KLAYMAN v. OBAMA et al

Filing 46

MOTION for Leave to Supplement the Record by LARRY E. KLAYMAN, CHARLES STRANGE, MARY ANN STRANGE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Klayman, Larry)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LARRY KLAYMAN, et. al
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, et. al
Civil Action No. 13-cv- 851 RJL
Defendants.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
Plaintiffs, Larry Klayman, Charles and Mary Ann Strange, Michael Ferrari and Mathew
Garrison, hereby move to supplement the record with new information concerning the illegal and
unconstitutional invasion of the privacy of themselves and American citizens who are not under
investigation for crimes or contacts with terrorists and terrorism.
Attached as "Exhibit 1" are recent reports, which were issued after the November 18,
2013 hearing on Plaintiffs Motions for Preliminary Injunction, showing the outrageous abuse of
the NSA’s PRISM and related so-called programs violative of section 215 of the Patriot Act and
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 USC § 1861 and 50 USC § 1881,
respectively. This illegal and unconstitutional conduct of the NSA, which has targeted persons
like Plaintiffs who are not under investigation for terrorist connections or crimes, is part of a
pattern of nefarious conduct which creates a strong evidentiary inference, coupled with hard
proof from Plaintiffs computer and metadata expert Edward Felton and as contained in affidavits
submitted to this court that there is both jurisdiction and standing for them to pursue their claims
and to have preliminary injunctions issued forthwith. See Alexander v. FBI, 186 F.R.D. 154, 158
(D.D.C. 1999) (“This [**7] line of discovery is appropriate because plaintiffs may seek to create

1

the inference that if the White House misused government information for political purposes in
the case of the Tripp release, such evidence may be circumstantial evidence of the similar
conduct alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint.”) See also Rosenbaum v. City & County of San
Francisco, 484 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2007) (A law enforcement agency may be enjoined from
committing constitutional violations where there is proof that officers within the agency have
engaged in a persistent pattern of misconduct.); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (affirming
the injunction placed against a law enforcement agency after a pervasive pattern of
unconstitutional mistreatment of citizens by police officers).

On December 2, 2013, Plaintiffs contacted counsel for Defendants to seek consent for
this motion. Defendants do not grant consent.

Dated: December 2, 2013
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
Attorney at Law
D.C. Bar No. 334581
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2nd day of December, 2013 a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record (Civil Action No. 13-cv- 851) was
submitted electronically to the District Court for the District of Columbia and served via
CM/ECF upon the following:
James J. Gilligan
Special Litigation Counsel
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
James R. Whitman
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 7146
Washington, DC 20044
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Randolph D. Moss
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
Klayman Law Firm
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 345
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: [phone]

3