civil rights complaint

Stewart Waterhouse, pro seP.O. Box 700325Kapolei, Hawaii 96709(808) 233-8103

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

STEWART WATERHOUSE ) Plaintiff, ) Civil No. CV14 00144 SOM KSC

) vs ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

) (42 U.S.C. 1985(3)) CUFI CHURCH ASSOCIATION INC ) aka CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL) Attachments:aka CUFI, ) DECLARATION OF STEWART WATERHOUSE,TWITTER INC, ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW- JURISDICTION,JOHN HAGEE, ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW- FREE SPEECH,DAVID CERULLO, ) MEMORANDUM REGARDING PARTIES,JAMES MAROCCO, ) Exhibit(s): ACTION ALERT,

Defendants. ) NEWS ARTICLE,) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.)

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

101 COMES NOW Stewart Waterhouse, Plaintiff, and makes SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT to his CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT (42 U.S.C. 1985(3)) and states:

Page of 1 10SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

JURISDICTION

102 The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii has Federal Question Jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) (Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights), for conspiracy by the Defendant(s) to, and violation of, Plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment(s) to the United States Constitution, which provides that a party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages (see attached Memorandum of Law- Jurisdiction, hereby adopted by reference as if fully set forth herein).

103 And pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201(a) (Declaratory Judgement) which permits a court to declare the rights of any interested party in a case of actual controversy.

104 Venue is proper, as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Hawaii. At least one of the Defendants, James Marocco, resides in Hawaii.


STATEMENT OF CLAIM

COUNT ONE:

105 1. That two or more persons, CUFI Church Association Inc., John Hagee, David Cerullo, James Marocco, along with Twitter Inc., and others, did conspire, disguised under the color of Federal law [18 U.S.C. 2339(a)] (see attached DECLARATION OF STEWART WATERHOUSE and MEMORANDUM REGARDING PARTIES, hereby adopted by reference as if fully set forth herein).

106 2. For the purpose of directly depriving a class of persons, Gaza Palestinians, specifically Hamas, and indirectly the English reader including that of Plaintiff Stewart Waterhouse, the Right of Free Speech, including Free Speech Right of Receiving their [Palestinian-Hamas] Speech Content, on the Internet highway Twitter social media, with the aim to influence the activity of the State.

107 3. In Furtherance thereof, beginning November of 2012, the conspirator(s) CUFI Church Association Inc., John Hagee, David Cerullo, James Marocco, did cause and solicit a Campaign Drive using a written and/or email Form (see attached exhibit ACTION ALERT Demand that Twitter ban Hamas), an act, which they personally participated in and solicited others to participate in, through out the United States, including in the State of Hawaii at one or more of the following meetings: October 2 2013 at One Love Church Honolulu, October 5 2013 seminar at Waimanalo Oahu, October 6 2013 in Kahalui Maui, October 7 2013 in Kahalui Maui, October 8 2013 at New Hope Wailuku Maui, to pressure Twitter into banning Hamas and related [Gaza Palestinian] entities, from operating Twitter account(s), including the social media account @alqassambrigade.


108 In an additional act, the conspirator(s) also created and launched the hashtag (a social media term) #BanHamas (see attached exhibit NEWS ARTICLE Christian Zionists try to ban Hamas from Twitter), in an effort to trend the idea of Banning Hamas Speech, and English users from receiving or reading Hamas speech content.

109 4. Whereby Plaintiff Waterhouse, a U.S. citizen, was injured and directly or indirectly deprived of his Rights, Liberties and Privileges, of Free Speech on the Internet, specifically the corollary to Free Speech, the Right to Read or Receive Speech (see attached MEMORANDUM OF LAW- FREE SPEECH, hereby adopted by reference as if fully set forth herein), when on or around January 9 to 14, 2014, Twitter Inc. subsequently suspended the English language social media account @alqassambrigade, an account that Waterhouse had previously, for over a year, followed (follow is a Twitter social media term that designates a connection which affords more then passive reading, as the followed content is presented to the follower in a format for active reading similar to Facebooks friend).

110 Including the additional injury of depriving Waterhouse of his the right to reTweet, Blog about, or Post, said Speech Content, which Waterhouse had previously been doing, causing Waterhouses previous reTweets, Links, and Facebook posts to go blank, when as a result Twitter suspended the account @alqassambrigade. This was more then a casual injury, as Waterhouse was specifically following Hamas, for the purpose of posting on a Facebook Page he created I am Christian and I do Not Stand with Israel.

