doubled.

During the pandemic, many corrupt politicians benefited from millions of dollars and maybe even billions of dollars they swindled just because of the materials used during the pandemic season that other politicians who are corrupt or looters may have a percentage of in reality. 

Millions of people have already died, but the blind politicians were able to take advantage of looting the treasury of the people under their jurisdiction. It is a sad situation, but it really happens all over the world. So it's not just in that country but also in many countries around the world, of course, that have been affected by the COVID season.

One way or another, not only pharmaceutical companies, but also government officials made very good money from the pandemic.  I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, but if you take what I observed in my country, the government allocated its own funds from the budget and received assistance from other countries and international organizations, but as a result, no one did anything. One of the indicators is the catastrophic shortage of artificial lung ventilation devices. Although funds were allocated for this. Although we can only be indignant, we cannot change anything.

During the pandemic the common people have suffered the most. I don't think they will get this payment again. They have been swallowed by the big people and politicians of the society. Due to them corruption is increasing more and they are looting everything from the common people. Even if the government allocates something from their budget the financial incentives of the government do not reach them looting everything in advance.