111 5. The aim of Defendants conspiracy was to influence the activity of the State- on Federal, State, and local government levels, by censoring opposing voices through depriving Free Speech, in order to make their attempt to influence the state more effective.


112 CUFIs stated aim on their website (www.cufi.org) To Communicate Pro Israel Perspectives to Elected Officials. CUFI accomplishes these goals through: CUFIs annual Washington Summit enables CUFI members to personally speak with their elected officials on behalf of Israel. CUFIs Action Alerts mobilize CUFIs over one million members to contact their members of Congress or the Administration on critical policy issues.

113 Not just in general, but specifically in the wrongful act or campaign herein complained of, the executive director of CUFI, David Brog, stated the aim, Thus far, the Obama administration and the United States attorneys office in San Francisco have maintained complete silence on this issue. This is a missed opportunity to take a strong moral stand against terror. Forcing Twitter to ban Hamas respects and reinforces what must be a bright red line between those who target civilians in pursuance of their politics and those who do not. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, has taken a leadership role in calling on the Obama administration to enforce our anti-terror laws and force Twitter to do the right thing. I applaud his activism. And on behalf of our more than 1.2 million members, I call on his colleagues to follow his lead. (www.rollcall.com Brog: Is Twitter Above the Law Dec 17, 2012).

114 The wrongful campaign Action Alert also states, I have ccd the local office of the United States Attorney on this e-mail so that they can weigh appropriate legal measures in the event that you continue to permit terrorists to use your services.

115 This aim to influence activity by the United States government had its aim, by means thereof, to influence State Activity., as follows:

116 The boycott Israel and subsequent Academic Boycott of Israel, as urged by Hamas a n d A l - Q a s s a m B r i g a d e s , ( w w w. q a s s a m . p s / s p e c i a l fi l e - 3 6 4 -


Hamas_urges_states_to_boycott_Israel_end_siege.html), a much discussed subject on Twitter, found wide support among state college and university campus academia.

117 Including Hawaiis University of Hawaii, Hawaiis State university and funded, participated in the Academic Boycott of Israel with endorsements by UH faculty teachers and staff, including: Georgia Acevedo, Holulani Aikau, Johanna Almiron, Ibrahim Aoude, Cristina Bacchilega, Francis Chun, Edward Coates, Monisha Das Gupta, Kahikina de Silva, Jonna Eagle, Julia Matsui Estrella, Cynthia Franklin, Candance Fujikane, Vernadette Gonzalez, Noelani Goodyear-Kaopua, Brian Gordon, Jairus Grove, Matthew Guss, Bianca Isaki, Dalia Khourey, Sankaran Krishna, Laura Lyons, Paul Lyons, Joyce Mariano, Brandy Nalani McDougall, Shelly Muneoka, Sharain Naylor, Njoroge, Carmen Nolte-Odhiambo, Johathan Kamakawiwoole Osorio, Matthew Petrasek, Rich Rath, Lloyd Reinardt, Suzanna Reiss, John Rieder, Joseph Salazar, Craig Santos Perez, Tani Sebro, S. Shankar, Nandita Sharma, Noenoe Silva, Caroline Sinavaina, David Smith, John Smith, Kaahiki Solis, David Stannard, Ty Kawika Tengan, Trish Tolentino, Haunani-Kay Trask, Valerie Wayne, Ronald Williams Jr, Ida Yoshinaga, Rorres Young, John David Zuern. Including Hawaiis University of the Pacifics Margaret Langer, and John Burns School of Medicines Kawika Liu. Even the State of Hawaiis Department of Educations Cynthia M. Little.

118 With an aim to influence state activity, CUFI lobbied for H.R. 4009, introduced Feb 6, 2014, by Congressmen Peter Roskam and Dan Lipinski, the Protect Academic Freedom Act which prohibits institutions of higher education from being eligible to receive any form of financial assistance, if the Secretary of Education determines that they are participating in an Academic boycott of Israel. By censoring opposing voices, the conspirators hoped to better achieve their influence.


DISSCUSSION

FREE SPEACH

119 What is at stake here is Freedom of Speech and Liberty of Expression on the Internet, including the right of people or persons to Receive, Listen or Read opposing views, or whether the Internet may be a controlled medium presenting only one side to a conflict, story or speech.

120 Free Speech has a long tradition to include counter-speech. Truthful, accurate information can only be revealed through robust uninhibited discourse. The best way to combat misleading, inaccurate, or hateful speech, is with countervailing speech. Freedom of speech is derived not from the beneficence of the state, but of Inalienable Right. Censorship or limitation on speech are tools of tyranny and oppression. There is no good censorship. Any effort to restrict free expression and the free flow of speech aids the oppressor. Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. As the Ear is necessary to the Mouth, so Free Speech includes its needed corollary to Hear, Read or Receive Speech Content. Suppression of speech, whether that of the speaker or the audience, can only make exposure of falsity more difficult, not less so. To avert evil or expose false speech and its fallacies, the remedy to be applied, is more speech, not enforced silence!

121 By the Defendant(s) conspiracy to, and banning Hamas speech content from Twitter, Waterhouses Free Speech was infringed, even if indirectly. Thereby, Waterhouse was denied the equal protection of the laws, or equal privileges and immunities under the laws, including but not limited to, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Art 19, for which the United States is a signatory, and the 1st & 14th


Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, United States and Hawaii laws, customs and privileges, for which Waterhouse is an aggrieved party entitled to relief.

122 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) provides: If two or more persons conspire for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory the equal protection of the laws if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages against any one or more of the conspirators (underlining emphasis mine).

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT NEEDED

123 In pressuring Twitter to Ban Hamas, CUFIs Campaign form wrongly cited 18 U.S.C. 2339(a) as prohibiting Hamas from having a Twitter account, stating: Under 18 U.S.C. 23398A, it is illegal for any U.S. Company to provide material support to a terrorist organization. This prohibited material support specifically includes services and communications equipment.

124 However, in enacting said law, Congress prohibited providing terrorist communication equipment such as used for purposes like Command and Control. To apply the law as prohibiting speech is an over reach and an unconstitutional application of the law.


125 Certain human rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, among these is the basic right of Free Speech. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content (Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S, 564, 573 (2002)). And the Supremacy Clause Art VI to the Constitution (Treaties), includes ICCPR (ratified 1992) Art 19 which states:

126 (1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. (2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

127 In CUFIs Campaign form citation, no proof was offered or accusation made, that the @alqassambrigade Twitter account was used by Hamas for illegal non-speech purpose.

128 This wrongful misrepresentation or unconstitutional application of the law, may have played a role in causing Twitter to ban the Hamas speech content.

129 Clarity by means of a Declaratory Judgment is needed, should the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) also be banned from using Twitter? What about other opposition groups around the world who need a platform for opposition voice to report news events? Should Twitter be required to police who uses the Internet? Do the American people, and/or international people, have a right to know the other side of a story to a conflict? Or, should people be required to accept the governments official version? In this case the version as put out by a lobby organization?


DEMAND FOR RELIEF

130 Therefore, to remedy, Plaintiff Waterhouse, an aggrieved party entitled to relief, moves the court for relief as follows:

DECLARATORY 131 A Declaratory Judgment that 18 U.S.C. 2339 does NOT require Twitter to suspend the

account @alqassambrigade. (i.e. the interpretation as put forward by CUFI, would be an unconstitutional application, or, over reach of the law).

INJUNCTIVE 132 Injunctive relief ordering Twitter to reinstate the Twitter account: @alqassambrigade.

DAMAGES133 Monetary relief in the form of Punitive Damages, to deter the Defendant(s) and/or

similar person(s), from further transgress upon Free Speech.

134 And any other remedy that the court should find appropriate.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct,

Executed: Honolulu Hawaii, on May 27, 2014,

______________________________Stewart D. Waterhouse


Stewart WaterhouseP.O. Box 700325Kapolei, HI 96709(808) 233-8103

DECLARATION OF STEWART WATERHOUSEIN SUPPORT OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

42 USC 1985(3)

The State of Hawaii )) S.S.

County of Honolulu )

201 I, Stewart Waterhouse, of Honolulu Hawaii, declare and state:

202 In the past the individual was reliant upon news from the Newspaper Editor or TV anchorperson. These sources were highly digested and prone to bias of prevailing view-point, or corporate owner. Now, however, the Internet has changed the way the Common Man can access current events, and inform himself directly from people at the geographic scene or subject of discussion. It is said that God made man, but the Internet makes their views equal.

203 On November 14, 2012, Israel IDF forces made incursion and attack upon the Palestinian people of Gaza Palestine, known as Operation Stones of Baked Clay (Operation Pillar of Defense, Israel). Both parties to the conflict took to the Internet to tell their side of the story. To the Internet observer, the conflict unfolded in real time, lies and atrocities were easily exposed, because each side had a voice.

204 In mid-November 2012, I followed the tweets of both the IDF and Al Qassam Brigades. I continued to follow these sources of information and microblog from Hawaii, on my own Twitter account @mystagogus, or post content and embedded links on my Facebook Page I am Christian and I Do Not Stand with Israel, including reTweeting content gleaned from Al Qassam Brigades.

Page of 1 2DECLARATION

205 I created the Facebook Page I am Christian and I Do Not Stand with Israel to counter-balance what I believe to be a distortion of the Biblical Message- a minority Christian-Zionist fallacy view that Christians are Biblically required to Stand with Israel. My microblogging aimed to expose the plight and atrocities the Palestinian people suffer. In church, the slogan I stand with Israel. may sound good, but to those affected, the ring is callous and hurtful. A greater sensitivity is needed, less we turn any for whom Christ died, away from His love. When Jesus was on earth, Jesus sided with the oppressed and downtrodden, often opposing Jewish leaders of his day

206 Beginning on or around November of 2012, CUFI, John Hagee, David Cerullo, James Marocco, and others, conspired to kick Hamas off Twitter, and thereby conspired to indirectly deprive the English reader of reading Palestinian Speech content, in order to censor opposing Palestinian voice, with the aim to influence the activity of Federal, State and local government(s) of the United States. To that end, the Conspirator(s) began the #BanHamas hashtag, and started an email campaign to pressure Twitter into banning the @alqassambrigade account.

207 Sometime between January 9 and 14, 2014, tweets from @alqassambrigade ceased showing in my Twitter feed, and my linked content went blank. When clicking on a link embedded in my Twitter or Facebook post(s), the following message is displayed by Twitter: Account suspended The profile you are trying to view has been suspended.

208 I declare under penalty of perjury that to the best of my knowledge and information, the foregoing is true and correct,

Executed Honolulu Hawaii, on May 27, 2014,

______________________________Stewart D. Waterhouse

Page of 2 2DECLARATION


MEMORANDUM OF LAW- JURISDICTIONIN SUPPORT OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

42 USC 1985(3)

301 It is the position of this memorandum, that a private action to vindicate 14th Amendment rights that are violated by private conspiracies, is constitutional, and was precisely the remedy that Congress created by enacting 42 USC 1985(3).

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

302 Does the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, have Jurisdiction to vindicate 14th Amendment Rights, by an aggrieved party who brings Civil Action against private persons, without the need for color of state law?

303 Problem, on the face of it, the 14th Amendment seems to require color of state law. 1

____________________304 1 14th Amend sec 1 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive

of 1 6MEMORANDUM - JURISDICTION

SHORT ANSWER

305 Yes. A Private Cause of Action is created by 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). 2 No showing of state action is required in order to sue under 1985(3) Griffin v. Breckenridge. 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS

306 In this instant case, it is alleged that:

307 1. Two or more Defendant(s) conspired;308 2. For the purpose of depriving the English (American) Internet user, the Free

Speech Right to Listen and Read the speech or content of a class of persons, Gaza Palestinians (Hamas and Al Qassam Brigades), with the aim to influence the activity of the State;

309 3. Defendants did cause or solicit a campaign drive an act in furtherance thereof;310 4. Whereby Plaintiff Waterhouse, a U.S. citizen, was injured and deprived of his

Rights or Privileges, of Free Speech on the Internet;311 5. When as a result of said campaign Twitter suspended Al Qassam Brigades;312 6. Proper State nexus is Hawaii, as District of Hawaii is the proper venue;313 7. Defendants acted under color of Federal law. 4

____________________314 2 42 USC 1985(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or

Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

315 3 Griffin v. Breckenridge 403 US 88 (1971).

316 4 18 U.S.C. 2339(a)


DISCUSSION

317 To protect the Civil Rights of the citizen, Congress decided that the remedy should operate directly against the persons who interfered with the right, rather then against the state. 5 By enforcing laws directly against the person, the federal government would assist the states in meeting Constitutional obligations, rather than interfere with the state.

318 Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. 1983, every person who, under the color of state law, deprives the citizen, of any rights, privileges and immunities secured by the constitution, shall be liable to the party injured.

319 However, in this instant case, the Defendants are allege to have acted under the color of federal law, not state law.

320 In Bivens 6 the Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed, where no other federal remedy is provided, for the vindication of a Constitutional Right.

321 In the instant case, Constitutional Treaty is also appealed to, Article 19 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, Article 19 is not self executing. 8

____________________322 5 Cong. Globe 42d Cong., 1st Sess. 459 (1871) Shall we deal with individuals, or with the State as a

State? If we can deal with individuals, that is a less radical course, and works less interference with local governments. To punish a particular individual is less troublesome than to set aside a whole State government, and substitute, generally, national for State authority.

323 6 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

324 7 ICCPR Article 19 (1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. (2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

325 8 Reservations- 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-84 (1992).


326 Besides Bivens, Congress enacted 42 USC 1985(3). Which as we earlier concluded under Griffin v. Breckenridge, creates a private cause of action, against private persons to protect Constitutional Rights. Constitutional Rights include the First Amendments Free Speech, also ICCPR Art 19 pursuant to Art VI to the Constitution (Treaties).

327 In this instant case the 14th Amendment is also pleaded. Is it Constitutional for 1985(3) to vindicate 14th Amendment rights, when the 14th Amendment seems to require a State nexus?

328 In Guest, 9 Justice Stewart, writing the opinion of the court, It is a commonplace that rights under the Equal Protection Clause itself arise only where there has been involvement of the State or of one acting under the color of its authority. This is not to say, however, that the involvement of the State need be either exclusive or direct. In a variety of situations the Court has found state action of a nature sufficient to create rights under the Equal Protection Clause even though the participation of the State was peripheral

329 Justices Clark, Black, and Fortas, concurring, I believe, both appropriate and necessary under the circumstances here to say that there now can be no doubt that the specific language of 5 empowers the Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies - with or without state action - that interfere with Fourteenth Amendment rights.

330 Under the 14th Amendment the State has an obligation to protect the U.S. citizens privileges, immunities and equal protection of the laws. To meet its obligation, specifically regarding the internet [broadband], the State of Hawaii assigned these duties to the State Director of Commerce. 10

____________________331 9 UNITED STATES v. GUEST 383 U.S. 745 (1966)

332 10 HRS 440G-11.5(a)(3) Support the efforts of both public and private entities in Hawaii to enhance or facilitate the deployment of, and access to, competitively priced, advanced electronic communications services, including broadband and its products and services and internet access services of general application throughout Hawaii (a)(1) including appropriate policy and legislative initiatives


333 Further, the State of Hawaii, envisioning an Action such as this instant case, authorized it! Suit to Enforce 11 The director or other aggrieved party shall have the right to institute, or to intervene as a party in, any action in any court of law seeking a mandamus, or injunctive or other relief to compel compliance with this chapter, or any rule or order adopted thereunder, or to restrain or otherwise prevent or prohibit any illegal or unauthorized conduct in connection therewith (underlining emphasis mine), thereby the state conferring equal protection rights.

334 Violations of state conferred rights and privileges are sufficient to constitute a deprivation of "equal protection of the laws. 12

335 There is nothing inherent in the language used in 1985(3) that requires the action working the deprivation to come from the State 13

336 However, because the right claimed to have been infringed has its source in the First Amendment, it is necessary that the State is somehow involved or affected by the conspiracy. an alleged conspiracy to infringe First Amendment rights is not a violation of 1985(3) unless it is proved that the State is involved with the conspiracy or that the aim of the conspiracy is to influence the activity of the State. 14

____________________337 11 HRS 440G-12(f)

338 12 Harrison v. Brooks, 446 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1971). Cited: Life Ins. Co. of North America v. Reichardt, 591 F. 2d 499, 9th Circuit 1979.

339 13 United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 106 U. S. 643. Cited: Griffin v. Breckenridge 403 U.S. 97.

340 14 United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. at 830, 103 S.Ct. at 3357 (1983).


341 In this instant case, the Defendants are accused of the latter, aim of conspiracy is to influence activity of the State. In fact it is Defendant CUFIs stated purpose to influence activity of the state, on Federal, State, and local levels.

342 Sacramento [California] Council members were urged by CUFI not to cave to the Palestinian pressure (Aug 13, 2012).

343 Further, CUFI lobbied, for H.R. 4009, which would ban state universities and colleges, who participate in the Palestinian boycotting Israeli academia, from receiving Federal funding. To this end Defendants conspired to censor opposing voices, by banning Hamas from Twitter, in order to make their attempt to influence the state more effective.

CONCLUSION

344 Therefore, this Memorandum concludes that the District Court for the State of Hawaii, has Subject Matter Jurisdiction, under the Constitution, including the 1st and 14th Amendment(s), to proceed in this instant case.

Written by

_____________________ May 27, 2014Stewart D. Waterhouse Date



MEMORANDUM OF LAW- FREE SPEECHIN SUPPORT OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

42 USC 1985(3)

401 It is the position of this memorandum, that the right to Listen and Read is afundamental element of Free Speech. The Government can no more restrict a personss access to words or images on the Internet, than it could be allowed tosnatch a book our of a readers hands in the library.

QUESTION PRESENTED

402 Is the liberty to Listen, to Read, an inseparable component of Free Speech? And if so, then a Constitutional Right?

SHORT ANSWER

403 Yes. The freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment includes not only the freedom to speak, but also- as a necessary corollary- a constitutionally protected Freedom to Listen. In other words, where a freedom to speak is guaranteed, a freedom to choose what speech to receive is also secured. 1

404 Effective speech has two components: a speaker and an audience. A restriction on either of these components is a restriction on speech. 2

Page of 1 5MEMORANDUM FREE SPEECH

STATEMENT OF FACTS

405 In this instant case, it is alleged that:

406 1. Two or more Defendant(s) conspired;407 2. For the purpose of depriving the English (American) Internet user, the Free

Speech Right to Listen and Read the speech or content of a class of persons, Gaza Palestinians (Hamas and Al Qassam Brigades), with the aim to influence the activity of the State;

408 3. Defendants did cause or solicit a campaign drive an act in furtherance thereof;409 4. Whereby Plaintiff Waterhouse, a U.S. citizen, was injured and deprived of his

Rights or Privileges, of Free Speech on the Internet;410 5. When as a result of said campaign Twitter suspended Al Qassam Brigades;411 6. Proper State nexus is Hawaii, as District of Hawaii is the proper venue;412 7. Defendants acted under color of Federal law. 3

____________________413 1 Peter Ferrara, former Associate Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. from 1991-1993. From his

memorandum: The Constitutional Freedom to Listen, page 1.

414 2 U.S. West, Inc v. FCC, 182 F.3d 1224, 1232 (10th Cir. 1999).

415 3 18 U.S.C. 2339(a) which reads: Whoever provides material support and (b)(1) the term material support or resources means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including communications equipment.


DISCUSSION

416 Free Speech, including the Right to Listen, is not dependent upon the standing of the speaker (although, he or she, too, may have rights), but also is an independent right in public interest, of the Listener or Reader, separate and apart from the right, or lack thereof, of the speaker.

417 In Pacific Gas v. Public Util 4 the U.S. Supreme Court said: The constitutional guarantee of free speech serves significant societal interests wholly apart from the speaker's interest in self-expression. 5 By protecting those who wish to enter the marketplace of ideas from government attack, the First Amendment protects the public's interest in receiving information. 6 The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. 4

418 In Stanley v. Georgia, 7 Justice Marshall defended the free and unimpeded acquisition of facts and knowledge, regardless of apparent social value: It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. This freedom [of speech and press] necessarily protects the right to receive. This right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, is fundamental to our free society. 7

____________________419 4 Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Commn, 475 U.S. 1 (1986) at II

420 5 Quoting First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 776 (1978);

421 6 Quoting see Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 (1940); Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843, 863 -864 (1974) (POWELL, J., dissenting).

422 7 Stanley v. Georgia 394 U.S. 557 (1969).


423 Free Speech does not end at the internet portal. But extends to the Internet.

424 In Reno v. ACLU, 8 Judge Stevens in delivering the opinion of the court: Judge Dalzells review of the special attributes of Internet communication convinced him that the First Amendment denies Congress the power to regulate the content of protected speech on the Internet and concluded that the Internet- as the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, is entitled to the highest protection from governmental intrusion 8

425 The First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. [t]he Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. 9

426 Further, in this instant case, Free Speech including the Right to Receive information, is also protected under the Supremacy Clause Article VI to the U.S. Constitution Treaty International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19: (1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. (2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 10

Freedom of Speech does not protect free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. 11

____________________427 8 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) at III.

428 9 Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 at 899 (2010).

429 10. Ratified 1992.

430 11. U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 49 S. Ct. 448, 73 L. Ed. 889 (1992).


CONCLUSION

431 This Memorandum concludes that Free Speech, includes the Right to Listen, the Right to Receive Information, regardless of the identity of the speaker, including over the Internet.

432 Therefore, the Defendants acts under a supposed color of Federal law [18 U.S.C. 2339(a)] to infringe upon Free Speech, or prohibit the speech of a specific class of persons, is an unconstitutional application of the law.

Written by




MEMORANDUM REGARDING PARTIESIN SUPPORT OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF:

501 Stewart Waterhouse (hereafter Waterhouse) born 1958, is a resident of Hawaii and citizen of the United States. Waterhouse is shepherd of 60 goats and pastor of Community Fellowship Baptist Church (a self-organized home church). Waterhouse, a micro-blogger, concerned that CUFIs associating Christians with Israel, represents a one-sided and narrow view of Christianity, which only serves to drive the Palestinian people away from Christianity, and thereby harm the cause of Christ! Waterhouse created the Facebook page I Am Christian, and I Do Not Stand with Israel to express main-stream Christian opinion, in counter-balance to Christian-Zionism.email: [email protected] www.pleasantfields.com/sacredcaveAddress: P.O. Box 700325 Kapolei, Hawaii 96709.

Page of 1 4MEMORANDUM REGARDING PARTIES

DEFENDANT(S):

502 CUFI Church Association Inc aka Christians United for Israel aka CUFI (hereafter CUFI) a Texas non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation created February 2006. CUFI is a Zionist-Christian organization whose purpose is to rally Christian support for the nation of Israel, and to speak out on Israels behalf. (Christian-Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Bible prophecy (Wikipedia). In November 2007, Christian-Zionism was rejected by the National Council of Churches because the belief adversely affects justice and peace in the Middle East, delaying the day when Israelis and Palestinians can live within secure borders.)

503 CUFIs unofficial slogan is Stand With Israel. CUFIs activities are quasi-political in advancing the Zionist cause on behalf of Israel. CUFIs stated objective is: to build Christian support for Israel throughout America. and To Communicate Pro-Israel Perspectives to Elected Officials to personally speak with their elected officials on behalf of Israel including lobbying Congress and the Administration. CUFI is active in Hawaii, holding the following Hawaii meetings: June 26 2012 at Kings Cathedral Honolulu, June 27 2012 at Kings Cathedral Kahului Maui, June 28 2012 at Kings Chapel Eleele Kauai, October 2 2013 at One Love Church Honolulu, October 5 2013 seminar at Waimanalo Oahu, October 6 2013 in Kahalui Maui, October 7 2013 in Kahalui Maui, October 8 2013 at New Hope Wailuku Maui.

504 CUFI has failed to register as a foreign agent for Israel, as required by The Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq). CUFIs failure to register, contributed to the injury to Plaintiff Waterhouse in said Free Speech violation, by not registering CUFI avoided scrutiny and oversight that may have otherwise prevented said injury. The Foreign Agents Registration Act exempts bona fide religious pursuit from the registration requirement. However, CUFIs activities in campaigning for suspension of Twitter accounts, has a substantial secular impact, with a political goal to benefit a foreign state (Israel), and as such, exceeded any bona fide religious pursuit.Phone: 210-477-4714. email: [email protected] www.cufi.orgAddress: P.O. Box 1307, San Antonio, Texas 78295.


505 Twitter Inc (hereafter Twitter), a California corporation based in San Francisco, created in March 2006. Twitter is an internet Social Networking and Microblogging online media. A user may follow (subscribe) to another users tweets (microblog) and also re-tweet. Twitter has substantially placed their product into the stream of commerce in Hawaii with thousands of Hawaii users.www.twitter.com. Address: 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, California 94103.

506 John Hagee (hereafter Hagee) born 1940, is a resident of Texas. Hagee is founder and pastor of Cornerstone [mega]Church in San Antonio, Texas. Hagee also founded CUFI with the stated belief: We believe that the Jewish people have a right to live in their ancient land of Israel, and that the modern State of Israel is the fulfillment of this historic right (cufi.org).www.jhm.org/Home/About/PastorJohnHageeAddress: P.O. Box 1400, San Antonio, Texas 78295.

507 David Cerullo (hereafter Cerullo) born 1952, a resident of South Carolina. Cerullo is CEO of Inspiration Ministries/Inspiration Network.www.davidcerullo.com www.inspiration.orgAddress: P.O. Box 7750, Charlotte, North Carolina 28241.

508 James Marocco (hereafter Marocco) a resident of Hawaii. Marocco is senior pastor at Kings Cathedral in Kahului, Maui, and has served as Hawaii State Director for CUFI.www.kingscathedral.com/#!drmarocco/c240wAddress: 777 Mokulele Highway, Kahului, Hawaii 96732.


NON-PARTY ENTITIES REFERENCED:

509 Hamas, in January 2006, pursuant to election, Hamas gained a majority in Palestinian Parliament, since then Hamas has governed Gaza Palestine. Al Qassam Brigades is the military branch of Gazas Hamas resistance movement.

510 In October 1997, Hamas was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. However, the designation may be in violation of U.S. law. Legal Criteria for FTO designation, INA sec 219(3) states: The organization's terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States. According to US Department of State Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism Country Reports on Terrorism released April 2005 (pub 11248, page 98) states: HAMAS terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks against Israeli civilian and military targets. HAMAS has not directly targeted US interests, HAMAS continues to confine its attacks to Israelis inside Israel and the occupied territories. HAMAS currently limits its terrorist operations to Israeli military and civilian targets in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Israel (underlining emphasis mine). Consequently, there is considerable confusion whether Hamas is a terrorist organization under US law.

Written by



Christian Zionists try to ban Hamas from Twitter

Campaign garners 12,000 e-mails in first four hours, as group notes US law forbids material support, including services and communications equipment, to terror groups

By Haviv Rettig Gur November 20, 2012, 3:13 am

NEW YORK The San Antonio-based Christians United for Israel launched a letter-writing campaign on Monday demanding that Twitter ban Hamas from using its microblogging platform.

The fact that a terrorist organization like Hamas, with so much Israeli and American blood on its hands, can use a service like Twitter is outrageous, the group wrote in an action alert announcing the campaign.

In the letter CUFI is providing to supporters, the organization notes that the United States government has designated Hamas as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Under 18 U.S.C. 2339A, it is illegal for any US Company to provide material support to a terrorist organization. This prohibited material support specifically includes services and communications equipment.

By allowing Hamas to have a Twitter account, the company is providing it with an important service and extremely effective communications equipment which are central to its primary mission of terrorizing the Israeli people and using civilian deaths to score political points.

Hamas-affiliated Twitter accounts, especially that of the Alqassam Brigades, have glorified rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and promulgated pictures of dead children alleged to have been killed by Israeli strikes many of them discovered to have been copied from Syrian opposition website that claimed the children were victims of the violence in Syria over the past two years.

Allowing Hamas to use its platform for such activities, CUFI believes, amounts to material support to the terror group.

The kind of behavior Twitter is engaged in is exactly the kind of behavior Congress wanted to prevent by passing a law prohibiting such support, said CUFI executive director David Brog.

Twitters actions also violate the Supreme Courts interpretation of the law, the group says.

In its February 2010 opinion in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the United States Supreme Court stressed that support for terrorists need not be directly linked to the commission of violent attacks to violate the material support statute, the CUFI letter notes.

Over 12,000 supporters have sent the letter to Twitter in the first four hours of the campaign Monday afternoon.

Copies of each email were also sent to the San Francisco US Attorneys office, in an effort CUFI hopes will lead federal authorities to examine the legality of allowing Hamas to use a US-based online social network.

The group has also launched a Twitter hashtag (or user-generated topic) called #BanHamas, and has called on supporters to use the hashtag on the site in an effort to get it to trend, or to appear on the list of most popular topics on Twitters homepage, making it possible for Twitters hundreds of millions of users to see the topic.

Requests for comment to Twitter and the US Attorneys office in San Francisco were not immediately returned Monday evening.

Page of 1 1NEWS ARTICLE

Stewart Waterhouse, pro seP.O. Box 700325Kapolei, Hawaii 96709(808) 233-8103

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

STEWART WATERHOUSE ) Plaintiff, ) Civil No. CV14 00144 SOM KSCvs )

CUFI CHURCH ASSOCIATION et al. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEDefendants. )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Stewart Waterhouse, Plaintiff, hereby certify that a file stamped copy of the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ATTACHMENT(s) & EXHIBIT(s), was duly served, by depositing same in U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, on the date signed below, at the address(s) noted below, upon the following:

Attorney for CUFI & Hagee:

Attorney(s) for Twitter:

Attorney(s) for Cerullo:

James Marocco:

EXECUTED: Honolulu Hawaii

_______________________ May 27, 2014 Stewart D. Waterhouse DATE

Page of 1 1CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

civil rights complaint

Documents